Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
The ABCs of Really?
Reviewed Review: http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-abcs-of-death,93344/
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wow. I totally just reviewed Movie 43 up there, didn’t I?
Tasha Robinson’s hit the problems with the horror film industry right on their conjoined heads: A) The genre ‘Horror’ and Thriller’ have been almost inseparably mixed, and B) Horror Films have become an industry. I haven’t seen The ABCs of Death, but I definitely know not to see it now—at least not all of it. Like Movie 43, ABCs of Death is a film anthology of shoe-budget shorts. Except, Movie 43 had a framing device and less gore (and more horror, depending on how bad I heard it was)
Anyway, Miss Robinson handled the movie fairly. As an old-school horror fan, it is my melodramatically biased opinion that she rightfully blasts the film for its scatological humor, as well as the furry section. Furries simply don’t belong in ANYTHING—not even the weird parts of the internet. The fact that there is no framing device is also just disappointing; I’m sure in some interview, the producers said something along the lines of “We’re gonna make the next Creepshow. And it’s gonna be AWESOME!”. Then forgot the frame story. Even if it went with Movie 43’s unoriginal route and made the shorts movie pitches in their own right, the film would have been much more cohesive.
But then Miss Robinson brings up the high points. The claymation segment will probably just gross me out, but I do think it does deserve merit simply because it is such an antiquated and time-honored process. And Wallace and Gromit. Some of the segments she names seem interesting enough (yay, J-Horror), and seem to be very intelligently shot.
..
.
.
.
.
.
Wow. I totally just reviewed Movie 43 up there, didn’t I?
Elliott Noble on Silver Linings Playbook
Although the film is not so recent anymore, I decided to look at Elliott Noble's review on Silver Lining Playbook. Noble adeptly combines analysis and plot summary within his first paragraph, establishing the genre and the main actors in the film all within a sentence. Noble then includes plot details that develop the characters rather than give too much plot away. For example, he tells us that Pat Sr. is an enthusiastic Eagles fan and that he aspires to be a bookie. These details don't spoil the film for us, but rather give us a basis for the main conflict of the film.
One of my favorite lines of his review is when he explains that his summary of the plot "makes it all sound like what might happen if Harry met Sally in the Cuckoo’s Nest." This is a particularly descriptive and eye-catching line because it combines two well-known films to describe Silver Lining Playbook. I haven't seen the film, but I have an idea of what the feeling of the movie is thanks to Noble's simile. Similarly, near the end of his review, when he describes Pat's "pal from the nuthouse" and his role in the film, he also includes the fact that the actor was the dad in Bend It Like Beckham. That little bit of information helped me to immediately connect the name of the actor with a face I could recognize, so I was thankful for the reference.
I also really liked how Noble pointed out that Julia Stiles plays a secondary role in this film while in the early 2000's she would have had the lead role. He explains that having Julia Stiles move to secondary roles works great for a film that is trying to get across an idea of the passage of time and inevitable fate.
Noble's hook seems to be the fact that although this is considered a romantic comedy, Silver Lining Playbook does not follow some of the characteristics of other films in the same genre and is not as saccharine as most other romantic comedies. Instead, this film contains darker humor and satire and, as Noble claims that "for people who wouldn’t normally go near a date movie without dosing up on lithium, this is one playbook that delivers what it says on the cover."
Friday, March 15, 2013
Robin Wood’s “Responsibilities of a Gay Film Critic”
Robin Wood’s “Responsibilities of a Gay Film Critic,” uses part personal narrative and anecdotes, with a discussion of film criticism, and reviews of film and filmmakers. Wood uses what he believes to be a responsible gay criticism to discuss the meaning of criticism, and the work of Renoir, Bergman, and Howard Hawkes. Considered one of the first queer film critics, this article is historically important for queer studies of film, but also interesting in its own discussion of films.
First, Wood seeks to distinguish to groups he finds on polar opposites of the critical spectrum, that is those who ignore queerness entirely with emphasis on normative aspects of film, and those who seek to further “gay” causes. Wood make reference to his own previous work, which sought to ignore gayness in films as part of an attempt to hide his own sexuality. This makes his easiness to criticize those that further gay rights problematic. Wood is still clinging to a kind of self destructive conservatism that is not entirely warranted. As anyone can say a broader purpose of queer studies, like race studies, is to broaden our understanding of current sexual categories which are not fixed, but on the contrary culturally constructed. Whether intentionally or not, this furthers the inherent voices of the gay movement by supporting a claim that normality is subjective. Wood then claims that sexuality and ideology need to be distinguished as different categories. Critics should not attempt to equate non-normative with normative, but instead show how normative structure repress minorities.
Wood then focuses a lens on films to show how a gay critical approach should function. Wood claims that Jean Renoirs’ The Rules of the Game, shows a changing world influenced by Renoirs prepossession with impressionism, and the use of triangular relationships. Wood makes an excellent point that usually relationship triangles are presented to give a character a choice between individuals. This structure cannot avoid supporting the normative family and love structure. In Renoirs films though he uses a female character with about 5 men. Controversy exists about whether the film is satire or demonstrating a repressive system. Wood focuses on the evolving social dynamics and changing pairs, which creates a space for experimentation. Wood discusses how the style and method of the film reinforce the unclear couplings in the film. Wood claims Renoir has a kind of promiscuity in his directing, focus vacillating between one character to another, exit and entrance, and changing the focus in scenery. Although the film does not show sex overtly, it is inherent in the plot of the film. This allows the film to transcend morals or norms.
After showing Renoirs subversive film, Wood updates his previous views on film director Bergman. Wood shows how Bergman has maid the claim that he has no ideology because he does not have one to begin with. I agree with Wood, that consciousness is not exclusive to presenting culturally constructed meaning in artistic forms, such as film or writing. Wood then discusses the work of Howard Hawkes. His film’s are occasions for cross-dressing, which Wood feels can be connected to the classical role reversal narrative.
Robin Wood can be viewed as a foundational critic in queer film studies. His popularity and scholarly work have added to the knowledge of queer studies, and made the case for the importance of studying film’s for non-normative identities and sexualities. His personal narrative elements are necessary to explain his large change in opinions, although it is still a bit jarring to have such access to a critics personal life. As a stylistic device, I believe it lessens Wood’s arguments, as he clearly uses his personal experiences and life to influence his opinions on films. I believe he is attempting to combat this idea in this article, however it is not successful or clear. Perhaps a quick section discussing his personal life, only once, would have made his arguments better, instead of inserting various anecdotes throughout. Despite, these questionable elements, the article is still extremely historically important, and his review of The Rules of the Game, immediately captivated my attention.
Linda Barnard on Identity Thief
I watched Idenity Thief at a barbershop last week and nearly lost all of my brain cells. It was such a terrible viewing experience for me. It's no suprise that the film only has a 23% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Linda Barnard was a critique that wanted to sum all of the bad intentions that someone may feel about the movie. I agree that the actors are kind of thrust into a lazily chopped up piece that they wouldn't know the first thing about saving. Barnard emphasizes the defiencies in the plot and then goes on to bash the writer and the director. According to her, all the characters are generic ones of different economic and social backgrounds being thrown together instead of a natural symmetry occurring. The main point is that when Identity Thief tries to touch a sentimental side, it gets lost in the slapstick underlyings of the film. Overall, Linda Barnard is not fooled by the masquerade and quickly deciphers the swings and misses. Her word choice lended well to her personality as one of a strong one not falling for the con that is watching Identiy Thief. The good thing is that the foul wording never felt out of place because it remained consistent from the beginning to the end. It's really good that she makes it clear to viewers that there is nothing in the film worth spending the money for. Not the best bad review I've ever read, but a neccessarily harsh one indeed.
Robert Denerstein on The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
Denerstein gives a favorable review to this all star comedy ensemble. Opening right away on the 'big name' parts of Steve Carell, Steve Buscemi, Jim Carrey, Alan Arkin and James Gandolfini; he draws you in with the talent. He does this for a clear reason: you're going to see a movie with a lot of laughs but not a lot of plot. He dives into the basic plot to let you know the scenario: two buddies used to be hotshots but are fading, they'll go through some troubles with a wacky villain, and they'll pull through.
Reduced to those three points, the film could be Anchorman, Blades of Glory, or any other Will Ferrell vehicle (except Casa De Mi Padre). But that isn't bad, he says. The Laughs are constant and the characters hold up the whole way through. He also notes that the director of popular prime time comedy hit 30 Rock, Don Scardino, to draw in as many comedy fans as he can.
Overall, the review was pleasant to read. He was clearly favorable, but didn't over do it. He as able to sway me to want to see the film.
Denerstein gives a favorable review to this all star comedy ensemble. Opening right away on the 'big name' parts of Steve Carell, Steve Buscemi, Jim Carrey, Alan Arkin and James Gandolfini; he draws you in with the talent. He does this for a clear reason: you're going to see a movie with a lot of laughs but not a lot of plot. He dives into the basic plot to let you know the scenario: two buddies used to be hotshots but are fading, they'll go through some troubles with a wacky villain, and they'll pull through.
Reduced to those three points, the film could be Anchorman, Blades of Glory, or any other Will Ferrell vehicle (except Casa De Mi Padre). But that isn't bad, he says. The Laughs are constant and the characters hold up the whole way through. He also notes that the director of popular prime time comedy hit 30 Rock, Don Scardino, to draw in as many comedy fans as he can.
Overall, the review was pleasant to read. He was clearly favorable, but didn't over do it. He as able to sway me to want to see the film.
Nathan Rabin on Burt Wonderstone
Nathan Rabin gives The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, directed by Don Scardino, a lukewarm review on the grounds that its attempted emotional connection with the audience comes off as "pandering" and utilizes "practiced schmatlz ." He criticizes the plot of the movie for featuring dated and rehashed content and devices and the humor in the script for being full of cheap shots: "was anyone really dying to see someone take Vegas-style magicians down a peg?"
Rabin doesn't speak much to the performances of the actors in the film, except for a brief jibe at Jim Carrey's facial hair and some even briefer praise of Steve Carrel's ability to bring out the humor in his role. Plot summary in this review is minimal. Rabin explains that the story revolves around the development of a magician's professional career, from his start as a child with a magic kit to his life in the Las Vegas professional magic circuit.
This is a very negative review, Rabin seems to have nothing good to say about this movie and yet awarded it a C+ on the scale with which the A.V. Club rates the movies it reviews.
Rabin doesn't speak much to the performances of the actors in the film, except for a brief jibe at Jim Carrey's facial hair and some even briefer praise of Steve Carrel's ability to bring out the humor in his role. Plot summary in this review is minimal. Rabin explains that the story revolves around the development of a magician's professional career, from his start as a child with a magic kit to his life in the Las Vegas professional magic circuit.
This is a very negative review, Rabin seems to have nothing good to say about this movie and yet awarded it a C+ on the scale with which the A.V. Club rates the movies it reviews.
Sam Adams' review of Lincoln
Lincoln
Reviewed by
Sam Adams
Sam Adams’ articles
seem aimed at particular types of readers: those whose vocabulary is
extensive, and those who enjoy learning new words. He has an arsenal
of fancy words that are unleashed in every review he writes that,
when combined with his snarky and sarcastic attitude, may seem like
he’s condescending to the average reader. (Personally, I appreciate
the effective use of ten cent words, even if I do need to break out
my trusty dictionary app for them.) I don’t think he is talking
down to people so much as he is just writing something he would want
to read himself, but I could understand if someone just looking for a
basic review got a bit frustrated with his analysis.
That said I think Adams’
critique of this movie is quite insightful. Despite his wordy style,
he does paint a clear picture of his thoughts on the movie. He
explains that this movie details how Lincoln went about affecting the
future of our nation rather than relating what kind of man or leader
he was. I got the feeling that Adams saw
Lincoln as a glorified two and a half hour
block of CSPAN that took away from the solemn, pensive, and
unflappable Abraham Lincoln we learned about growing up, instead
portraying him as what he really was: a politician. I will give kudos
to Adams for his line about Lincoln’s “copper-bright image”
though, because that seriously made me chuckle.
Adams’
graded Lincoln a B+,
which is not something you would expect to be given to a movie with
12 Academy Award nominations, but he does make some valid points
about the not-so-realistic aspects of the film. His digs at Steven
Spielberg’s directorial decisions and Daniel Day-Lewis’
performance lead me to believe that he is either an Abraham Lincoln
fan who didn’t appreciate how the movie deviated from the well
known tales of the 16th
President, or just someone who likes to disagree with most anything
coming from big time Hollywood players. I’m willing to bet that
it’s a bit of both.
Stephen Totilo writing for the New York Times-New Simcity
Mr. Totilo captures everything about the complexity that is the Simcity franchise in this critical article and breaks it down into simplicity. He makes it simple to understand that Simcity is a beloved, long standing, franchise about micro management. The article then goes into depth about the games initial launch problems. This article was of keen interest to me, because I've been a dedicated Simcity fan since the days of the Super Nintendo. Totilo explains that despite all the hype, fanfare, and adulation at a new Simcity, the publisher, Electronic Arts, struggled to get it working. This new Simcity is restricted to playing only while connected to the internet. You cannot play unless you have a reliable connection to the Electronic Arts servers. You have to be connected even if you want to play solo. Totilo is very diplomatic in his criticism of how EA handled the situation, and waxes intellectual about the state of gaming towards the end of his article.
It's a well written and well thought piece on a game that has a strong fan base. Simcity players are dedicated to perfection. This launch was anything but, and Totilo, again, gets at every angle.
It's a well written and well thought piece on a game that has a strong fan base. Simcity players are dedicated to perfection. This launch was anything but, and Totilo, again, gets at every angle.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Dana Stevens Examines David Cronenberg's Spare Imagery
In her 2007 review of David Cronenberg's Eastern Promises, Dana Stevens is impressed with the manner in which the director approaches violent imagery. Steven's suggests that the violence in this film and his other, earlier works is often disturbing and difficult to watch, but somehow, never gratuitous. All of Cronenberg's films contain a cold austerity that is impossible to ignore. Of course, Eastern Promises will always be associated with Viggo Mortensen's literal balls-out performance as Nikolai, due to one gruesome fight scene in a sauna. In it, he defeats three huge men while completely naked. Though this sequence attracted a lot of attention, there is much more to this film than this admittedly well choreographed and noteworthy moment.
As always, Cronenberg is able to create mood and atmosphere with stark empty settings and shadows. The slow unraveling of the story becomes, in Steven's assessment, an "elegant treatise on the metaphysics of violence". It is interesting to note that though she finds Cronenberg's use of violence, "unsettling", here, it is still somehow less so than that of Quentin Tarantino. Perhaps because she perceives a kind of "social use" in Cronenberg's violence, as it is always a "tool of the powerful", "a rite of passage", or "an erotic game". Though I'd argue that Tarantino, too, sees violence in much the same way, his usage of it is perhaps not as refined or "elegant", and as such, is less effective for Stevens.
Stevens notes a few minor plot flaws in the film and the slightly under-developed character of Anna (Naomi Watts), but finds that, for the most part, these are almost unnoticeable due to Cronenberg's expert direction. This alongside Mortensen's "amazing, charismatic and beautiful" performance is enough for Steven's to determine Eastern Promises a success.
Article Link:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2007/09/eastern_promises.html?_r=true
As always, Cronenberg is able to create mood and atmosphere with stark empty settings and shadows. The slow unraveling of the story becomes, in Steven's assessment, an "elegant treatise on the metaphysics of violence". It is interesting to note that though she finds Cronenberg's use of violence, "unsettling", here, it is still somehow less so than that of Quentin Tarantino. Perhaps because she perceives a kind of "social use" in Cronenberg's violence, as it is always a "tool of the powerful", "a rite of passage", or "an erotic game". Though I'd argue that Tarantino, too, sees violence in much the same way, his usage of it is perhaps not as refined or "elegant", and as such, is less effective for Stevens.
Stevens notes a few minor plot flaws in the film and the slightly under-developed character of Anna (Naomi Watts), but finds that, for the most part, these are almost unnoticeable due to Cronenberg's expert direction. This alongside Mortensen's "amazing, charismatic and beautiful" performance is enough for Steven's to determine Eastern Promises a success.
Article Link:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2007/09/eastern_promises.html?_r=true
Monday, March 11, 2013
Manohla Dargis' review on Oz the Great and Powerful
Review link - http://movies.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/movies/oz-the-great-and-powerful-starring-james-franco.html?ref=manohladargis
Manohla Dargis begins
her review of Oz the Great and Powerful
by immediately bashing it. The first sentence is a question of whether or not
major studios can create magic, which is a good hook, but her swift scathing
response makes the reader wonder if there is more of a reason why she loathes
the film other than it having “a dispiriting, infuriating jumble of big money, small ideas and ugly
visuals.” This is the second review I have read by Dargis, and it appears she
feels immense pleasure from cruelly criticizing films as if she were truly
superior to film producers and directors. What gives her the credibility to do
this?
Dargis supports her critique by writing that Oz the Great and Powerful has “backwards
ideas” about females. There are numerous films that portray women as
individuals to be looked down upon – Disney classics are a prime example of
this. Dargis praises Disney for creating magical characters such as Tinker Bell,
but Disney is known for portraying princesses as damsels in distress – the only
way they can be saved and live happily ever after is to marry prince charming.
Dargis does not explain why she thinks Oz
the Great and Powerful is offensive to females other than describing the
female characters as having digitally altered faces and revealing that the
wicked witch falls for Oz; she turns green with envy when Oz shows affection
for “a pretty blonde”. Are readers who haven’t seen the movie supposed to
assume the blonde is Glinda the good witch? She does give background
information on L. Frank Baum’s (author of The
Wonderful Wizard of Oz) feminist mother-in-law who influenced Baum’s
renowned story. This background information is not useful to the reader and it
does not prove Dargis’ argument. She even brings up the sequel to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz; she thinks
it is relevant because it is a parody of the suffrage movement. She should have
had a legitimate argument as to why the film is offensive to females. It
appears like the main reason Dargis does not like the film is because Dorothy
does not appear, and the film is all about Oz. The film is titled Oz the Great and Powerful – is this
title misleading as to which character is the film’s focus?
Dargis even says the visuals are “ugly.” Readers will
probably question why Dargis writes this. Everyone has different opinions and
tastes, but it seems as if Dargis thinks only her opinions and tastes matter. She
provides some plot summary, but it probably does not do the film justice. She
writes that Oz is a man who has commitment issues and he has an “unfunny flying
monkey” sidekick. She does not provide any plot summary that might be useful to
readers’ decisions whether or not they should see the movie. Dargis’ review
makes readers doubt her credibility as a critic because she writes as if she is
biased. Readers will most likely get bored with the review because it bashes
the film without providing a credible argument. This review had potential to be
credible. It would have been readable if Dargis addressed the film’s
shortcomings and provided reasons why these shortcomings make the film a disappointment.
At the end of the review, Dargis says that The
Wizard of Oz has a moral – “there’s no place like home.” Is she
disappointed with Oz the Great and
Powerful because it does not have a moral? Readers don’t know because
Dargis does not write about it. She says that Dorothy is a relatable character.
By saying this, is she also expressing that Oz in Oz the Great and Powerful is not relatable? It just seems as if
Dorothy is Dargis’ favorite character in film history and lashes out at Oz the Great and Powerful like a pouting
child because her favorite childhood character is absent.
Robert Wilonsky review on the movie Pride
Chrisandra Robinson
Critique Watch Blog: Robert Wilonsky
Review Writing
Pride
Robert Wilonsky did
another review on the movie called, "pride" he starts off by
introducing the director and then he begins to elaborate on the plot summary
and the whole point of the movie. The way he explains the plot summary it
reveals that he know the history behind the movie by telling the reader that
the movie is based on a true story. He introduces Jim Ellis played by Terrance
Howard which is the coach of the black swimmers. Robert Wilonsky introduces him
because he is a well-known actor and one of the main characters in the movie.
In the review he gives background information about Jim Ellis. He talks about
how Jim Ellis ( Terrance Howard) use to swim, which was much needed information
because this information reveal to the reader that Jim Ellis went through the
same problems his team is going through. Jim Ellis swam against white competitors
whom mistreated him as well and never gave him a chance to show off his talent.
Another reason why this was a good to reveal to the reader is because Jim Ellis
became the young men coach and a lot of coaches are good coaches because they once played the sport
they are coaching, which shows they know what they are doing and the problems
their team will be faced with. Furthermore, it gave a sense of realism because
the coach went through what the boys are going through, which happens also in
the real world. I think Robert Wilonsky used the tern black swimmers because
that's what the white competitors viewed them as. They only seen their race not
how good of a swimmer they were, and I think Robert Wilonsky explained the plot
summary well because he got straight to the point. In the review one can tell
that Robery Wilonsky enjoy Terrance Howard acting because when describing his
performance he is very sarcastic. He said things like, “when is he not good”.
Then he began to talk a little about the soundtrack, which gives the reader a sense
of the time period the movie was in. I love the way he reviewed this movie
because it was very clear and straight to the point. There was also humor in
his review even though this movie can be sad, which made it enjoyable to read
and actually want to see the movie. I've seen the movie and I think he
discussed the major points and showed off by knowing some background about the
movie, director, and actors. He thoroughly addressed every aspect of the movie,
which was the performance, plot summary, soundtrack, history of the film and
more. This review was way more approving than his last review that he did on
love and basketball because I totally disagreed with how he viewed that movie. In
that film a personal critique was given, which made it seem like anybody could have
came up with that storyline.
The feature debut from South African director Sunu Gonera is straight from the sports-film playbook, the one in which an underdog team coached by an obstinate overachiever overcomes obstacles and adversity to take home the gold. It's Hoosiersin a swimming pool—well, Glory Road, anyway, given this is about a group of black swimmers competing against all-white teams who wouldn't toss the brothers a life preserver if they were drowning in the deep end. Like most sports pics, Prideis based on a true-life tale, that of Jim Ellis (played here by Terrence Howard), a former college swimmer who, in the 1970s, resuscitates a Philly rec center by filling the pool with water and some neighborhood kids with hope. Destined to be drug-runners for a dangerous but ultimately dim neighborhood thug, the kids instead excel between the lane ropes. If everything about the movie is overly familiar, at least Gonera and his writers get the details right; the pool sequences capture the isolation of the competitive swimmer who crawls for miles in lonely, aching silence. Howard, playing Ellis with equal measures of desperation and determination, is terrific—when is he not? Better still is Bernie Mac as the rec center's janitor, who is suspicious of Ellis's motives until at last he dives in. If nothing else, Pridehas the best sports-film soundtrack ever—Philly funk and soul, '70s style. And hell, that'll get ya wet.
'Pride'
Details
Pride
Directed by Sunu Gonera
Lionsgate, opens March 23
Directed by Sunu Gonera
Lionsgate, opens March 23
Related Content
More About
Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)