Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: RE:

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: RE: Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 11:50:01 AM   
Chris Hewitt

 

Posts: 1613
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

I originally posted the stuff below in the Empire magazine forum, because I wanted to comment specifically on the amount of coverage Scott Pilgrim has received. However, nobody commented there and it was suggested by a mod that I post here instead. So here it is, ever so lightly edited and now with the not at all surprising discovery that, as predicted, it's received a 5* review! My thoughts on the film remain unchanged, and with one addition - come on Edgar Wright, let's see you drop the zeitgeist-surfing, pop-culture referencing, homaging approach and try something different!

"I haven't posted, or even looked at this board, for a few years, although I've continued to read the magazine every month. However, I've decided to come back - probably only for one post because I'll end getting flamed off again! This is purely a personal view, so bear with me. If you disagree, fair enough. 

Scott Pilgrim doesn't interest me at all. In fact everything I've read and seen about it indicates an end product that will be utter garbage - juvenile, puerile drivel of the highest order - a glorified video game (even down to 'Level Complete' etc). I almost think it's trying too hard to be cool - obscure comic book adaptation, Beck, Nigel Godrich etc handling the music, Michael Cera playing a sword-wielding variant of his traditional indie slacker. (Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, why are you associated with this nonsense?!) There also doesn't seem to be any particular surprises in store either - surely there can be no other outcome than Scott prevailing against Ramona's evil ex-partners and thereby winning 'the game' / the girl? I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. I'll not go and see it when it's released.

But my point here is the amount of coverage that Empire has devoted to this film over the last year, particularly in the latest issue - the cover, a lengthy and adoring main feature, a soundtrack review, plugs for merchandise, an advert on the back cover. All I can say is that, for Empire's sake, I hope that the film lives up to the hype and expectations that have been placed on it, given the amount of coverage it's received. Anything less than a 5* review will seem like a disappointment.

(To be fair to the magazine though, this could be an extreme example of what I consider to be generally the correct approach. Give neutral / positive advanced coverage, allow filmmakers to put their cases across, while reserving the right to criticise the end product if it's no good. A past example would be something like Van Helsing, where Empire received lots of on-set access and there was a hefty cover and main feature a few years ago. Since the actual film was hopeless, it still received the review it deserved. Even in the current magazine, there's an enjoyable interview with Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, where they're plugging a film that's negatively reviewed elsewhere in the same issue. To me this demonstrates journalistic integrity.)

However, Scott Pilgrim seems to me to have had a disproportionate amount of enthusiastic coverage. The flipside naturally is that those who are looking forward to it must think it's great. Fair enough that the magazine enjoys a good relationship with Edgar Wright, and naturally makes good use of access to his sets. But, for what it's worth (correct me if I'm wrong) Scott Pilgrim is basically an American film that happens to have a British director. How's it really different than any other American summer film? It'll stand or fall on US box office returns, whether it's any good or not, and no amount of praise from Empire is going to change that. (Kick-Ass's worldwide box office of only $96 million would suggest that graphic novel adaptations don't have a huge amount of mass appeal. Not that I want to open another debate on quality vs financial returns, but Scott Pilgrim to me is a film that will have a smallish but very passionate audience, rather than breaking records like a conventional blockbuster.)

For the record,  I'm certainly not anti-Edgar Wright at all. I love Spaced and Hot Fuzz (although not Shaun Of The Dead). I just think that his film has been given far too much coverage in the magazine, that's all. Hopefully some of you out there will agree? Am I the only person who groans when, on opening a new issue of Empire, I'm confronted by more photos of Michael Cera looking like he does in every other film, or Brandon Routh wearing a truly awful costume and wig?!

Rant over, flame away..."




Belfast, Belfast, Belfast... where do I begin?

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World is a film we've been excited about for a long time. We're delighted that, in our opinion, the film justifies that excitement. But you know from past experience that any implication that we give films favourable reviews in exchange for access will be stomped on immediately. To quote a great man, I am Godzilla, you are Japan. That does not happen, and never will happen.

_____________________________

Silly Empire man who asks BORING questions!

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 61
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 11:59:46 AM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
And as someone who recently found, and re-read the 1999 issue of Empire devoted to the Phantom Meance, I can assure people that no other film has ever recieved what could be even close to the coverage that film had.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Chris Hewitt)
Post #: 62
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 12:10:06 PM   
demoncleaner


Posts: 2376
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Belfast
I don’t think I’ll be seeing Scott Pilgrim.  Its bound to bring back the crushing disappointment I felt when watching The Smashing Pumpkins “1979” video and realising that it wasn’t, in fact, one of those horrific public service ads about seat-belt neglect.   

I don’t bemoan the coverage though.  You can’t really.   I think I’m just at that age where the only decent use of the word “hip” is when it’s followed by “replacement”.  Hum-bug and all that.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 63
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 12:11:58 PM   
grucl

 

Posts: 2485
Joined: 11/2/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

And as someone who recently found, and re-read the 1999 issue of Empire devoted to the Phantom Meance, I can assure people that no other film has ever recieved what could be even close to the coverage that film had.


And Phantom Menace didn't even get 5 stars!

Where is your god now?


(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 64
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 12:15:17 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

I don’t think I’ll be seeing Scott Pilgrim.  Its bound to bring back the crushing disappointment I felt when watching The Smashing Pumpkins “1979” video and realising that it wasn’t, in fact, one of those horrific public service ads about seat-belt neglect.   

I don’t bemoan the coverage though.  You can’t really.   I think I’m just at that age where the only decent use of the word “hip” is when it’s followed by “replacement”.  Hum-bug and all that.


That is the thing though - most of the videogame references for instance are from games from the early 90s. The target audience for a lot of the movie are people in their 20s and 30s who grew up with an NES or Mega Drive.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to demoncleaner)
Post #: 65
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 12:58:40 PM   
waltham1979


Posts: 1179
Joined: 18/3/2008
From: San-Diago, which is German for 'Whales virgina'...
quote:

ORIGINAL: macmurphy

I like Edgar Wrights other work but the volume of coverage this juvenile looking tripe has gotten in Empire beggars belief.
No surprise that it gets a five star review. You have to justify all that positive advance coverage somehow. Lets wait for the realistic three star review of the DVD in a few months time. Don't believe the hype.


Have you seen it?? Why do you read Empire then?? Why are you on the site??

_____________________________

I just wish stuff like, I don't know, the slow & systemic CRATERING of this country could inspire the same call-to-arms as Batman casting
Post #: 66
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 1:00:57 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: macmurphy

I like Edgar Wrights other work but the volume of coverage this juvenile looking tripe has gotten in Empire beggars belief.
No surprise that it gets a five star review. You have to justify all that positive advance coverage somehow. Lets wait for the realistic three star review of the DVD in a few months time. Don't believe the hype.


Phantom Meance had 87 pages of coverage in Empire and got 4 stars. So you clearly have no idea what you are on about.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

Post #: 67
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 1:04:55 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2773
Joined: 12/7/2006
I have next to no interest in Scott Pilgrim but to slag off someone's review of a film they have seen and you haven't isn't exactly the most solid of footings for a debate.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 68
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 1:04:58 PM   
BobM70


Posts: 958
Joined: 29/12/2005
And you're saying Phantom Menace deserved those four stars?? It is two stars at most, so I do think he has a point there

_____________________________

It's not how long it takes, it's who's taking you...

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 69
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 1:21:15 PM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7914
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

I don't think I'll be seeing Scott Pilgrim.  Its bound to bring back the crushing disappointment I felt when watching The Smashing Pumpkins "1979” video and realising that it wasn't, in fact, one of those horrific public service ads about seat-belt neglect.   

I don't bemoan the coverage though.  You can't really.   I think I'm just at that age where the only decent use of the word "hip” is when it's followed by "replacement”.  Hum-bug and all that.


That is the thing though - most of the videogame references for instance are from games from the early 90s. The target audience for a lot of the movie are people in their 20s and 30s who grew up with an NES or Mega Drive.


If Speedball 2 and Cannon Fodder aren't referenced then this film is a crock of shit...

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 70
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 1:48:58 PM   
Joe


Posts: 2549
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Cork, Ireland
quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

I originally posted the stuff below in the Empire magazine forum, because I wanted to comment specifically on the amount of coverage Scott Pilgrim has received. However, nobody commented there and it was suggested by a mod that I post here instead. So here it is, ever so lightly edited and now with the not at all surprising discovery that, as predicted, it's received a 5* review! My thoughts on the film remain unchanged, and with one addition - come on Edgar Wright, let's see you drop the zeitgeist-surfing, pop-culture referencing, homaging approach and try something different!

"I haven't posted, or even looked at this board, for a few years, although I've continued to read the magazine every month. However, I've decided to come back - probably only for one post because I'll end getting flamed off again! This is purely a personal view, so bear with me. If you disagree, fair enough. 

Scott Pilgrim doesn't interest me at all. In fact everything I've read and seen about it indicates an end product that will be utter garbage - juvenile, puerile drivel of the highest order - a glorified video game (even down to 'Level Complete' etc). I almost think it's trying too hard to be cool - obscure comic book adaptation, Beck, Nigel Godrich etc handling the music, Michael Cera playing a sword-wielding variant of his traditional indie slacker. (Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, why are you associated with this nonsense?!) There also doesn't seem to be any particular surprises in store either - surely there can be no other outcome than Scott prevailing against Ramona's evil ex-partners and thereby winning 'the game' / the girl? I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. I'll not go and see it when it's released.

But my point here is the amount of coverage that Empire has devoted to this film over the last year, particularly in the latest issue - the cover, a lengthy and adoring main feature, a soundtrack review, plugs for merchandise, an advert on the back cover. All I can say is that, for Empire's sake, I hope that the film lives up to the hype and expectations that have been placed on it, given the amount of coverage it's received. Anything less than a 5* review will seem like a disappointment.

(To be fair to the magazine though, this could be an extreme example of what I consider to be generally the correct approach. Give neutral / positive advanced coverage, allow filmmakers to put their cases across, while reserving the right to criticise the end product if it's no good. A past example would be something like Van Helsing, where Empire received lots of on-set access and there was a hefty cover and main feature a few years ago. Since the actual film was hopeless, it still received the review it deserved. Even in the current magazine, there's an enjoyable interview with Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, where they're plugging a film that's negatively reviewed elsewhere in the same issue. To me this demonstrates journalistic integrity.)

However, Scott Pilgrim seems to me to have had a disproportionate amount of enthusiastic coverage. The flipside naturally is that those who are looking forward to it must think it's great. Fair enough that the magazine enjoys a good relationship with Edgar Wright, and naturally makes good use of access to his sets. But, for what it's worth (correct me if I'm wrong) Scott Pilgrim is basically an American film that happens to have a British director. How's it really different than any other American summer film? It'll stand or fall on US box office returns, whether it's any good or not, and no amount of praise from Empire is going to change that. (Kick-Ass's worldwide box office of only $96 million would suggest that graphic novel adaptations don't have a huge amount of mass appeal. Not that I want to open another debate on quality vs financial returns, but Scott Pilgrim to me is a film that will have a smallish but very passionate audience, rather than breaking records like a conventional blockbuster.)

For the record,  I'm certainly not anti-Edgar Wright at all. I love Spaced and Hot Fuzz (although not Shaun Of The Dead). I just think that his film has been given far too much coverage in the magazine, that's all. Hopefully some of you out there will agree? Am I the only person who groans when, on opening a new issue of Empire, I'm confronted by more photos of Michael Cera looking like he does in every other film, or Brandon Routh wearing a truly awful costume and wig?!

Rant over, flame away..."





Completely agree. I dont post much here anymore either, but still buy the magazine and came back to see how people were taking the saturation coverage. Glad to see Im not the only one bemused by this hype, and I could have predicted the 5 star review months back. I liked Spaced, loved Hot Fuzz and SOTD but the trailers for this left me cold.


I think this will be filed under '4/5 star reviews after Empire bought into the hype' along with Attack of the Clones and Snakes On A Plane.

I'll wait for the DVD.

< Message edited by Joe -- 16/8/2010 1:49:37 PM >


_____________________________

"Manchester United is the club, it is football. A culture of the “beau jeu”, a philosophy that has been existing for years. How to win with class. I am still madly in love with it."
Eric Cantona

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 71
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 1:58:21 PM   
Pigeon Army


Posts: 14612
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe

Completely agree. I dont post much here anymore either, but still buy the magazine and came back to see how people were taking the saturation coverage. Glad to see Im not the only one bemused by this hype, and I could have predicted the 5 star review months back. I liked Spaced, loved Hot Fuzz and SOTD but the trailers for this left me cold.


I think this will be filed under '4/5 star reviews after Empire bought into the hype' along with Attack of the Clones and Snakes On A Plane.

I'll wait for the DVD.


So you haven't actually seen the film yet?

And Snakes on a Plane was fun.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 72
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 2:31:09 PM   
Rhubarb


Posts: 24508
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: No Direction Home

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe

Completely agree. I dont post much here anymore either, but still buy the magazine and came back to see how people were taking the saturation coverage. Glad to see Im not the only one bemused by this hype, and I could have predicted the 5 star review months back. I liked Spaced, loved Hot Fuzz and SOTD but the trailers for this left me cold.


I think this will be filed under '4/5 star reviews after Empire bought into the hype' along with Attack of the Clones and Snakes On A Plane.

I'll wait for the DVD.


So you haven't actually seen the film yet?

And Snakes on a Plane was fun.



Also. Empire have SoaP three stars.

_____________________________

Team Ginge
WWLD?


quote:

ORIGINAL: FritzlFan

You organisational skills sicken me, Rhubarb.



(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 73
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 2:32:44 PM   
Felix

 

Posts: 15692
Joined: 29/9/2005
From: Brighton
Out of those criticising the review, can those who've seen the film please put their hands up?

Thought so.

_____________________________

[This space for rent] -

(in reply to Rhubarb)
Post #: 74
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 2:35:44 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: Felix

Out of those criticising the review, can those who've seen the film please put their hands up?

Thought so.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0DukONKOag


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Felix)
Post #: 75
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 2:39:09 PM   
The Hooded Man


Posts: 2773
Joined: 12/7/2006
I've heard it's a Speed Racer rip-off, nothing wrong with that as I am the one person who adored Speed Racer.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 76
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 3:22:35 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: BobM70

And you're saying Phantom Menace deserved those four stars?? It is two stars at most, so I do think he has a point there


The point is, blanket coverage doesn't equel 5 stars. And I would barely say Pilgrim has recieved that much more than your usual flick of the month.

But hey, its pre - release when all the cry babies come out and make comemnts that make zero sense, and sound like they want to bitch for the sake of it.

You know what would make Empire better - if they didn't review anything. Nothing. Zero.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to BobM70)
Post #: 77
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 3:26:40 PM   
hatebox

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 14/2/2008
I'll see the film if someone I know asks me to join them, but other than that I won't go out of my way. I won't say Edgar Wright is overrated, because apart from the fact that I hate that word I think he does his schtick pretty well. The problem is that the British film industry is so God-awful now that anything half decent, which is all that Shaun and Hot Fuzz were, gets praised to the hilt by British critics and viewers a little more than they deserve, IMO. They're hungry for anything home-grown that isn't terrible. Scott Pilgrim may be an American film, but I think some of that hype has transferred to it because of Wright.

But hey, maybe it's deserved. I just suspect that if I wasn't enamoured with Wright's previous work I won't much care for this. The trailer did not entice me.

(in reply to The Hooded Man)
Post #: 78
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 3:27:50 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: hatebox

I'll see the film if someone I know asks me to join them, but other than that I won't go out of my way. I won't say Edgar Wright is overrated, because apart from the fact that I hate that word I think he does his schtick pretty well. The problem is that the British film industry is so God-awful now that anything half decent, which is all that Shaun and Hot Fuzz were, gets praised to the hilt by British critics and viewers a little more than they deserve, IMO. They're hungry for anything home-grown that isn't terrible. Scott Pilgrim may be an American film, but I think some of that hype has transferred to it because of Wright.

But hey, maybe it's deserved. I just suspect that if I wasn't enamoured with Wright's previous work I won't much care for this. The trailer did not entice me.



Shuan of the Dead and Fuzz also got praised by a lot of American critics as well. But whatevas.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to hatebox)
Post #: 79
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 5:00:42 PM   
shool


Posts: 10062
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Eomer_King


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris Hewitt


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

I originally posted the stuff below in the Empire magazine forum, because I wanted to comment specifically on the amount of coverage Scott Pilgrim has received. However, nobody commented there and it was suggested by a mod that I post here instead. So here it is, ever so lightly edited and now with the not at all surprising discovery that, as predicted, it's received a 5* review! My thoughts on the film remain unchanged, and with one addition - come on Edgar Wright, let's see you drop the zeitgeist-surfing, pop-culture referencing, homaging approach and try something different!

"I haven't posted, or even looked at this board, for a few years, although I've continued to read the magazine every month. However, I've decided to come back - probably only for one post because I'll end getting flamed off again! This is purely a personal view, so bear with me. If you disagree, fair enough. 

Scott Pilgrim doesn't interest me at all. In fact everything I've read and seen about it indicates an end product that will be utter garbage - juvenile, puerile drivel of the highest order - a glorified video game (even down to 'Level Complete' etc). I almost think it's trying too hard to be cool - obscure comic book adaptation, Beck, Nigel Godrich etc handling the music, Michael Cera playing a sword-wielding variant of his traditional indie slacker. (Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, why are you associated with this nonsense?!) There also doesn't seem to be any particular surprises in store either - surely there can be no other outcome than Scott prevailing against Ramona's evil ex-partners and thereby winning 'the game' / the girl? I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. I'll not go and see it when it's released.

But my point here is the amount of coverage that Empire has devoted to this film over the last year, particularly in the latest issue - the cover, a lengthy and adoring main feature, a soundtrack review, plugs for merchandise, an advert on the back cover. All I can say is that, for Empire's sake, I hope that the film lives up to the hype and expectations that have been placed on it, given the amount of coverage it's received. Anything less than a 5* review will seem like a disappointment.

(To be fair to the magazine though, this could be an extreme example of what I consider to be generally the correct approach. Give neutral / positive advanced coverage, allow filmmakers to put their cases across, while reserving the right to criticise the end product if it's no good. A past example would be something like Van Helsing, where Empire received lots of on-set access and there was a hefty cover and main feature a few years ago. Since the actual film was hopeless, it still received the review it deserved. Even in the current magazine, there's an enjoyable interview with Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, where they're plugging a film that's negatively reviewed elsewhere in the same issue. To me this demonstrates journalistic integrity.)

However, Scott Pilgrim seems to me to have had a disproportionate amount of enthusiastic coverage. The flipside naturally is that those who are looking forward to it must think it's great. Fair enough that the magazine enjoys a good relationship with Edgar Wright, and naturally makes good use of access to his sets. But, for what it's worth (correct me if I'm wrong) Scott Pilgrim is basically an American film that happens to have a British director. How's it really different than any other American summer film? It'll stand or fall on US box office returns, whether it's any good or not, and no amount of praise from Empire is going to change that. (Kick-Ass's worldwide box office of only $96 million would suggest that graphic novel adaptations don't have a huge amount of mass appeal. Not that I want to open another debate on quality vs financial returns, but Scott Pilgrim to me is a film that will have a smallish but very passionate audience, rather than breaking records like a conventional blockbuster.)

For the record,  I'm certainly not anti-Edgar Wright at all. I love Spaced and Hot Fuzz (although not Shaun Of The Dead). I just think that his film has been given far too much coverage in the magazine, that's all. Hopefully some of you out there will agree? Am I the only person who groans when, on opening a new issue of Empire, I'm confronted by more photos of Michael Cera looking like he does in every other film, or Brandon Routh wearing a truly awful costume and wig?!

Rant over, flame away..."




Belfast, Belfast, Belfast... where do I begin?

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World is a film we've been excited about for a long time. We're delighted that, in our opinion, the film justifies that excitement. But you know from past experience that any implication that we give films favourable reviews in exchange for access will be stomped on immediately. To quote a great man, I am Godzilla, you are Japan. That does not happen, and never will happen.


Indeed, however the cosy relationship between Empire magazine and the Wright/Pegg juggernaut is clear to anyone who peruses any issue of Empire from the last few years. Favourable reviews for access it may not be, but I think the suspicion that you're giving positive press to your mates is perfectly reasonable.


Have you seen it?


_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"
Post #: 80
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 5:26:03 PM   
Joe


Posts: 2549
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Cork, Ireland
No I haven't seen it yet, but reviews praising it as an absolute must see are rare enough, the majority saying it's good, not great.

My point was that it's not surprising that Empire gave it such fawning press.

_____________________________

"Manchester United is the club, it is football. A culture of the “beau jeu”, a philosophy that has been existing for years. How to win with class. I am still madly in love with it."
Eric Cantona

(in reply to BobM70)
Post #: 81
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 5:28:47 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe

No I haven't seen it yet, but reviews praising it as an absolute must see are rare enough, the majority saying it's good, not great.

My point was that it's not surprising that Empire gave it such fawning press.


I don't think anything more than 3 stars would have made you happy.

And again, moaning about something you haven't seen?

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 82
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 5:31:44 PM   
Joe


Posts: 2549
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Cork, Ireland
I'm not moaning about something I haven't seen, I'm annoyed at the sycophantic coverage that has gone beyond saturation point.

My point is that given all the hype Empire generated prior to the review, the review itself is unsurprising

As I said for the film itself, I'll probably give it ago on DVD.

_____________________________

"Manchester United is the club, it is football. A culture of the “beau jeu”, a philosophy that has been existing for years. How to win with class. I am still madly in love with it."
Eric Cantona

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 83
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 5:32:32 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18133
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
Sadly it looks like whilst the critics liked it the US audience has stayed away. A 10.5m opening weekend at 3,000 locations is a rather poor showing for a film which has had as much publicity as this one. It has made over a million less than Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist made on it's opening weekend (although that is a great film itself but was made for a lot less and had less marketing). It looks like unless word of mouth kicks in it is going to be viewed a flop in the US market and quite a few studios tend to focus on that market so adventurous films such as this appears to be off the agenda for the forseeable future.

< Message edited by sanchia -- 16/8/2010 5:35:40 PM >


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 84
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 5:33:12 PM   
Joe


Posts: 2549
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Cork, Ireland

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe

Completely agree. I dont post much here anymore either, but still buy the magazine and came back to see how people were taking the saturation coverage. Glad to see Im not the only one bemused by this hype, and I could have predicted the 5 star review months back. I liked Spaced, loved Hot Fuzz and SOTD but the trailers for this left me cold.


I think this will be filed under '4/5 star reviews after Empire bought into the hype' along with Attack of the Clones and Snakes On A Plane.

I'll wait for the DVD.


So you haven't actually seen the film yet?

And Snakes on a Plane was fun.



We'll have to agree to disagree, I though Snakes on a Plane was another hyped up one trick pony to be honest

_____________________________

"Manchester United is the club, it is football. A culture of the “beau jeu”, a philosophy that has been existing for years. How to win with class. I am still madly in love with it."
Eric Cantona

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 85
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 5:44:15 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe

I'm not moaning about something I haven't seen, I'm annoyed at the sycophantic coverage that has gone beyond saturation point.

My point is that given all the hype Empire generated prior to the review, the review itself is unsurprising

As I said for the film itself, I'll probably give it ago on DVD.


What sycophanic coverage?

The movie is directed by a guy who has made some of the more successful films from the UK in recent years, not to mention one of the great comedy series of the last decade. It is based on a comic book which will likely appeal to the Empire readership, and at the same time isn't a huge blockbuster. You don;t think the readership would or should be excited for this? And everyone leave aside their own personal "overrated" views. Just because YOU don't like Wright, doesn't detract from the fact he has made some very popular stuff.

So now we are complaining that a non-blockbuster movie is getting attention in the magazine, when most months people are falling over themselves to say that Empire only puts movies which cost 100 million + on the front cover.

Lets look at this months issue shall we?

Fifteen Pages to upcoming genre films
Nine Pages to Scott Pilgirm
Eight Pages to a Henry Hill interview
Seven Pages about the Godfather Production
Five Pages to a interview with the Fox studio
Four Pages to Africa United
Four pages to Tyler Perry
Four pages to Burke and Hare
Four Pages to Dinner for Schmucks

Pilgrim didn't even get the biggest article this month, and pretty much had the standard number of pages devoted to the big release of the month.

And again, Empire has a strong relationship with Lucasfilm, and devoted EIGHTY SIX pages to the Phantom Meance. That still wasn't enough to give the movie five stars in the magazine.

But I'm sure you are right....

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Joe)
Post #: 86
RE: Five stars, What a surpise - 16/8/2010 5:58:03 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14549
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
Who gives a fuck?

If you don't want to watch the film, don't. If you don't want to read the articles or reviews, skip them.

Are people really that insecure in their own opinions that they need to get irate at other people's/magazine's extremely positive reviews?

Baffling.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 87
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 6:51:05 PM   
BOHEMIANBOB


Posts: 1884
Joined: 31/1/2010
From: Dublin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eomer_King


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris Hewitt


quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

I originally posted the stuff below in the Empire magazine forum, because I wanted to comment specifically on the amount of coverage Scott Pilgrim has received. However, nobody commented there and it was suggested by a mod that I post here instead. So here it is, ever so lightly edited and now with the not at all surprising discovery that, as predicted, it's received a 5* review! My thoughts on the film remain unchanged, and with one addition - come on Edgar Wright, let's see you drop the zeitgeist-surfing, pop-culture referencing, homaging approach and try something different!

"I haven't posted, or even looked at this board, for a few years, although I've continued to read the magazine every month. However, I've decided to come back - probably only for one post because I'll end getting flamed off again! This is purely a personal view, so bear with me. If you disagree, fair enough. 

Scott Pilgrim doesn't interest me at all. In fact everything I've read and seen about it indicates an end product that will be utter garbage - juvenile, puerile drivel of the highest order - a glorified video game (even down to 'Level Complete' etc). I almost think it's trying too hard to be cool - obscure comic book adaptation, Beck, Nigel Godrich etc handling the music, Michael Cera playing a sword-wielding variant of his traditional indie slacker. (Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, why are you associated with this nonsense?!) There also doesn't seem to be any particular surprises in store either - surely there can be no other outcome than Scott prevailing against Ramona's evil ex-partners and thereby winning 'the game' / the girl? I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. I'll not go and see it when it's released.

But my point here is the amount of coverage that Empire has devoted to this film over the last year, particularly in the latest issue - the cover, a lengthy and adoring main feature, a soundtrack review, plugs for merchandise, an advert on the back cover. All I can say is that, for Empire's sake, I hope that the film lives up to the hype and expectations that have been placed on it, given the amount of coverage it's received. Anything less than a 5* review will seem like a disappointment.

(To be fair to the magazine though, this could be an extreme example of what I consider to be generally the correct approach. Give neutral / positive advanced coverage, allow filmmakers to put their cases across, while reserving the right to criticise the end product if it's no good. A past example would be something like Van Helsing, where Empire received lots of on-set access and there was a hefty cover and main feature a few years ago. Since the actual film was hopeless, it still received the review it deserved. Even in the current magazine, there's an enjoyable interview with Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, where they're plugging a film that's negatively reviewed elsewhere in the same issue. To me this demonstrates journalistic integrity.)

However, Scott Pilgrim seems to me to have had a disproportionate amount of enthusiastic coverage. The flipside naturally is that those who are looking forward to it must think it's great. Fair enough that the magazine enjoys a good relationship with Edgar Wright, and naturally makes good use of access to his sets. But, for what it's worth (correct me if I'm wrong) Scott Pilgrim is basically an American film that happens to have a British director. How's it really different than any other American summer film? It'll stand or fall on US box office returns, whether it's any good or not, and no amount of praise from Empire is going to change that. (Kick-Ass's worldwide box office of only $96 million would suggest that graphic novel adaptations don't have a huge amount of mass appeal. Not that I want to open another debate on quality vs financial returns, but Scott Pilgrim to me is a film that will have a smallish but very passionate audience, rather than breaking records like a conventional blockbuster.)

For the record,  I'm certainly not anti-Edgar Wright at all. I love Spaced and Hot Fuzz (although not Shaun Of The Dead). I just think that his film has been given far too much coverage in the magazine, that's all. Hopefully some of you out there will agree? Am I the only person who groans when, on opening a new issue of Empire, I'm confronted by more photos of Michael Cera looking like he does in every other film, or Brandon Routh wearing a truly awful costume and wig?!

Rant over, flame away..."




Belfast, Belfast, Belfast... where do I begin?

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World is a film we've been excited about for a long time. We're delighted that, in our opinion, the film justifies that excitement. But you know from past experience that any implication that we give films favourable reviews in exchange for access will be stomped on immediately. To quote a great man, I am Godzilla, you are Japan. That does not happen, and never will happen.


Indeed, however the cosy relationship between Empire magazine and the Wright/Pegg juggernaut is clear to anyone who peruses any issue of Empire from the last few years. Favourable reviews for access it may not be, but I think the suspicion that you're giving positive press to your mates is perfectly reasonable.

Couple of things:
1:I haven't seen the film,and like the Inception thread,it is really silly to make statements about any film on that basis.
2:As regards Empire being biased,i think that is a bit harsh.There have been regular articles/interviews with many people over the years that i thought were populist(it's quite funny if you ever get out the collection and look back a few years).But is that not the point to a degree?
The Star Wars reviews/ratings were wrong,but that's film,it doesn't require a conspiracy theory

_____________________________

Misunderstood.
Don't care.
Have you seen my stolen signature?!
Post #: 88
RE: RE: - 16/8/2010 6:54:49 PM   
kenada_woo


Posts: 1668
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: clownfoot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

I don't think I'll be seeing Scott Pilgrim.  Its bound to bring back the crushing disappointment I felt when watching The Smashing Pumpkins "1979” video and realising that it wasn't, in fact, one of those horrific public service ads about seat-belt neglect.   

I don't bemoan the coverage though.  You can't really.   I think I'm just at that age where the only decent use of the word "hip” is when it's followed by "replacement”.  Hum-bug and all that.


That is the thing though - most of the videogame references for instance are from games from the early 90s. The target audience for a lot of the movie are people in their 20s and 30s who grew up with an NES or Mega Drive.


If Speedball 2 and Cannon Fodder aren't referenced then this film is a crock of shit...


Splatterhouse? Super Smash TV? After Burner?!!!!

I'll wheel out the NES SuperScope on its punk ass!

_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

Hatcher. Marked For Death


(in reply to clownfoot)
Post #: 89
RE: This year's masterpiece - 16/8/2010 7:53:51 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ethanial

Thank goodness, after looking at what poor Helen had to review in the recent issue, she did get to talk Pilgrim, although saying it's target market is more late 20's is odd, I'm barely 20 and it resonated plenty with me.

Edgar knocked it out of the park, a glorious hive of activity, comedy, wit, insanity, amazing visuals.

You know what, I can't say much, I can just say this is a perfect movie.


OH GOD. An actual review.


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: RE: Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.469