Drooch
Posts: 129
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.
|
Printable Version
RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking abou... - 
and what it steered clear from
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