Emyr Thy King
Posts: 2153
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: elab49
quote:
ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King
Furthermore, I and others haven't complained about the length of the review
quote:
ORIGINAL: 7eke
Since i always without fail disagree with Mr Kim 'review a film in 10 words' Newman, this bodes well for me
All right an error in denotation on my part. Here's what I should have said: I and others have complained about the content and not the length of the review.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King
I haven't seen the film so one can only defer to your more reasoned judgement. I'm certainly not expecting a film of the same calibre as say "The King's Speech" but that doesn't diminish the material one bit. Heck, even though it's been mooted as a sci-fi "Black Hawk Down" I don't think it'll have the same breadth and depth as that film; although one would expect it to be so given it was based on factual events. Still, it looks fast-paced, frenetic and at least there seems to be quite a bit going on in the film. What I find a little disappointing is the lack of critical analysis in the review. I'm not joining the chorus of people who do not like Kim Newman's reviews for the sake of it but it's plain to see that the review is sparse. I also have to pick up on an erroneous piece of detail in the review:
quote:
ORIGINAL: captainrentboy
Another astoundingly poor review to add to Newman's ever growing collection.
Did any movie watching fan in their right mind think this film was going to be remotely original? I'll take a guess at, of course bloody not. So why has he chosen just to go on and on about the movie's numerous 'gigantic alien invasion' cliches? We all knew this wasn't going to have an original tale to tell, so why not keep the plot outline brief and then give an opinion on the effects, or the action sequences, or the music? Anything but the lazy ass stuff he's written about here.
I'm not saying he's wrong in his rating, it might very well be an utter turd (I'll find out Friday), I just thought a film that had been given a fair amount of coverage in the mag would get a better write up than this.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kinomanko06
I saw it at a press screening and believe me it's not so bad as Mr. Newman attempts to convince you. Yes, it's not original, but is well made, well shot and will not bore you for a minute. And most of all, the US heroism is reduced to a minimum. Empire has given three stars to far worst movies than this... And note to the reviewer, pls pay more attention to your verdicts, they are unnecessary long and complicated and lower the plot spoilers.
quote:
ORIGINAL: sagent33
reads basically the same as the total film review although shorter, with a more cant be bothered feel. I have to agree Mr Newmans reviews are getting worse, what with star rating rarely matching what has been said, or actually missing the point of films entirely. as always i will check the movie out and decide myself.
quote:
ORIGINAL: elab49
I'm sure most agree that one cannot credibly contest a reviewer's opinion on a film unless you've actually seen the film itself - in which case your review and your opinion is very welcome. There is no intent to limit discussion on the quality of reviews, however, and this is clearly a concern for many posters - Empire Online has specific threads that have been used for this purpose as both it, and Empire Magazine, exist to discuss content. There is also a thread to raise concerns about spoilers if you feel the review has been a problem - Helen O'Hara has commented on this previously.
I disagree, if the reviewer does not sufficiently eluciadate on why he/she holds the opinion they do then clearly the review has failed to inform the viewer adequately. As I've said earlier, there did not appear to be a genuine effort to provide a more in-depth critique of the film. Rather, we're treated to a rather superficial review which on the face of it may appear to 'touch all the bases' but it doesn't go beyond it. This is what I and others have found frustrating. Unfortunately the review has ceased to be! It's disappeared so I can't go into further detail.
quote:
What is grossly unfair to general users is having to go through all the 'this review is crap' posts from a bunch of people who mainly haven't seen the film. At its worst we've had to remove the posts (not the case in this thread of course, but some of them get unacceptably abusive). And there are some films that we await with dread because most of us can predict how the first few pages of the thread will go months before release!
I think "grossly unfair" is a tad too strong, sure it's frustrating for those who want to see informed opinions from those who've seen the film. However, the review was posted before the film's on general release so there isn't much we can do but rely on those that have seen the film or certainly claimed to have seen it. In addition to discuss what morsel of detail we can get. Moreover, if the film's review was meant to stimulate discussion by giving an 'informed' view of it then I have to say I'm none the wiser nor more informed.
quote:
These threads are the principle location for the discussion, reviews and opinions on individual films. The opportunity for those who've seen the films to share their views and, yes, if they disagree with the opinions in the original Empire review be as vocal about it as they wish (within the rules!). Instead 4 posts in we start to get reviews of the review and not of the film. Except for one claim of a press screening.
As I've said before, the film is on general release on the 11th. Since only people who've been given 'exclusive' access through press screenings and so forth can discuss in detail the film, there's only so much the rest of can say. You may say "well then, wait until you've seen it". However, in such a case, why not post the review on the date of the film's release so that filmgoers can weigh in with a more informed opinion? If someone says they've seen a film and disagrees with the reviewer then surely there's a good deal of scope there for further discussion. We've already had one such comment.
Regarding the disparity in reviews by which some feel aggrieved. Here's something of yours I found:
quote:
ORIGINAL: elab49
Awful and rather unpleasant film. Wholeheartedly agree with the absence of stars - but why this is reviewed appropriately and the similarly morally dodgy Man on Fire walks away with 4 stars really does stump me.
Taken review (2008) 
I've read two more reviews of the film: Sky Movies and SFX.
From reading these reviews. I have to say my feeling is that while the film is clearly action-packed, the script and lack of characterisation may let the film down. I just saw the review of the film on Film 2011. You get the impression that Aaron Eckhart immersed himself into the role to make the outlandish scenario seem believable and genuine. However, if the reviews are correct then I do feel sorry for him, because the film will suffer if an important element such as the script is bare. Despite the amount of effort he undoubtedly put into the role. Cautious optimism though at this point!
< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 9/3/2011 11:52:46 PM >
_____________________________
"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self
|
Printable Version
Battle: Los Angeles - 
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