|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 24, 2019 1:52:49 GMT
I haven't read reviews but I just saw this tweet by Scott Derrickson: I'm not sure it's very smart to fight with critics TBH. Also Doctor Strange is one of the very few Marvel films that received a NYT pick tick but yes, it wasn't by Scott but by Manohla Dargis who actually spend the day before her review was published posting Steve Ditko drawings on Twitter. She totally understood what Derrickson wanted to say and what he achieved (it doesn't mean she was naive about the cynic aspect of a Hollywood franchise, she mentioned it on her review). Actually I have noticed that Scott hasn't been very nice with Derrickson movies in the past. Dargis also reviewed Sinester and she was nicer but more important she also understood the implications of a monster that lives and brainwash kids from images and films. I just think she is more sensible to Derrickson interests and worries and now I sincerely hope she review Doctor Strange 2!!!! 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Apr 24, 2019 4:04:53 GMT
Scott Derrickson thought it was better than Oscar-worthy:
|
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Apr 24, 2019 4:10:52 GMT
I love superhero movies, but I wouldn't describe them this way, either. 78 so far on Metacritic. I've read quite a few of the reviews, and none mention BC. Hopefully, just because DS is supposed to be dead and they don't want to spoil things, and not because he doesn't have many scenes? Apparently there are so many characters and cameos that some people have very few lines. One did say that (SPOILER): Tilda Swinton appears as the Ancient One again. |
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 24, 2019 4:34:13 GMT
I didn't read AO Scott review but I understand it's positive. It seems the movie is being very well received everywhere! His problem is that he says that these movies will be forgotten because they aren't "great art" because people behind them "have never really tried". IMHO, these movies won't be necessarily forgotten. Why? Because well, it's clear fanboys just don't forget them. There is a big cult around a lot of popular 80s movies that weren't taken seriously by critics then but are revered now and even for some movies that were and are genuinely bad (The Goonies!). Now, I agreed with Derrickson that there are a good number of people behind these movies that take the genre very seriously and try to make great movies. Sure, there are also mercenaries but I don't doubt that people like him, James Gunn, even the TV guy who directed the first Avengers and others really love genre films and films in general. You can like or not their work but they have long careers doing and passionately talking about that stuff. They love and respect what they do. On the other hand, these movies are far of being the underdogs. They make a lot of money, they have legions of fans and they are part of a big machinery. That's what AO Scott is responding! It could sound snobbish and it's snobbish and probably wrong but it's comprehensive why someone could be very cynic about these kind of films. They just eat everything. Thay are practically everything right now! Spoiler: I read what I think it's the plot and it doesn't sound like he has too many scenes. He is there, of course! But it sounds to me that the "resuscited" characters aren't there too much. Maybe I'm wrong, people were more interested in comment other more dramatic plot points! |
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Apr 24, 2019 4:39:12 GMT
I just read the NYTimes review, and I think it is very negative overall. They suggest that Marvel movies don’t really have to be very good because fans will see them and love them no matter what. They may have a point, but it’s a ridiculous and lazy way to write a review! They might as well be talking about any genre of movie and say the exact same thing (“It’s fine for a rom-com/horror/sci-fi movie because rom-com/horror/sci-fi fans are going to love it no matter what”).
And why say that it’s not a masterpiece? Was there an expectation of it being one? What a weird thing to write in a review! Again, you can say that about more than 99% of the movies that come out, so it’s not at all helpful or informative. It always bothers me when reviews dwell on what a movie is not rather than what it is.
I would be terrible at reviewing movies like this because I’m not a fan (even though I’m going to see it). Reviews have to be from the point of view of someone who wanted to see it and was not forced to see it against his will because it’s part of his job.
|
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 24, 2019 4:51:25 GMT
AO Scott has never been a fan. He was one of the first critics being infamously attacked online by fanboys for daring to say that The Avengers was not a good film. I actually agreed with him there! It's more a boring long 90s TV episode uglily filmed with caothic figh scenes and a few wisecracks but again I don't doubt the director (I don't remember his name!) isn't committed to the genre. He has a long career (mostly on 90s TV!) doing and loving that stuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Apr 24, 2019 4:57:20 GMT
Ouch.
|
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Apr 24, 2019 5:18:35 GMT
JOSS WHEDON! Golly, sgev. Creator of the great Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Absolutely *the* best tv show of all time. I liked Avengers. I like all the MCU movies. They speak to people on various levels, they’re (mostly) about doing good and helping others, they’re funny, and they have an amazing number of gorgeous men. Yes, it’s not Shakespeare, but he wrote his stuff for the masses, too.
I don’t understand these snooty attitudes. Like the movies? Great! Enjoy! Don’t like them? Fine. Don’t go see them. A good review is supposed to help you decide whether or not you might like it, and to add depth to your viewing experience. I don’t care about the reviewers personal opinion. I want them to stretch themselves and give interesting, constructive criticism that draws on universal themes and adds inter-textual connections I might not have thought of. God, the art of writing reviews died along with Roger Ebert.
|
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Apr 24, 2019 11:00:49 GMT
I rarely read reviews but I did read one recently about “Highwaymen”, the Netflix movie about the lawmen that tracked down and killed Bonnie and Clyde. This idiot of a reviewer lambasted the movie as being “on the wrong side of history.” His history seemed to be entirely based on the movie version of Bonnie and Clyde starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunnaway. So you know, the guys who killed them must be the bad guys what with B & C being so glamorous and only robbing banks. He seemed to omit the fact that they were in fact evil cold blooded killers who murdered innocent people.
Let’s just say my prejudices about movie critics were reinforced.
The Marvel movies are extremely well made, well cast and very entertaining. They’re not really my thing but I can recognise a job well done when I see it. But to some critics unless the film is only ever destined to be actually seen by 50 people it’s not “art.”
|
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 24, 2019 12:34:30 GMT
That sound as an awful review! Sadly it's part of the democratization of film criticism. It has a good side with everyone writing their opinions and there are a few talented voices out there but a lot of new talent are just ignorant and shallow. I can't imagine old time critics not at least checking the context of the films. When I was very young and loved to read reviews, I used to wonder how it was possible that film critics seemed to have read all the books films were adapted for or knowing all the details of their period time. They seemed to me as intellectuals!
I love to read good reviews that help you to have a better understanding of a film but sadly it's easier that outlets publish something exploitative like that Heather piece than an intelligent analysis of films.
|
|
