bobatim
Posts: 5608
Joined: 8/4/2006
From: The Killbot Factory!
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Drooch
Re-read my posts, anyone can dislike the film as much as they want - that's their subjective take, but a paid critic should detect that it is a work of good quality, and reward it appropriately, not damn it with two stars. It is, objectively, a very good slasher film and if you really disliked it then you're not fit to review such films - you'll only end up punishing good filmmaking and sending a VERY destructive message to Hollywood - 'don't bother making good films' which, given the amount of junk spewed forth by Hollywood these days, is a bad message to be communicating.
Firstly, I never said it was a 'FACT' - you used that word, not me. I simply observed those qualities to be present in the work - the creators intended it to rivet, I was suitably riveted, and so I described the film as riveting. Anyone who went unriveted, and was blind to the humour and cleverness, and other inherent properties of the film, is not fit to review it properly, and shouldn't be hurting it with a two star review.
It may sound arrogant to you, but it's true and someone needs to say it. A two star review is damaging to a film and Scream 4 doesn't deserve that treatment because the highly skilled filmmakers cared about making a good film and fully succeeded in doing so. Anyone giving it two stars does not have the faculties to appreciate, and soundly judge, such a film. BTW I didn't say it should get four stars, but a competent critic would certainly deem this worthy of three, four, or five stars.
First off, let me just say that I've seen the film twice now and really enjoyed it. I thought it was smart, funny and had some good jumpy moments. Your post is very arrogant in saying that a paid critic should detect that it is a work of good quality. You're right BUT only if that paid critic DID detect it as a work of good quality. This particular critic didn't, he didn't enjoy the movie and his review reflects that. As others have said it is subjective, that's his opinion and you can agree with it or not; that's your choice. Now, if your commenting from a technical angle; the film isn't actually that well crafted. There are quite a few editing issues (which, if resolved, would've made the film much scarier.), there is also some very ill concieved camera angles, particulary at the very beginning when the backs of people's heads block most of the shot. There is also a few ADR problems, occasionally people speak or make a noise without moving their mouth, Maybe the reviewer picked up on these things and they effected his enjoyment. Again his rating reflects this. You could argue that he didn't mention them, but as someone as already mentioned, it would make for a boring review and you also have to take into account word count limitations. Your view that somebody who is paid to review a film should praise a well made film whether they enjoyed it or not, is very patronising. I only picked up on the technical faults because I did a degree in film making and I also teach it for a living. Most reviewers are qualified journalists, they're job is to give you an idea of the quality of the film based on their experience of it, which is what this reviewer did. You don't have to like his review but there it is.
As for damaging the film, that's just nonsense. The sheer amount of people posting in this thread about how much they enjoyed it, shows that while they took notice of the review, they still went to see it. Infact, they may have enjoyed it more because they went with their expectations lowered, thanks to this review. Both times I saw the film, the screen was full, not a spare seat in the house. So I seriously doubt that people are reading this review and staying away in their masses.
You keep mentioning about how a competent critic would give the film 3 or 4 stars because you and others keep saying how much you enjoyed it. A competent film critic doesn't write reviews to keep the fans happy. As I have already said, they rate the film based on their experience of veiwing it. In this case the reveiwer had a two star experience and wrote a review that reflects that, I'd say that makes them extremely competent. Also, if you know so much better about being a competent, paid film critic, then why aren't you doing it for a living. There's a well worn (often highly inaccurate) phrase in my profession 'Those who can't, teach.' Those who still can't criticise those who do.
You have also talked about how anyone who didn't find it rivetting, amusing and clever, doesn't have an understanding of the genre. On my first viewing, I went along with somebody who is a huge horror & genre fan, to the point that he has written books on the subject. He is also well educated in film and he didn't get anything from it. Now, this guy has been watching horror films since we were kids, it was he who introduced me to the genre; so I think it's safe to say he has a pretty well rounded understanding of it. I came out of the screen with a big grin on my face, he was decidedly non-plussed. That was just his point of view. It is very arrogant to suggest that because somebody didn't enjoy a film that they don't understand or appreciate that entire genre. One man's 2001 maybe another man's Skyline. It's all down to individual points of view.
< Message edited by bobatim -- 20/4/2011 11:23:22 AM >
_____________________________
Is he died?
www.penultimateuniverse.blogspot.com
|
Printable Version
RE: That's it!! - 
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