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: That's it!!

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: That's it!! Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: That's it!! - 7/5/2011 8:48:06 AM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5068
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
But come one, you also claimed you can objectively say whether something is funny or rivetting. That's just ridiculous.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 241
RE: That's it!! - 7/5/2011 11:52:03 AM   
foodage


Posts: 183
Joined: 29/9/2009
Does it follow from what you say that there's an objective list of the best films ever made? What's number one? I don't wanna embarrass myself in future with my incorrect opinion. I need the facts.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 242
RE: That's it!! - 7/5/2011 12:51:58 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8279
Joined: 31/7/2008
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Is this still going on? 

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 243
RE: That's it!! - 7/5/2011 6:01:14 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18245
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Is this still going on? 



It is like a car crash talking to a wall.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 244
Scream 4? 3. - 8/5/2011 1:07:35 PM   
filmsunlimited

 

Posts: 109
Joined: 20/2/2009
In keeping with previous Screams, this is a self-referential film that takes the p*ss out of its own genre and updates it in an age of instant online celebrity, Twitter etc. The ending is predictable from about the first few minutes in. Perhaps the film's biggest failings are a) its not even remotely jumpy or tense and b) murder with a knife loses novelty after about the seventh Stab. What this movie does overall is just ram home the message that the horror genre is utterly burnt out and in need of new ideas. With the outer limits of BBFC acceptability already explored by Hostel and similar gorno, this may not happen for a while.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 245
RE: Scream 4? 3. - 9/5/2011 2:14:23 PM   
ElephantBoy

 

Posts: 8615
Joined: 13/4/2006
I would agree mostly with that, the problem with the up to date references and themes are like you said they are just rammed in there just for the shake of updating things, so it is like a little comment which you forget about the second afterwards. I didn't see the ending coming, and didn't guess who the killer was going to be, but then I didn't care enough when it arrived for it to have any impact, and the ending was just too drawn out and plain dull.

The thing that bothered me most about this was the way they actually repeated some of the set pieces, ideas from the first two, I mean what is the point of that in a new Scream film.

Seems to me the fans on the whole really liked it, and the critics really didn't. For me it isn't terrible film, it just isn't any good, and yes I do think it can be called a needlss chapter.

(in reply to filmsunlimited)
Post #: 246
RE: That's it!! - 14/5/2011 10:55:39 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: foodage

Does it follow from what you say that there's an objective list of the best films ever made? What's number one? I don't wanna embarrass myself in future with my incorrect opinion. I need the facts.



I'm not talking about objective facts here, I'm talking about objective judgements of quality, which involves an appreciation of the filmmaking craft and an awareness of it's history, one can then objectively judge which films are stronger examples of the craft than others, based on their merits. If one was to compile a list of the best films ever made at a given point in time, with professional critics as judges, certain films would rise to the top (films like Citizen Kane and The Godfather frequently do in such lists).

(in reply to foodage)
Post #: 247
RE: RE: - 15/5/2011 7:52:56 PM   
hotboy18

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 15/5/2011
Scream 4 gets 2 stars!

_____________________________

belly fat

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 248
RE: That's it!! - 15/5/2011 11:43:59 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

But come one, you also claimed you can objectively say whether something is funny or rivetting. That's just ridiculous.


I don't remember making that claim. Can you quote me?

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 249
RE: Scream 4 - 16/5/2011 12:01:51 AM   
Drooch

 

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

ORIGINAL: hoohaa1

I loved Scream.

I rewatched it the day before watching Scream 4.

I also love Scream 4.

I thought it was as clever as the originals by embracing the cynical deconstruction of the genre as it stands right now, today, 2011.

To say this was an un-needed sequel and to give Indy 4 more stars is a discredit to Empire.

This sequel knows and admits what it is.

Indy 4 promised to be so much that it wasn't. (Never let George Lucas involved in artistic decisions for future reference).

My mate wasn't going to see this in LA as Empire had only given it 2 stars. That is how important your reviews are. And why a 2 star needds to be argued well, competently and not just half-heartedly.

I felt this was an unconsidered piece of writing and would like to hear a 2nd opinion.




Spot on. And interesting to hear that Empire's irresponsible 2 stars directly caused your friend to avoid it. From what I hear they've scrapped Scream 5. Well done Empire for contributing to the killing of one of the best franchises in the horror genre.

Glad to hear that you liked the film and could see why it's good. When the dust settles with time and repeat viewings, it'll become clear that this is a strong sequel that was unfairly underrated and under-viewed at the time of it's release.


< Message edited by Drooch -- 16/5/2011 12:05:49 AM >

(in reply to hoohaa1)
Post #: 250
RE: Scream 4 - 16/5/2011 12:13:49 AM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


Spot on. And interesting to hear that Empire's irresponsible 2 stars directly caused your friend to avoid it. From what I hear they've scrapped Scream 5. Well done Empire for contributing to the killing of one of the best franchises in the horror genre.



Wow, this is still going on. Just for the record, the thing I've highlighted in bold is the single dumbest thing I've ever seen online. Including houses that look like Adolf Hitler and the ramblings of certain other members on here. It is not Empire's job to promote films that the reviewer didn't like. It is their job to give an honest opinion on the film.

Just for the record tho, Empire gave Are We There Yet 1-star, and you know what? It's had a couple of sequels. Likewise with Big Mommas House.

< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 16/5/2011 12:18:35 AM >

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 251
RE: That's it!! - 16/5/2011 12:17:34 AM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

But come one, you also claimed you can objectively say whether something is funny or rivetting. That's just ridiculous.


I don't remember making that claim. Can you quote me?



You said it in post #125, which is on page 5.

And I quote -

"Yes, it is riveting. If you find yourself un-rivetted by the massive levels of suspense and thrills that these skilled filmmakers (including master of horror Wes Craven) delivered then you're not fit to be a paid reviewer and make recommendations to a public wanting to know whether or not to pay to see the film - you simply lack the sensitivity to appreciate this kind of film, and shouldn't be damning it with a two star review. If you can't detect that this is a strong example of a slasher film, then you don't have a full enough appreciation of the genre to be making recommendations."


(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 252
RE: That's it!! - 16/5/2011 5:07:54 AM   
Pigeon Army


Posts: 14612
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.
I had forgotten this thread existed. Woe is me for remembering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
Your own magazine has a 'Masterpiece' section


It's not my magazine.

quote:

- what is a masterpiece if not a film that is objectively better than most? Some films stand the test of time and continue to resonate for audiences decades after they were made, others seem to evaporate while you're watching them and are quickly forgotten by culture  - the former are said to be 'good' or even 'great' films and the latter are 'poor'.


But that's still not objective fact. Whether a film is part of the accepted canon or not is decided by a whole slew of factors - historical importance, timeliness, the people involved, the history of the film, etc. etc. Just because a film is commonly accepted as a masterpiece doesn't mean that it is, much less that a film magazine has to accept that. Carrie's largely accepted as a classic, but I largely feel that it is a gaudy, dreary watch - that doesn't make me wrong, it just means I have a different opinion to everyone else. A film being a "masterpiece" is as much an opinion as any other qualitative statement about a film - just because it's held by more people doesn't make it right. Otherwise you would be wrong calling Scream 4 a four-star film, given the majority of critics seem to have mixed reactions towards it (56% on RT).

quote:

There are elements that make a film 'good', and they go beyond the 'technical accomplishments' you mentioned. Artistic integrity on the part of the filmmakers


Doesn't make a film good. I am sure Lee Daniels' intentions with Precious were noble, but it doesn't make my opinion of the film as a tedious, insufferable piece of hamhanded proselytizing any less valid.

quote:

the extent to which a director elicits a good performance from an actor


Objectively define a good performance.

quote:

three dimensional characterisation


Objectively define three-dimensional characterisation.

I haven't seen Eraserhead, so I won't address that example.

quote:

Merit in filmmaking can take many forms (transcending mathematics and 'megahertz') but some films have more merit than others, when one zooms out and holds it up against all other films, or films in it's genre.


Yes, some films have more merit than others. Which films have merit and which do not, and how much merit each film possesses, is still a subjective judgment. There is no hard-and-fast set of rules and guidelines to what makes a good film, which is what you're arguing by continuously dropping the word "objectively".

quote:

Professional critics should have this greater awareness and be able to pass judgement on an individual film accordingly (or 'justify their opinion' to use your words - it essentially means the same thing in this case).


Glad you agree that this is all subjective and dealing with opinion.

quote:

I didn't accuse the reviewer of not doing his job - I said that I was in doubt as to whether he had seen the film or not.


By doubting whether he'd seen the film, and openly expressing as such, you were tacitly accusing him of not doing his job, as his job is to watch films and review them.

quote:


I grasp what you're saying just fine, it's just that you're mistaken if you think it's impossible to judge the quality of a film, which is odd because you work for a magazine which does just that.


I've never said it's impossible to "judge the quality of a film" - I've just maintained that any judgment of a film's quality is subjective. You disagree, given how often you use the word "objectively".

quote:


How about you get back to your job of moderating these boards instead if abusing it's users.


Boy, if you think that was abuse, you ain't seen nothing yet. I'm sure anyone here can tell you that.

< Message edited by Pigeon Army -- 16/5/2011 5:10:09 AM >


_____________________________

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 adambatman82)
Post #: 253
RE: That's it!! - 16/5/2011 10:44:44 AM   
horribleives

 

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

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

But come one, you also claimed you can objectively say whether something is funny or rivetting. That's just ridiculous.


I don't remember making that claim. Can you quote me?



You said it in post #125, which is on page 5.

And I quote -

"Yes, it is riveting. If you find yourself un-rivetted by the massive levels of suspense and thrills that these skilled filmmakers (including master of horror Wes Craven) delivered then you're not fit to be a paid reviewer and make recommendations to a public wanting to know whether or not to pay to see the film - you simply lack the sensitivity to appreciate this kind of film, and shouldn't be damning it with a two star review. If you can't detect that this is a strong example of a slasher film, then you don't have a full enough appreciation of the genre to be making recommendations."




As well as:

'I saw a clever, funny, rivetting horror which outclasses any that I have seen for a while......The reviewer avoided talking about these details for the most part......If the reviewer didn't see these qualities then he isn't fit to review, because they're there whether one likes the film or not'

_____________________________

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

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 254
RE: BRILLIANT, YOU MUST SEE THIS FELLOW MOVIE BUFFS! - 16/5/2011 3:15:10 PM   
ElephantBoy

 

Posts: 8615
Joined: 13/4/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: lewisb548

This is a harsh review from empire, it must be atleast 4 or 5 stars, because Scream 4 despite it's flaws (Gale's not in much, the movie Buff Robbie isn't in as much of the film as you'd expect and almost all of the cast get killed.), despite it's flaws Scream 4 is what modern audiences want an exciting gory, well written and enjoyable horror/comedy romp, the opening scene/scenes is comedy and horror gold, although the storys the same, a killer or killers is on the loose wearing the infamous ghost face mask, as Sidney Prescott is the prime target off the killer as she returns too woodsboro too end her book tour. It isn't just Sidney returning, theres Dewey, Gale and a host off new characters, including the likes of Anthony Anderson, Adam Brody, Marley Shelton, Alison Brie and a host of new teens as the film quickly shifts from Sidney's story too the teens consisting off her cousin Jill(Emma Roberts), Rory Culkin playing Charlie a movie buff and Nico Tortorell playing a pesty ex. The high light of the film has to be Erik Knudsen as this films equivalent off Randy, except his characters called Robbie, also a movie buff. Theres a lot of competition As the killer wreaks havoc on the unfortunate cast the knife kills, always going for the stomach for some reason get a little old, but the knife kills stop at the right time for us not too hate them. Theres a fair share off blood and gore, this Scream installment surprisingly a 15, yet it's gorier than it's predocessors, While Scream 4 lacks the original films, originality! it still maintains new ideas brutal kills, great ghostface phonecalls and this Scream for the first time in the franchise is scary! Its funny too, with a brilliant opening scene and funny gags, movie buffs you must see this, dont be put off by the lack of Dewey and Gale just enjoy the film, because this is hillarious brilliant and yes scary, with the new cast, Neve and Courteney included looking sexier than ever it's obvious this franchise still has fresh blood, can't wait for the DVD and the fifth installment.

1. It is not well written, just repeating old jokes/ideas, and making bitchin' comments about modern techinogy, does not make for well constructive or cutting edge jokes.  And it is not well written, from the point of view of being a good, unpredictable horror film, for starters the twist has been done a million times before, and the motive from the killer was weak and also has been done before, plus the ending was dragged out way too far.  Yes there are entertaining and inventive moments, like the opening scene you mentioned, but they come about not nearly enough.

2. The blood doesn't mean anything because it happens way too often, and so becomes predictable and lacks impact, and you can't use the excuse that is what horror fans want, because Halloween had very little blood, in fact the first Scream didn't have that much blood, and they still worked for the core audiences.

3.  It makes no difference how much the older characters are in the film, because if they are to move the series forward they need fresh characters, yes it was a better film when Cox was onscreen as Weathers (have to say the Other two old pros did nothing for me), but that just highlights the weakness of the film in creating exciting new characters.

4. The only reason the series still has fresh life in it, is because naive horror films (and I include myself in this) are still laping this stuff up.

The Scream film I will return to is 3, just because I have only seen that once and that was eleven years ago, at the cinema, I remember it being poor, but it will be interesting to see if it is really worse than the new film, like many say.
Post #: 255
RE: BRILLIANT, YOU MUST SEE THIS FELLOW MOVIE BUFFS! - 16/5/2011 8:56:21 PM   
sanchia


Posts: 18245
Joined: 3/1/2006
From: Norwich
I think objectively a lot of people have objectively judged this film to be average to poor utilising their objective judgement.

_____________________________

Nothing to see here.



(in reply to ElephantBoy)
Post #: 256
RE: BRILLIANT, YOU MUST SEE THIS FELLOW MOVIE BUFFS! - 17/5/2011 3:05:28 PM   
Gazz


Posts: 873
Joined: 30/9/2005
Thank you to everyone for this glorious thread. It has provided me with a good 40 minutes of LOLs.

Personally I quite enjoyed Scream 4 as a bit of popcorn horror fluff and would rate it around 3 stars though I have no problem with Empire's reading of the film at all.

(in reply to sanchia)
Post #: 257
RE: BRILLIANT, YOU MUST SEE THIS FELLOW MOVIE BUFFS! - 17/5/2011 3:11:16 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
How did I miss that this nonesense was still going on?

_____________________________

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 Gazz)
Post #: 258
RE: BRILLIANT, YOU MUST SEE THIS FELLOW MOVIE BUFFS! - 17/5/2011 3:29:04 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5068
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
I keep promising myself I won't post here but I just can't help it. Come on Drooch, it's your move (again)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 259
Scream4 - 18/5/2011 4:22:45 PM   
elenahernandez

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 18/5/2011
I thought it was the best SCREAM since the original. WAY better than Scream 3. The Twisted Ending you have to see to believe. I think if there is a Scream 5, Wes Craven has this new trilogy going in the right direction.

_____________________________

I am a Industrial Engineering student from Florida International University. Reputation Management

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 260
RE: Scream4 - 23/5/2011 9:19:38 PM   
ElephantBoy

 

Posts: 8615
Joined: 13/4/2006
But that is not the end thats the problem, if they ended the film like that then it would have redeemed it to a degree, but they didn't.

(in reply to elenahernandez)
Post #: 261
RE: That's it!! - 13/6/2011 1:10:47 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
Your own magazine has a 'Masterpiece' section

quote:

It's not my magazine.


Ah, sorry. I thought that you moderators worked for Empire, but I've since learned that you're more like Empire 'prefects'.



quote:

- what is a masterpiece if not a film that is objectively better than most? Some films stand the test of time and continue to resonate for audiences decades after they were made, others seem to evaporate while you're watching them and are quickly forgotten by culture  - the former are said to be 'good' or even 'great' films and the latter are 'poor'.

quote:

But that's still not objective fact. Whether a film is part of the accepted canon or not is decided by a whole slew of factors - historical importance, timeliness, the people involved, the history of the film, etc. etc. Just because a film is commonly accepted as a masterpiece doesn't mean that it is, much less that a film magazine has to accept that. Carrie's largely accepted as a classic, but I largely feel that it is a gaudy, dreary watch - that doesn't make me wrong, it just means I have a different opinion to everyone else. A film being a "masterpiece" is as much an opinion as any other qualitative statement about a film - just because it's held by more people doesn't make it right. Otherwise you would be wrong calling Scream 4 a four-star film, given the majority of critics seem to have mixed reactions towards it (56% on RT).


I never said it was 'objective fact'. I use the term 'objective' to distinguish from a purely subjective reaction to a film. Subjectively, I was irritated and bored by Amacord, but I can 'be objective' and detect that it is a meaningful and deeply personal film which deserves praise and respect, and could even warrant the title 'Fellini's masterpiece'. Professional criticism of art requires this ability to temporarily 'switch off' subjectivity and objectively appreciate the entirety of the piece, contextualise it within the history of the craft, and provide critical evaluations of it's merits or lack thereof; as well as provide whatever subjective reactions the critic may have experienced. No objective facts here, I'm talking about the objectivity required for professional film criticism - of which the Scream 4 reviewer demonstrated very little.

I didn't say that Scream 4 was a 4 star film (although that is how I, personally, would rate it) but a competent reviewer would detect that it deserves between 3 and 5 stars, such are it's merits when contextualised within the horror genre. It does not barely rise above the lowest swill of the genre - which is what a 2 star rating implies (and caused the person mentioned a few posts above to avoid the film, leading him to feel misled when he finally saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it).

Subjectively, you find Carrie 'a gaudy and dreary watch', but are you able to see why it is considered an important horror film? What rating would you give it?



quote:

There are elements that make a film 'good', and they go beyond the 'technical accomplishments' you mentioned. Artistic integrity on the part of the filmmakers

quote:

Doesn't make a film good. I am sure Lee Daniels' intentions with Precious were noble, but it doesn't make my opinion of the film as a tedious, insufferable piece of hamhanded proselytizing any less valid.


It may not be enough in itself to make the film 'good', but Daniels' noble intentions are nevertheless a merit and should not be ignored in a professional critique of the film.


quote:

Objectively define a good performance.


A performance by an actor which accurately renders one or more characters and their respective trajectories over the course of the piece, given the intentions of the piece.


quote:

Objectively define three-dimensional characterisation.


Characterisation so detailed and credible as for the character to be indistinguishable from a real being. These are definitions one could use, but why are you asking me to 'objectively' define them?


quote:

Yes, some films have more merit than others. Which films have merit and which do not, and how much merit each film possesses, is still a subjective judgment. There is no hard-and-fast set of rules and guidelines to what makes a good film, which is what you're arguing by continuously dropping the word "objectively".


Good, you've now accepted that 'some films have more merit than others', so you have accepted a system in which objective criticism is possible, for you are now able to say that 'film A is better than film B' because one has more merit than the other. Film criticism is built on this system. Whether 'a hard-and-fast set of rules and guidelines to what makes a good film' exists in objective reality or not is irrelevant, it's non-existence would not invalidate the system. (I am certainly not suggesting that such a set of rules and guidelines exists - if you think that I have been then that's your misunderstanding of what is meant by 'objectively', which you seem to think only relates to something existing in the physical universe, or something).

While individual critics may differ in their critical evaluations, they agree on the existence and nature of filmmaking merits, and that those merits are measurable. Those agreements are what form the system which makes film criticism possible. The fact that two different critics may award different ratings to the same film does not invalidate that system - much like how the possibility that two examiners might award different marks to the same essay does not make essay-marking a meaningless and useless enterprise. For the most part, the examiners will agree upon what constitutes 'good' and 'bad' essay writing.

I welcome the film critic's subjective response to a film, which is an art, after all, but also expect this objective evaluation, from a professional.



quote:

Professional critics should have this greater awareness and be able to pass judgement on an individual film accordingly (or 'justify their opinion' to use your words - it essentially means the same thing in this case).

quote:

Glad you agree that this is all subjective and dealing with opinion.


Where have I agreed to that? To 'justify their opinion' the critic must measure their opinion against the system (of measuring filmmaking merit) on which objective film criticism is based. So it's not 'all subjective and dealing with opinion', a huge amount of objectivity is necessary for proper film criticism.



quote:

I didn't accuse the reviewer of not doing his job - I said that I was in doubt as to whether he had seen the film or not.

quote:

By doubting whether he'd seen the film, and openly expressing as such, you were tacitly accusing him of not doing his job, as his job is to watch films and review them.


Doubting that he had seen the film indeed carries within it the possibility that he may not have been doing his job. Nevertheless, I was not making an accusation, you've just seized upon that possibility and have skewed my suggestion of it into an accusation.


quote:

I've never said it's impossible to "judge the quality of a film"


But you said 'there's no way to objectively measure the quality of a film', what is a judgement of quality if not an objective measurement of the film's merits of lack thereof?


quote:

- I've just maintained that any judgment of a film's quality is subjective.


Then how can you say that 'some films have more merit than others'? If that is true then films A and B have more merit than films C and D, the moment you agree that merits exist and that they can be counted, you are being objective.

The judge is, of course, a subject, but the act of judgement necessitates the use of objectivity. As I've repeated many times now, film criticism is both subjective and objective, since the critic is passing judgement using an objective awareness of what constitutes good and bad filmmaking.



quote:


How about you get back to your job of moderating these boards instead if abusing it's users.


quote:

Boy, if you think that was abuse, you ain't seen nothing yet. I'm sure anyone here can tell you that.


The level of abuse is irrelevant, as a moderator you should not be engaging in any abuse.



quote:

I had forgotten this thread existed. Woe is me for remembering.


If it troubles you then why do you keep returning to it? Anyway, thanks for trying to contribute.


(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 262
RE: That's it!! - 13/6/2011 1:27:07 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

But come one, you also claimed you can objectively say whether something is funny or rivetting. That's just ridiculous.


I don't remember making that claim. Can you quote me?



You said it in post #125, which is on page 5.

And I quote -

"Yes, it is riveting. If you find yourself un-rivetted by the massive levels of suspense and thrills that these skilled filmmakers (including master of horror Wes Craven) delivered then you're not fit to be a paid reviewer and make recommendations to a public wanting to know whether or not to pay to see the film - you simply lack the sensitivity to appreciate this kind of film, and shouldn't be damning it with a two star review. If you can't detect that this is a strong example of a slasher film, then you don't have a full enough appreciation of the genre to be making recommendations."




As well as:

'I saw a clever, funny, rivetting horror which outclasses any that I have seen for a while......The reviewer avoided talking about these details for the most part......If the reviewer didn't see these qualities then he isn't fit to review, because they're there whether one likes the film or not'




Right, so in none of those posts did I say that 'you can objectively say whether something is funny or rivetting.'

That said, I would say that Scream 4 is funny and riveting - since the filmmakers sought to amuse and rivet, I was suitably amused and riveted, and indeed so was the audience with whom I watched the film in the theatre, who were laughing and jumping throughout the film, and gave it a round of applause at the end. As a consequence, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that Scream 4 is funny and riveting.

Do you think that 'Airplane is a funny film', is an unreasonable statement?

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 263
RE: That's it!! - 13/6/2011 1:45:35 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
I don't know how soon you can expect a response Drooch - has been a while!

_____________________________

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 #: 264
RE: That's it!! - 13/6/2011 2:06:51 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
Yeah, you should find new subjects to comment on.

Like meta-sequels that get banned.


_____________________________

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 #: 265
RE: That's it!! - 13/6/2011 3:11:22 PM   
Pigeon Army


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

ORIGINAL: Drooch

I never said it was 'objective fact'. I use the term 'objective' to distinguish from a purely subjective reaction to a film.


objective (comparative more objective, superlative most objective)
  1. of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality
  2. agreed upon by all parties present (or nearly all); based on consensually observed facts  [quotations ▼]
  3. not influenced by irrational emotions or prejudices
The word objective means dealing in facts. You are using words you do not understand.

quote:


Subjectively, I was irritated and bored by Amacord, but I can 'be objective' and detect that it is a meaningful and deeply personal film which deserves praise and respect, and could even warrant the title 'Fellini's masterpiece'.


It is objective to detect that Amacord is a deeply personal film for Fellini. It is subjective to say that it deserves praise and respect and may deserve to be called a masterpiece. The subjective elements of that statement rely on personal reactions - one may say that it does not deserve praise and is in fact a bad Fellini film. That would be one's subjective opinion.

quote:


Professional criticism of art requires this ability to temporarily 'switch off' subjectivity and objectively appreciate the entirety of the piece, contextualise it within the history of the craft, and provide critical evaluations of it's merits or lack thereof;


Critical evaluations are subjective, which is part of the wonder of them - they may be drawn from different sources, but people can have different evaluations of a work. That's why some people see Sucker Punch as sexist tosh and others (such as myself) see it as a deeply important statement on the role of the female in modern Hollywood cinema. Those are still critical evaluations, but they are based on subjective readings of what the film is made up of.

quote:


I didn't say that Scream 4 was a 4 star film (although that is how I, personally, would rate it) but a competent reviewer would detect that it deserves between 3 and 5 stars


Those are basically the same thing. Congratulations.

quote:


It does not barely rise above the lowest swill of the genre - which is what a 2 star rating implies (and caused the person mentioned a few posts above to avoid the film, leading him to feel misled when he finally saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it).


The reviewer thought it did, so guts for you, son.

quote:


Subjectively, you find Carrie 'a gaudy and dreary watch', but are you able to see why it is considered an important horror film? What rating would you give it?


I'm not able to see why it's considered important because I think it's gaudy and dreary and not scary at all. My review from a while back -

quote:


The most disappointing thing about Carrie is how much better it probably would have been if somebody had seen fit to get a director in who was actually subtle about his work. Say a lot of things about De Palma, he has never been a particularly subtle director - and that's really what Carrie cries out for, De Palma's camp aesthetic undermining the quiet and compelling central performance by Sissy Spacek. Spacek is excellent as Carrie, playing her as a one step forward, two steps back kind of girl - as she slowly begins to assert herself, it's clear she's not comfortable doing so, and she slowly draws out Carrie's development of self-confidence, only for it to be cruelly smacked back down during the infamous prom sequence. Everything else around Spacek, however, is loud, cheesy, and badly-developed. Piper Laurie's performance as Carrie's dogmatic mother belongs in another film, De Palma's direction is intrusive and filled with sudden movements (he loves his zooms) and inappropriate touches, the music is frequently mixed louder than the dialogue, and the whole story seems badly-paced, jerking along without any goal other than reaching the prom scene. The prom scene is, admittedly, quite well done (though it could've done without the split-screen), with its garish neon colours and slow build to the feverish peak, but it's not enough to save what is, essentially, a blunt, misjudged film. 2/5


quote:

It may not be enough in itself to make the film 'good', but Daniels' noble intentions are nevertheless a merit and should not be ignored in a professional critique of the film.


Intention is nothing. People don't win brownie points for wearing their heart on their sleeve - they should be assessed on the work itself, not external factors, and particularly not external factors no-one but the filmmaker is privy to.

quote:

A performance by an actor which accurately renders one or more characters and their respective trajectories over the course of the piece, given the intentions of the piece.


See what you've done here is made a subjective definition. How do you objectively assess the "accurate rendition" of a character? How do you objectively assess the intent behind a character's trajectory?

quote:

Characterisation so detailed and credible as for the character to be indistinguishable from a real being.


So what, objectively, is "detailed and credible" characterisation? Would you say Ben Stiller's Derek Zoolander (which I personally think is a great performance) is "detailed and credible so as to be indistinguishable from a real being"? Because I can tell you no real being pouts like that, no real being acts like that.

quote:

These are definitions one could use, but why are you asking me to 'objectively' define them?


I am asking you to define them because these are elements of a film, and if you believe a film can be objectively assessed, it therefore follows that you think that the elements of a film can be objectively assessed and then added up to quantitatively create an objective 'good' or 'bad' film. That you actively picked out those elements as ways of objectively assessing a film makes it even better.

quote:

Good, you've now accepted that 'some films have more merit than others',


Yes that is the entire basis on which liking films more than others exists

quote:


so you have accepted a system in which objective criticism is possible, for you are now able to say that 'film A is better than film B' because one has more merit than the other.


What no

Did you not read what I wrote? " Which films have merit and which do not, and how much merit each film possesses, is still a subjective judgment. There is no hard-and-fast set of rules and guidelines to what makes a good film, which is what you're arguing by continuously dropping the word "objectively"."

I think The Godfather has more merit than The Boondock Saints. That is a subjective judgment, and it is why I cannot fail someone who writes an essay asserting the opposite. This is not maths.

quote:


(I am certainly not suggesting that such a set of rules and guidelines exists - if you think that I have been then that's your misunderstanding of what is meant by 'objectively', which you seem to think only relates to something existing in the physical universe, or something).


No that's you completely misunderstanding what the word 'objective' means. To quote the definition above - "of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality."

quote:


The fact that two different critics may award different ratings to the same film does not invalidate that system - much like how the possibility that two examiners might award different marks to the same essay does not make essay-marking a meaningless and useless enterprise. For the most part, the examiners will agree upon what constitutes 'good' and 'bad' essay writing.


That is because a professor can tell you, objectively, what an essay should do. Tell me, objectively what a piece of fiction should do. Tell me what, objectively, a film should do.

quote:


I welcome the film critic's subjective response to a film, which is an art, after all


You clearly don't because you don't understand criticism.

quote:


Where have I agreed to that? To 'justify their opinion' the critic must measure their opinion against the system (of measuring filmmaking merit) on which objective film criticism is based.


No they what are you arrrgh

To justify their opinion they must show why the film worked for them - yes, that means pointing to elements of the film and saying "this is good this is not," but this is not objective, because another critic can come along and say "I think you are wrong this is not good this is." That is because there is no hard-and-fast set of filmmaking guidelines (or, to put it in your words, a "system of measuring filmmaking merit").

quote:


Doubting that he had seen the film indeed carries within it the possibility that he may not have been doing his job. Nevertheless, I was not making an accusation, you've just seized upon that possibility and have skewed my suggestion of it into an accusation.


Oh no of course it isn't an accusation you were just thinking aloud how silly of me of course think aloud potentially libellous thoughts as much as you want.

quote:

what is a judgement of quality if not an objective measurement of the film's merits of lack thereof?


Why, it is a subjective measurement of the film's merits or lack thereof. That is why it is a judgment of quality and not quantity.

quote:

Then how can you say that 'some films have more merit than others'?


Because I can say "I think this film has merit and this film doesn't" and that is a subjective viewpoint. Your insufferable arguments are based entirely on some demented vocabulary that does not exist in the English language - the word 'merit' does not connote objective merit, just merit. That includes subjective merit.

quote:


If that is true then films A and B have more merit than films C and D, the moment you agree that merits exist and that they can be counted, you are being objective.


You have no idea what you're talking about.

quote:


The level of abuse is irrelevant, as a moderator you should not be engaging in any abuse.


If you do not like my attitude in this argument, then please, contact James Dyer and tell him how mean I'm being. But when faced with someone who is simply unable to grasp the tenets of criticism or, indeed, the English language, I don't see what choice I have other than to get frustrated.

_____________________________

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 Drooch)
Post #: 266
RE: Scream 4 - 13/6/2011 3:11:30 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch


Spot on. And interesting to hear that Empire's irresponsible 2 stars directly caused your friend to avoid it. From what I hear they've scrapped Scream 5. Well done Empire for contributing to the killing of one of the best franchises in the horror genre.



Wow, this is still going on. Just for the record, the thing I've highlighted in bold is the single dumbest thing I've ever seen online. Including houses that look like Adolf Hitler and the ramblings of certain other members on here. It is not Empire's job to promote films that the reviewer didn't like. It is their job to give an honest opinion on the film.

Just for the record tho, Empire gave Are We There Yet 1-star, and you know what? It's had a couple of sequels. Likewise with Big Mommas House.


It is also their job to give an educated opinion, rather than the unprofessional drivel posing as their Scream 4 review, which largely ignored the film. 2 stars for Scream 4 is irresponsible because it punishes good filmmaking.

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 267
RE: Scream 4 - 13/6/2011 3:15:56 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Hey Drooch,

Can you please write a full review of Scream 4.

_____________________________

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 #: 268
RE: Scream 4 - 13/6/2011 3:56:42 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

It is also their job to give an educated opinion, rather than the unprofessional drivel posing as their Scream 4 review, which largely ignored the film. 2 stars for Scream 4 is irresponsible because it punishes good filmmaking.


The review really should have addressed Scream 4's failings and strengths as opposed to rambling on about the first three films, but punishing good film-making? That's a stretch.

Kim Newman and you have different views on this particular film. Nothing more, nothing less.

< Message edited by MonsterCat -- 13/6/2011 3:59:49 PM >


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 269
RE: Past Post-Modernism - 16/6/2011 4:11:55 PM   
princessa


Posts: 734
Joined: 6/6/2006
quote:

ORIGINAL: vipey

Not bad, but not great. I'm afraid that the knowing, ironical, post-modern horror movie is long since dead - so why try to resurrect it here. For a movie like this to really work - you have to care about the characters and Craven and Williamson clearly don't - they're too busy trying to show how clever they are. Still, there are a few effective scares and a few laughs. But overall, the feeling is one of ho-hum.


Agreed with your review.

It was cliched, dull and not half as fun as the first two. 

They should have really set this in another town; try something different.  Putting it in the same High School etc made the film feel like a bad repeat of the first film (which was excellent).  Making Neve Campbell the a big part of the storyline was a mistake IMO. 

(in reply to vipey)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: That's it!! Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

0.156