Art has neither success or failure precisely because it is subjective. Ebert is a great writer and a good critic, but he's not the best by a long shot, and I think he'd be the first to admit that despite his current status as anointed God of film criticism.Ī successful piece of art is one in which the artists interpretation and the viewers interpretation are close to the same. He knows the history of the form, he's politically aware, and he actually talks about what's on screen. If you guys actually want to know what kind of critic Armond White approves of, I suggest you try Jonathan Rosenbaum. He's performing a criticism of film criticism, a performance that consists of 1) taking to the extreme the concept of defending bad movies with legitimate intellectual reasoning and 2) mocking the predictability of film criticism by accurately forecasting whether critics will pan a film and then defending it, while panning everything else. Seriously man, you are right on fucking point, I've been wanting to explain this shit to reddit for almost a year now (I think the first time anyone here noticed anything fishy with his reviews was for GI Joe, late last summer) but you did it more concisely and correctly than I ever could have.īut yeah, I'm pretty impressed with his ability to walk this intellectual tightrope, and his trolling. I find it juvenile that the posts in here are using vulgarities instead of actually refuting his ideas.įolks, as a guy who knows a little something about film criticism, I'd like you to know that this is the most important comment here, the one that most successfully indicates what this Armond White fella is all about. I'm willing to debate this further, but I won't argue with myself right now.īottom line is, you don't have to agree with the guy, but I think his views are worth discussing. He makes a good case FOR some bad films also. I read through some of his older reviews, and he does make great arguments against good films. His argument against Ebert is that Ebert evaluates the same art pieces for reasons other than just artistic merit. A successful piece of art is one in which the artists interpretation and the viewers interpretation are close to the same.Īlong those lines, White believes that he is evaluating cinematic art simply for the sake of art. Art is subjective, the worst pieces can speak volumes to few, the best can be horrid to other. White is making an argument that he is a film critic who evaluates films for artistic merit. Reading this gave me a lot of insight into the psyche of White, and I am starting to agree with him. The pod race, the war on Nabu, the epic laser sword fight.įor the benefit of the doubt, can you please just tell me one thing that you thought was good about the story? The motivation and justification for actions of nearly every character in the entire movie are so contrived that I can't even think of the movie as anything other than a string of nonsense to loosely tie together the "money scenes". The story is so completely illogical and nonsensical that I am truly dumbfounded by a description of it as "good." I recently watched it again with my SO, who loved the original trilogy but never saw 1, 2 or 3, and we literally had to stop and rewind several dozen times to discuss and re-watch scenes because of how absurd the plot is. It was so shockingly bad to me then, and now, that I'm nearly certain you must be trolling. for tf2 i wasn't expecting much so when i wasn't bashed in the head with stupid product placement and i was expecting corny dialog from turtorro it didn't offend me as a movie goer and thus i rated it higher than the previous movie.Ĭall me a huge nerd, but I cannot think of a single moment in my life that I was more disappointed than after I walked out of Episode 1. the plot, the characters, and the devices were all contrived, immature, and unnecessary. The movie had decent cgi, and that was it. The asinine product placement throughout the movie was both an affront to good taste as well as a statement that the producers don't give a shit about the quality of their movie. they managed to make veterans of acting (turtorro and voigt) act like ridiculous and unfunny stereotypes of the characters they were playing). it was low brow, not clever, and unnecessary (but the dialog in general was pretty poorly executed. this was just a horrible mistake on his part. apparently bay's target audience was 15 year olds and NOT the original viewers of the 80s cartoon. The dick and fart jokes that populated the first half of the movie. million year old CLUMSY alien warrior robots. ![]() ![]() yet, for some strange reason, the autobots trample all over sam's mother's garden. This is a sci-fi movie about robots that have been at war for millions of years across the galaxy. For one, plausibility even with suspension of disbelief.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |