ST The Rise of Skywalker - Reviews/Reactions Thread (See Warning On Page 98)

AHHH. yes yes. id say you cant count on it from multiple critics come the end of embargo.

 

Hopefully they won't get their reviews confused. "Cats - Best since Empire!"

 

Don't forget the bribe money Disney paid for Captain Marvel reviews. Not only that but they were also buying tickets for Captain Marvel to inflate it's box office numbers!

 

Me too and I hope he hates it as it seems every film he likes I hate.

 

you hate both blade runner movies, that does make me sad

I love adam driver, you can tell he hates interviews. but he does great work for the men and women of our military

 

I'm waiting for Roz Weston of Canadian ET, who did the best TLJ review...

 

Both blade runner films are genius

 

those are mark kermode's favorite movies, he likes the first blade runner so much he even made a documentary about it.

 

He did can't wait for him to complete his own special aged stae tripligy with Indy, solo and deckard

 

huh?

 

He reprised his three classic roles

 

This is a joke right?

 

No need to pay anyone. There are already critics who care nothing about movies, but instead care only about the social agendas the movies promote. A good review is contingent on the promotion of these agendas. It's not bribery, but it's also not an honest review of the work of art.

 

So hard to gauge something like that.

Im not disagreeing.

 

Who are you to say what is or isn't an honest review of art?

 

It feels like you're making assumptions based upon the fact some people might have a very specific point of view. But whatever it takes to discredit people right?

 

I'm a person with the right to an opinion, just like you. This is a forum to present our thoughts. I mean, who are you to ask that question of me?

If your premise is that a film critic has the right to critique a film based on any parameters they choose, then you've essentially taken any meaning at all out of what a critical review is supposed to be. By this standard, a racist film critic can hate a movie based on the cast, and you would consider it an honest critical review. If a Nazi writes a review panning Schindler's List, citing their own evil perspectives as the sole reason for their hatred, it would be an honest critical review of the film? If someone decides they want to give a movie five out of five stars because of its social messaging despite having never seen the movie, it would be an honest critical review? What are your standards?

Sure, anyone can review based on any criteria they want, but an honest critical review, IMO, is one that attempts to judge a movie based on its artistic merits, not the critic's own personal agenda. IMO. a movie doesn't deserve a positive critical review simply because it has a diverse cast, or promotes climate change, or whatever. I believe some critics clearly base their reviews on their own agendas as opposed to the movie's artistic merits. If you don't see this, fine. Whatever, feel free to disagree. Not sure why you need to always make it personal.

 

I'm not sure asking a question and accusing someone of being dishonest are quite equivalent, but hey, you do you.

 

These are complete strawmen. It's the same as you not liking a movie because the social messaging is too overt, someone may like a film because they agree with the film messaging. Who are these critics who review films without ever seeing them?

By your own standard you wouldn't be able to criticise an alt-right film because of it's messaging, but only upon it's 'artistic merit'. It's social messaging is part of its artist merit.

I'm not making this personal but you're going after other people because you feel that they don't have a review criteria that you like, or you perceive them to be biased, but I doubt that you discount all the numerous TLJ reviews that were based upon unsavoury perspectives (again, not all obviously, but there still were quite a few still). You've applied this specifically to a group of people that you don't think are honest, when it's a problem generally that people have biases.

 

FIrst of all, I would definitely reject any review that hated TLJ solely on its messaging.

IMO, a review is like a taste test. In a taste test, you let people try two different sodas, and then you ask them which one tastes better. You don't tell them how many calories each drink has. You don't them whether one of the sodas is made with negative environmental impact. You don't tell them how much the workers in the soda factory earn.

Because once people start to judge the taste based on factors other than taste, its no longer an honest taste test.

And that's what I mean by an "honest" review. To interpret that as meaning the critic, if you want to even call them that, is purposely lying in order to promote their agenda was obviously not my point. When I say honest review, I mean a review that adheres to the question at hand. Is it a good movie?

If the fact that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and The Irishman don't have any good roles for women makes them bad movies, then IMO, that is not an honest way of reviewing a movie. I'm not calling the person a liar. They probably don't even know what they're doing. I'm saying they're not delivering a critical review. Have you ever seen a Parental Review? A review that is meant to show parents whether a movie is appropriate for kids. That is not the same as a critical review. IMO, to confuse the two is wrong. A review that lauds a movie for its positive social messaging is not the same as a critical review. That is my opinion.

If someone wants to write that kind of "review" they should call it what it is...a health review, or a social benefit review, or whatever. That's not movie criticism.

 

This is a completely arbitrary and false definition of what film criticism is in my opinion, because it says that films should only be about enjoyment. Film criticism has always involved criticism of the messaging and themes as well as other aspects. You can't, and I'd argue you shouldn't, divorce the film from the themes and messaging contained within - these are fundamental aspects of film. It's an inherent aspect of the film which should be critically assessed. It would be plainly bad film criticism to say that a pro-fascist film was good, despite advocating genocide, sexism, homophobia and authoritarian government. Criticism of a film, given its social context, involves being critical of things like representation and what the film say about things. If you think film should just be about entertainment value and nothing then read a film critic that just (somehow) assesses the enjoyment factor in a vacuum. But don't say that people who assess themes and messages aren't film critics - they are just as much film critics.

 

^ You're welcome to you're opinion. But if my definition of film criticism is arbitrary, what does that make yours? We just disagree.

 

How film criticism has always been approached. I'm not accusing a profession of being dishonest. They should assess enjoyment and it's themes and messages.

 

Since you're clearly not even reading what I'm writing at this point, let's agree to disagree.