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: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about...

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking abou... - 24/4/2011 12:17:17 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo

I think the kills were good and basic, which is probably the point. Every franchise is trying to out gore, out creatively kill each other (and the Scream films have done the same in the past) that going back to basics is the new "original" way to surprise people.



I'm not sure 'fun' is the word when they're so in the face about 'look at us, completely meta on the horror film remake thing - aren't we great!!!!!!'.

I think you're right about what they were trying to do - but I'm sure they could have done that at least moderately well with a few jumps? It was just, for me, dull - Rgirvan's got exactly the right word.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to kenada_woo)
Post #: 151
RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking abou... - 24/4/2011 12:29:13 AM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5068
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
I liked it but I'd agree there weren't enough jump-out-your-seat moments, especially when compared to 1 & 2 which were positively rammed with them. I always assumed Craven could do those in his sleep?

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 152
RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking abou... - 24/4/2011 1:05:21 AM   
foodage


Posts: 183
Joined: 29/9/2009
I over-hyped this in my own head. I was ready to crown it the greatest film ever made. Turned out it was just ok. Some good stuff in there, but overall not quite good enough. With 10 years of new horror to play with, this felt too much like more of the same. Gonna watch the first one again tomorrow, of which I am very much a fan.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 153
RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking abou... - 24/4/2011 8:11:09 AM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo

I think the kills were good and basic, which is probably the point. Every franchise is trying to out gore, out creatively kill each other (and the Scream films have done the same in the past) that going back to basics is the new "original" way to surprise people.



I'm not sure 'fun' is the word when they're so in the face about 'look at us, completely meta on the horror film remake thing - aren't we great!!!!!!'.

I think you're right about what they were trying to do - but I'm sure they could have done that at least moderately well with a few jumps? It was just, for me, dull - Rgirvan's got exactly the right word.


If Scream 4 was going to be properly meta, then the fourth film in any horror franchise is based on how incentive the kills are - they should have embraced that aspect of horror and ran with it.


_____________________________

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 elab49)
Post #: 154
RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking abou... - 24/4/2011 12:36:14 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
I actually like the idea of straight bloody kills - they bang on about the Saw/Final Destination stuff enough in the film that it's the clear route to go. Pity they didn't do it very well.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 155
RE: That's it!! - 24/4/2011 3:30:33 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006
quote:

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.


Right, so it's a poor review because he failed to detect that it is a work of good quality. I disliked Pan's Labyrinth, but I can detect it was a work of good quality and would certainly not damn the film with a two-star review. I love Commando, but can detect that it's a relatively poor piece of filmmaking, and my review would take that massively into account. We all have 'tastes' but should be able to discern good craftsmanship from poor. I'm sure many people would find Shakespeare's Othello boring, and yet it is, empirically, a masterpiece of playwriting.


quote:

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.


Directing, writing and performance are the prominent aspects that I would like to see a reviewer concentrate on, as most Empire reviews do, with cinematography and score getting a mention if they stand out. The technical aspects you mentioned are seldom worth detailing unless they are somehow exceptionally good or horribly distracting. This is mainstream narrative cinema, so I'm interested in it's quality of storytelling, characterisation and handling of themes, and more specifically - a slasher film - so I want to hear about how effectively it handles suspense, surprise and horror. It's also a Scream film, and therefore the level of comedy and handling of 'meta' needs addressing. The first Scream was something of a landmark for horror cinema when it came out - cunningly bringing suspense back to a genre which had lost it due to predictability by referencing said predictability, and this new film was an attempt to do the same for a new generation, and it succeeded (for the most part). In a Hollywood awash with extremely lazy filmmaking and lowest-common-denominator-pandering swill, this film respected it's audience, launched a much deserved attack on lazy reboots and bad all-you-need-is-gore horror films, as well as hollow fame-seeking brats. Craven and Williamson are one of cinema's best pairings and, given their intentions, they delivered a good piece here, and do not deserve a damning two-star review by an incompetent who I genuinely suspect hasn't even seen the film - from the way his review seems to avoid commenting on the film as much as possible (and I'm not talking about detailing the plot, compare it to a good review and you'll see what I mean).


quote:

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.


It seems utterly reasonable to me that a paid critic should be aware of what constitutes good filmmaking, and praise it accordingly. I also welcome their personal opinion, but the ability to objectively critique a work is what distinguishes proper criticism from 'THIS FILM SUCKS' childishness. Empire usually exhibit the former, although this review is more like the latter. If a paid critic feels patronised by this demand then they're working in the wrong field.


quote:

You don't have to like his review but there it is.


I dislike the review because it's sloppy and avoids commenting on the actual film as much as possible, but my main concern is the irresponsible damning of a good film - which punishes good cinema. The same publication awarded Indy 4 four stars - which encourages bad filmmaking. It hurts an industry that is already suffering.


quote:

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.


Of course, not everyone reads Empire, or cares about what they think, but critical response does have an effect. As far as film criticism goes, Empire is very widely read and a percentage of people will be put off by this damning review, because most read their reviews to determine whether or not the film is worth spending money to see.


quote:

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.


No. Re-read my posts, it should gain at least three stars for being a good film and a strong example of the genre, regardless of whether one likes it or not.


quote:

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.


I don't want to do it for a living, I just expect a level of competence from those that do. This is a rare occasion of me taking an issue with a review, I don't regularly criticise reviews but felt it necessary here.


quote:

He is also well educated in film and he didn't get anything from it.


I'd be interested in hearing your friend's thoughts on it.


quote:

One man's 2001 maybe another man's Skyline. It's all down to individual points of view.


No it's not. Quality is measurable. 2001 is a groundbreaking, original, highly personal work from a master filmmaker working at the top of his game. Skyline is hollow, derivative junk-food by a couple of special effects wizzes with scant idea about crafting a narrative or creating three dimensional characters.

(in reply to bobatim)
Post #: 156
RE: That's it!! - 24/4/2011 3:40:01 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

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.


Right, so it's a poor review because he failed to detect that it is a work of good quality. I disliked Pan's Labyrinth, but I can detect it was a work of good quality and would certainly not damn the film with a two-star review. I love Commando, but can detect that it's a relatively poor piece of filmmaking, and my review would take that massively into account. We all have 'tastes' but should be able to discern good craftsmanship from poor. I'm sure many people would find Shakespeare's Othello boring, and yet it is, empirically, a masterpiece of playwriting.


And this is where the problem still lies - he doesn't think this is a film of good quality. Nor do I. As your analogy is predicated on an assertion that Scream 4 is objectively a good film whether you like it or not, then the analogy is frankly nonsense. You think it is - which is why you keep going on about it being a bad review. That's just your opinion, just as the review was his.



_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 157
RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking abou... - 24/4/2011 4:15:21 PM   
The REAL Bozz


Posts: 3285
Joined: 15/5/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo

I think the kills were good and basic, which is probably the point. Every franchise is trying to out gore, out creatively kill each other (and the Scream films have done the same in the past) that going back to basics is the new "original" way to surprise people.



I'm not sure 'fun' is the word when they're so in the face about 'look at us, completely meta on the horror film remake thing - aren't we great!!!!!!'.

I think you're right about what they were trying to do - but I'm sure they could have done that at least moderately well with a few jumps? It was just, for me, dull - Rgirvan's got exactly the right word.


If Scream 4 was going to be properly meta, then the fourth film in any horror franchise is based on how incentive the kills are - they should have embraced that aspect of horror and ran with it.


I think your bitter about Mary McDonald.

_____________________________

Films I've watched
Star Trek Into Darkness ***
Iron Man 3 *****
Evil Dead (2013) ***
Bait 3D ***

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 158
RE: That's it!! - 24/4/2011 8:20:43 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5068
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
It should gain at least three stars for being a good film and a strong example of the genre, regardless of whether one likes it or not.


For the zillionth time - he didn't think it was a good film or a strong example of the genre. I can't believe you still don't get it.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 159
RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking abou... - 24/4/2011 8:39:31 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: The REAL Bozz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo

I think the kills were good and basic, which is probably the point. Every franchise is trying to out gore, out creatively kill each other (and the Scream films have done the same in the past) that going back to basics is the new "original" way to surprise people.



I'm not sure 'fun' is the word when they're so in the face about 'look at us, completely meta on the horror film remake thing - aren't we great!!!!!!'.

I think you're right about what they were trying to do - but I'm sure they could have done that at least moderately well with a few jumps? It was just, for me, dull - Rgirvan's got exactly the right word.


If Scream 4 was going to be properly meta, then the fourth film in any horror franchise is based on how incentive the kills are - they should have embraced that aspect of horror and ran with it.


I think your bitter about Mary McDonald.


Why bother hiring her, if you weren't going to use her!


_____________________________

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 The REAL Bozz)
Post #: 160
RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking abou... - 24/4/2011 8:48:25 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
I agree, but I think it was part of including a variety of characters that were very similar to the killers/suspects in the previous films. That's what I assumed watching it, anyway.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 161
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 12:33:35 AM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

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.


Right, so it's a poor review because he failed to detect that it is a work of good quality. I disliked Pan's Labyrinth, but I can detect it was a work of good quality and would certainly not damn the film with a two-star review. I love Commando, but can detect that it's a relatively poor piece of filmmaking, and my review would take that massively into account. We all have 'tastes' but should be able to discern good craftsmanship from poor. I'm sure many people would find Shakespeare's Othello boring, and yet it is, empirically, a masterpiece of playwriting.


And this is where the problem still lies - he doesn't think this is a film of good quality. Nor do I. As your analogy is predicated on an assertion that Scream 4 is objectively a good film whether you like it or not, then the analogy is frankly nonsense. You think it is - which is why you keep going on about it being a bad review. That's just your opinion, just as the review was his.




What star rating would you give to each of the Scream films?

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 162
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 1:53:38 AM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
It should gain at least three stars for being a good film and a strong example of the genre, regardless of whether one likes it or not.


For the zillionth time - he didn't think it was a good film or a strong example of the genre. I can't believe you still don't get it.


From the nature of his review, which avoids critiquing this film as much as possible and spends most of his word limit with filler about other films, I have to question if he was paying attention. That's assuming he even saw the film, which I genuinely doubt. If he did, and he REALLY believes that this film deserves two stars - in which the original creative team of horror-masters Craven and Williamson sincerely attempt, and for the most part succeed, in making a contemporary update of their winning formula - amongst all the lazy dreck that Hollywood peddles (especially in the horror genre) - then he's not fit to judge this kind of film. If he'd qualified his rating with some proper critique then he could possibly be excused, but he doesn't.


(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 163
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 8:32:47 AM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
It should gain at least three stars for being a good film and a strong example of the genre, regardless of whether one likes it or not.


For the zillionth time - he didn't think it was a good film or a strong example of the genre. I can't believe you still don't get it.


From the nature of his review, which avoids critiquing this film as much as possible and spends most of his word limit with filler about other films, I have to question if he was paying attention. That's assuming he even saw the film, which I genuinely doubt. If he did, and he REALLY believes that this film deserves two stars - in which the original creative team of horror-masters Craven and Williamson sincerely attempt, and for the most part succeed, in making a contemporary update of their winning formula - amongst all the lazy dreck that Hollywood peddles (especially in the horror genre) - then he's not fit to judge this kind of film. If he'd qualified his rating with some proper critique then he could possibly be excused, but he doesn't.




Brilliant.


_____________________________

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 Drooch)
Post #: 164
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 8:52:25 AM   
sanchia


Posts: 18247
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
It should gain at least three stars for being a good film and a strong example of the genre, regardless of whether one likes it or not.


For the zillionth time - he didn't think it was a good film or a strong example of the genre. I can't believe you still don't get it.


From the nature of his review, which avoids critiquing this film as much as possible and spends most of his word limit with filler about other films, I have to question if he was paying attention. That's assuming he even saw the film, which I genuinely doubt. If he did, and he REALLY believes that this film deserves two stars - in which the original creative team of horror-masters Craven and Williamson sincerely attempt, and for the most part succeed, in making a contemporary update of their winning formula - amongst all the lazy dreck that Hollywood peddles (especially in the horror genre) - then he's not fit to judge this kind of film. If he'd qualified his rating with some proper critique then he could possibly be excused, but he doesn't.




I agree third sequels following a very similar formula are indeed massively original.


_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 165
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 10:05:47 AM   
Groovy Mule

 

Posts: 1098
Joined: 26/11/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

From the nature of his review, which avoids critiquing this film as much as possible and spends most of his word limit with filler about other films, I have to question if he was paying attention. That's assuming he even saw the film, which I genuinely doubt. If he did, and he REALLY believes that this film deserves two stars - in which the original creative team of horror-masters Craven and Williamson sincerely attempt, and for the most part succeed, in making a contemporary update of their winning formula - amongst all the lazy dreck that Hollywood peddles (especially in the horror genre) - then he's not fit to judge this kind of film. If he'd qualified his rating with some proper critique then he could possibly be excused, but he doesn't.



I think you are on extremely shaky ground in suggesting that the reviewer reviewed the film without watching it.  By all means criticise the writing or the conclusions but to make allegations like that is plain wrong.

I must admit I don't quite understand all of your arguments.  You seem to suggest that there is an objective standard of "quality" but then refer it to screenwriting, acting and direction, all of which are subjective.  You also seem to suggest that where something is a "quality" film that it should automatically get 3 stars - I don't agree and in a 5 star rating system gives very little room for manoeuvre.

As for my opinion on the film, I give it 6/10.

I loved the first Scream movie and the first 15-20 minutes of that film are, in my opinion, some of the best of any film of 1990s. When I look at why I love the first movie so much, it throws into focus why this instalment was so disappointing.  The reason it worked is because you got under the skin of the characters, got to know them and genuinely cared about whether they survived.  I learnt virtually nothing about any of the new characters this time around.  The teenagers were simply there to be ciphers for characters in the original - the intense creepy boyfriend with fidelity issues, the film geeks, the sassy girls, the troubled lead with the broken family.  These stock characters are there only to make you guess about the killerbut the end results are soleless.  They are also indicative of lazy (and slightly smug) writing.  The fact that you only learn some information about the some of the characters as they die is indicative of the lack of care taken over their creation.

There were acting issues too, strangely enough with Neve Campbell, who I generally like and without whom this franchise would not have succeeded but I felt she didn't want to be there and gave very little of herself.  I understand that playing the hardened veteran is a tough role but it seemed like she performed the entire film through gritted teeth.  However, the worst performance was Deputy Judy, Marlee Shelton whose delivery was atrocious to the extent I thought her hamminess was a plot point.

For all of the film's faults, I did still enjoy Scream 4.  The direction is inventive and much of the tension that does exist is down to Craven's camerawork and for a slasher film which relies on one method of killing amongst a sea of films looking for more and more outlandish ways of killing, I thought the kills were sufficiently interesting and bloody for the film to work as horror.  For a film with weak screenwriting, the conclusion of the film is quite clever and makes a statement about the "youth of today".  I must also praise Courtney Cox and David Arquette who make this film and without whom, this film would very little of the heart and fun which made the original trilogy the joy to watch that it was.

I'm not sure I see a future for the franchise beyond this film and I can't help but think that, as excited as I was by the prospect of a fourth, Craven and Williamson probably should have left the franchise alone.


_____________________________

Check out my movie blog - Box Office Challenge and reviews

http://londonmovieguy.wordpress.com/

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 166
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 10:12:49 AM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
It should gain at least three stars for being a good film and a strong example of the genre, regardless of whether one likes it or not.


For the zillionth time - he didn't think it was a good film or a strong example of the genre. I can't believe you still don't get it.


From the nature of his review, which avoids critiquing this film as much as possible and spends most of his word limit with filler about other films, I have to question if he was paying attention. That's assuming he even saw the film, which I genuinely doubt. If he did, and he REALLY believes that this film deserves two stars - in which the original creative team of horror-masters Craven and Williamson sincerely attempt, and for the most part succeed, in making a contemporary update of their winning formula - amongst all the lazy dreck that Hollywood peddles (especially in the horror genre) - then he's not fit to judge this kind of film. If he'd qualified his rating with some proper critique then he could possibly be excused, but he doesn't.




Suggesting a professional writer didn't bother seeing a film he reviewed is frankly libellous. You really need to understand what an opinion is - because yours isn't worth any more than anybody elses, even if you keep rather insanely insisting it's some kind of objective fact. Which does raise the question - apart from disagreeing with him, what exactly are your qualifications to say you're right, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and you're the arbiter of objective quality in film?

I actually enjoyed the first 3 Scream films. I know it's not accepted to enjoy 3, and it's pretty shit, but it's also mad as badshit and rather endearing in that. So I'd probably place it above 2, although I did like Laurie Metcalfe. I like Scream a lot although I've just realised it wasn't in my top 100 horrors, which is probably a little unfair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiKM6g-dfBo&feature=related

For you - time 2.00 onwards.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 167
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 11:07:51 AM   
superdan


Posts: 8281
Joined: 31/7/2008
I'm seriously starting to think Drooch is Wes Craven, or at the very least some sockpuppet from one of the production companies.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 168
RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking abou... - 25/4/2011 1:30:34 PM   
kenada_woo


Posts: 1668
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo

I think the kills were good and basic, which is probably the point. Every franchise is trying to out gore, out creatively kill each other (and the Scream films have done the same in the past) that going back to basics is the new "original" way to surprise people.



I'm not sure 'fun' is the word when they're so in the face about 'look at us, completely meta on the horror film remake thing - aren't we great!!!!!!'.

I think you're right about what they were trying to do - but I'm sure they could have done that at least moderately well with a few jumps? It was just, for me, dull - Rgirvan's got exactly the right word.


If Scream 4 was going to be properly meta, then the fourth film in any horror franchise is based on how incentive the kills are - they should have embraced that aspect of horror and ran with it.



I agree with your point, but I think that because of the type of film it is, its trying to make a comment on different levels that it cant really please everyone or tick every box which is why I feel it was a very hard film to get right and they pulled it off.

For the fact its a sequel and money spinner to its studio, each scene seemed like they sat down and dissected it - looked at the genre, looked at the current american trend, looked at itself...then trying a deliver something new. The best line in the film is "the unexpected is the new cliche." once that's been let out the bag, its a tough thing to deliver as an audience has their own expectations/tollerance to what's surprising or new to them. The fact the film openly puts that out there, its always never going to please everyone, but that's the playfulness of the film and why I feel its a really well written piece of horror that has something to say.

Kill wise, sure, it could've had a few OTT deaths...but the opening set its stall out well with the "bullshit" rant from the film within a film context so when the "real" movie begins its treading a fine line between not contradicting itself and making a comment on american horror and itself. If they did do some OTT death scenes, you'd have people complaining that they were OTT in a film that blatantly was trying to not be or mock those types of films.

And anyway, Scream 2 did the "one up in the gore stakes" from the first film.


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: kenada_woo

I think the kills were good and basic, which is probably the point. Every franchise is trying to out gore, out creatively kill each other (and the Scream films have done the same in the past) that going back to basics is the new "original" way to surprise people.



I'm not sure 'fun' is the word when they're so in the face about 'look at us, completely meta on the horror film remake thing - aren't we great!!!!!!'.

I think you're right about what they were trying to do - but I'm sure they could have done that at least moderately well with a few jumps? It was just, for me, dull - Rgirvan's got exactly the right word.


Well, that's what I meant about audience expectation. I feel there's a reason why its been getting mixed reviews is because its a film that openly puts itself out there to comment on itself and american horror, that is hard for it please everyone.

I found there was a fair few jumps, good one liners, and a likeable set of characters (which again is missed by most american teens horrors). But all that depends on if the film grabs you.

Im one of those that was ready to slate the film for it being too self-referencial. But that opening scene really got me, which I found to be very clever. If that doesnt get you in the mood, the whole "meta" piss take will probably grate on you.

But I like the fact they were up front in your face about it rather than trying to "out wit" its audience. There were no real big killer twists played up or surprises that you were always trying to second guess because the film never played it up because the previous films did this. What it did do was try and bring to your attention that A, B, and C could happen. But the fun thing about it was trying to not play up A,B, and C because the audience expects it going into the cinema and it being a sequel. They spell that out from the off rather than try and second guess you - which again is the "The unexpected is the new cliche" angle. For the genre, its fun to dissect.

But again thats down to personal expectations and tastes. The worst thing it could've done is be 90minutes of what the opening "meta" movies Stab 6-7 were - which is a stomach churning thought and what it steered clear from

_____________________________

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 elab49)
Post #: 169
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 4:30:50 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: superdan

I'm seriously starting to think Drooch is Wes Craven, or at the very least some sockpuppet from one of the production companies.


I also have my suspicions.


_____________________________

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 superdan)
Post #: 170
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 7:30:44 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
It should gain at least three stars for being a good film and a strong example of the genre, regardless of whether one likes it or not.


For the zillionth time - he didn't think it was a good film or a strong example of the genre. I can't believe you still don't get it.


From the nature of his review, which avoids critiquing this film as much as possible and spends most of his word limit with filler about other films, I have to question if he was paying attention. That's assuming he even saw the film, which I genuinely doubt. If he did, and he REALLY believes that this film deserves two stars - in which the original creative team of horror-masters Craven and Williamson sincerely attempt, and for the most part succeed, in making a contemporary update of their winning formula - amongst all the lazy dreck that Hollywood peddles (especially in the horror genre) - then he's not fit to judge this kind of film. If he'd qualified his rating with some proper critique then he could possibly be excused, but he doesn't.




Suggesting a professional writer didn't bother seeing a film he reviewed is frankly libellous. You really need to understand what an opinion is - because yours isn't worth any more than anybody elses, even if you keep rather insanely insisting it's some kind of objective fact. Which does raise the question - apart from disagreeing with him, what exactly are your qualifications to say you're right, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and you're the arbiter of objective quality in film?

I actually enjoyed the first 3 Scream films. I know it's not accepted to enjoy 3, and it's pretty shit, but it's also mad as badshit and rather endearing in that. So I'd probably place it above 2, although I did like Laurie Metcalfe. I like Scream a lot although I've just realised it wasn't in my top 100 horrors, which is probably a little unfair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiKM6g-dfBo&feature=related

For you - time 2.00 onwards.


You need to understand that, aside from our subjective opinions, one can objectively measure the quality of a work (which is why professional criticism of any art-form exists). Michaelangelo's David is a masterpiece of sculpture, if I attempted to recreate it the result would be of poor quality - his statue is, empirically, excellent, and mine is bad - regardless of which one anyone subjectively prefers. Are you starting to understand now?

The horror genre has plenty of examples of lazy, poorly crafted, relying-on-gore, instantly forgettable films and their sequels. Out of those, some may have some charm, or perhaps a hint of invention, or some scrap of merit in one way or another - those are the films that deserve a two-star rating - films that barely rise above the lowest swill of the genre. Scream 4 offers so much more than those films - far more skill and effort went into it's production and the results are onscreen. The characterisations, the social commentary, the Hitchockian play on expectations, Craven's handling of suspense, Williamson's witty and ironic writing, the successful balance of comedy, horror and post-modern reflexiveness. The opening sequence alone exhibits more invention, surprise, intelligence, wit and shock value than swathes of lazy horror sequels that Hollywood routinely churns out these days. The quality IS THERE, and if you're going to suggest that it isn't, then you need to make a very good case to back it up - and this reviewer didn't. Even if he couldn't see the quality, he should detect that the filmmakers had researched contemporary horror and tried to offer an antidote to the endless stream of lazy sequels and remakes that clog our screens - that alone is a noble effort. Of course, Craven and Williamson are not just well intentioned - they ARE masters of their craft and they bring that skill to Scream 4.

As for your ridiculous assertion that 'Suggesting a professional writer didn't bother seeing a film he reviewed is frankly libellous' - I don't care how much that guy gets paid, there are clear grounds for suspicion that he never saw Scream 4 - so scant are his comments about the film - it's a reasonable possibility and I'm not the only one to have considered it.

So, what star rating would you give each of the Scream films?




(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 171
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 7:44:25 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
I want to watch the Scream 4 movie that you watched. 

_____________________________

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 Drooch)
Post #: 172
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 7:57:51 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
It should gain at least three stars for being a good film and a strong example of the genre, regardless of whether one likes it or not.


For the zillionth time - he didn't think it was a good film or a strong example of the genre. I can't believe you still don't get it.


From the nature of his review, which avoids critiquing this film as much as possible and spends most of his word limit with filler about other films, I have to question if he was paying attention. That's assuming he even saw the film, which I genuinely doubt. If he did, and he REALLY believes that this film deserves two stars - in which the original creative team of horror-masters Craven and Williamson sincerely attempt, and for the most part succeed, in making a contemporary update of their winning formula - amongst all the lazy dreck that Hollywood peddles (especially in the horror genre) - then he's not fit to judge this kind of film. If he'd qualified his rating with some proper critique then he could possibly be excused, but he doesn't.




Suggesting a professional writer didn't bother seeing a film he reviewed is frankly libellous. You really need to understand what an opinion is - because yours isn't worth any more than anybody elses, even if you keep rather insanely insisting it's some kind of objective fact. Which does raise the question - apart from disagreeing with him, what exactly are your qualifications to say you're right, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and you're the arbiter of objective quality in film?

I actually enjoyed the first 3 Scream films. I know it's not accepted to enjoy 3, and it's pretty shit, but it's also mad as badshit and rather endearing in that. So I'd probably place it above 2, although I did like Laurie Metcalfe. I like Scream a lot although I've just realised it wasn't in my top 100 horrors, which is probably a little unfair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiKM6g-dfBo&feature=related

For you - time 2.00 onwards.


You need to understand that, aside from our subjective opinions, one can objectively measure the quality of a work


You didn't watch the clip did you? You'd be the stick in the mud up the back of the class refusing to tear the book, hoarding it to yourself and sneaking it back to your room, screaming silent revenge against those who won't plot poems on charts to objectively demonstrate which ones are good.

And if you don't think it's libellous to suggest a reviewer that is paid for reviews doesn't bother watching the films he's paid to review, making him professionally negligent and it being presumably a sackable offence, then you need to check that one in the dictionary when you eventually check up on the 'opinion' thing.

I don't do 'star ratings', so I gave an overview of my opinion of the previous films. I agree with the review. It was a poor quality horror. It was a poor quality film. And it was dull. Perhaps I didn't see the film either. Perhaps everyone else on the thread who disagrees with you didn't see the film either.

quote:

  ORIGINAL: superdan

I'm seriously starting to think Drooch is Wes Craven, or at the very least some sockpuppet from one of the production companies.


I also have my suspicions.



This does seem to be a step-change over the normal couple demanding their own is absolute for every biggish Hollywood film.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 173
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 8:04:38 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18247
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I want to watch the Scream 4 movie that you watched. 



I agree because it sure as hell wasn't the film I watched. To be honest I don't think he actually watched it.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 174
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 8:06:04 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: sanchia


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I want to watch the Scream 4 movie that you watched. 



I agree because it sure as hell wasn't the film I watched. To be honest I don't think he actually watched it.


Maybe he is one of the executives or producers of the flick?


_____________________________

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 sanchia)
Post #: 175
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 8:06:58 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18247
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
A distinct possibilty. If so make better films please.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 176
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 8:10:15 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54599
Joined: 1/10/2005
Seconded. I know I said I'd wait till the TV showing of part 5, but a halfway decent effort I might even put it on my DVD rental longlist. Massive improvement required, however.

_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 177
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 9:55:35 PM   
CORLEONE

 

Posts: 4700
Joined: 2/11/2005
From: Nakatomi Plaza
Let's face facts. Horror franchises run and run and get worse and worse with each film. But Scream 4 is better than Scream 3. So I say, well done to all involved.

_____________________________

Al Swearengen: "Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back".

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 178
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 10:00:34 PM   
Rgirvan44


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

ORIGINAL: CORLEONE

Let's face facts. Horror franchises run and run and get worse and worse with each film. But Scream 4 is better than Scream 3. So I say, well done to all involved.


Better than Scream 3 is hardly the best endorsment ever.


_____________________________

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 CORLEONE)
Post #: 179
RE: That's it!! - 25/4/2011 10:02:49 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
You can endorse Scream 3 for saying that it is not the worst film to feature Jay and Silent Bo....oh....

_____________________________

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 Rgirvan44)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.141