CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Reviews, Agendas, and Reliability
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reviews, Agendas, and Reliability

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 

I don't want to do this on the main page because it may come off wrong. I have a specific approach to writing reviews. I review the movie. I don't review myself, don't write for my peers (because cactii don't read), and try not to put too much of ME into the review. At least for theatrical stuff. That's one approach. Obviously Armond White writes reviews from some weird Kaufman-esque corner crying for attention while others have their "schtick".

 

I personally don't really trust or like a lot of the reviewers out there right now but I think this would be a fun place to link reviews from the web and actually kind of shine a light on the stuff being done. Praising good work and calling people out for bad work.

 

The thing that sparked me was this morning I saw two reviews go up for a film that I literally could have told you exactly what they were going to say based solely on the byline, film, and creator of the film. For better or worse.

 

Harry Knowles: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/49854

Devin Faraci: http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/06/01/movie-review-super-8-makes-us-nostalgic-for-spielberg-movies-because-they-work

 

Where do you guys stand on this? Obviously you read CHUD so you know how we do our shit, mileage obviously varying writer to writer.

 

I personally don't trust either review above based on my approach (and that has NOTHING to do with my personal relationships with either reviewer). I just am horribly tainted now when it comes to reading other people's reviews.

 

You?

post #2 of 57

I’m of the view that you can’t have objective reviews. As such I find that I follow certain reviewers and kind of work out their blind spots and their fetishes. Work out what they’re going to go easy on, what they’re going to be super tough about, and how that aligns to my personal taste. As such I know going in that Harry is literally the easiest person in the world to please, as long as the film conforms to his basic expectations. It’s why I really like the Tag-Team reviews, it’s great to see people butt-heads or have to negotiate their position a little.

post #3 of 57

 

I don't understand, Nick. What do you mean when you say "Agendas and Reliability"? 'cos that implies pretty ugly things...
 
I'm with Spike in that I don't think it's possible to completely take yourself out of a review. And I don't expect you to either. That's the reason I enjoy your reviews and also the reason I enjoy Devin's. You guys have particular tastes that more often than not jibe with my own.
 
And Harry? Well I could've told you he'd like this movie when I heard it was going to be filmed with cameras and projected on a screen.
post #4 of 57
Thread Starter 

Armond White has an agenda. It has nothing to do with the film.

post #5 of 57

Armond White's belief system is stringent and conservative. He believes that the measure of a film's worth lies in it's basic humanism, i.e.a film that extols the very best virtues of being human. Which is why he is mostly against darker or more artistically opaque pictures (The Dark Knight and There Will Be Blood, two recent White targets), because he doesn't think they are mining for optimism as much as cynicism. In short, he doesn't find the truth in naturally offhanded, cynical pictures. It's a philosophy I don't agree with, but it's a consistently fascinating one, and he often makes great points backed up by a strong knowledge of film history.

 

Everyone has an agenda. Otherwise, no one would be writing about movies.

post #6 of 57

Knowles lost me back in '99 when he praised The Insider to no end while guest-hosting on Ebert's show, then backed off considerably on his own website, his comments ranging from lukewarm to just plain cold.  Funny.

 

I've read enough of Faraci and Knowles over the past decade to have an idea of which way they'll go when reviewing a film.  Neither makes much of an impact on me - I've found over time my tastes tend to line up more with Nick or Mr. Beaks.

post #7 of 57

I happen to agree with most of the sentiments in the first post. I have been guilty in the past of putting myself into my reviews which I am trying to get away from. When you are talking about Mr Knowles though its best just not to read his review and skip to the more reliable talkbackers who tell it like it is. If you went in and accepted Mr Knowles words as gospel then you would come out of most summer blockbusters feeling underwhelmed. Just because some all child cast reminded him of a barbecue he went to in the summer of 78 or whatever doesn't make it a good film. Hey Harry hows the writing, the direction, the performances etc?

 

With Devin I got to be honest I have liked some of his reviews. It seems to me though that nowadays he often goes against the general concensus just to be 'out there' or for shock value. Even going so far as to put a dampener on films most otehrs are looking forward to even before they have been seen (Green Lantern, Hangover 2) . He was overly critical of Thor for one, but there again in the end of his District 9 review he did call it the film of the decade as well so he is as capable of hyperbole and Lord Knowles...

 

Although he still injects too much of himself in the reviews at times, I find that I generally enjoy Drew McWeeney's take on films and find him pretty unbiased and fair. He seems to have really grown since leaving AICN and starting HitFix as well..

 

So yeah both are predictable somewhat but each to their own, opinions are like assholes and all that....

post #8 of 57

Would this be the time to bring up the CHUD.com and Guy.com quotes on DEEP GOLD newspaper ads?

post #9 of 57

A film can't be reviewed objectively because it's not a product like a blender or a lawnmower, so why even try? I read particular reviewers because I understand where they're coming from and base my thoughts on what I know about their personalities in comparison to my own. I wouldn't continue to read Ebert or whoever if I didn't find them to be interesting people.

 

What others might call an unbiased review, I'd call a pointless review.


Edited by Andrew O. - 6/1/11 at 9:54am
post #10 of 57

Actually, never mind.

post #11 of 57

I've found myself gravitating toward reviews of older films that really go in depth, looking at not only the stories themselves but how they're told through camera angles, editing, costumes, etc. I've had less patience with theatrical reviews lately, but I'd like to see all types of film-related writing in this roundup.

post #12 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devin Faraci View Post

Would this be the time to bring up the CHUD.com and Guy.com quotes on DEEP GOLD newspaper ads?



Not taking the bait. This is a discussion on people's brands and whatnot, not an attack in any way. In fact, I linked to your review.

post #13 of 57

Lloyd, I thought Devin was/is pretty excited for Green Lantern. As for predicting his Super 8 review, anyone on Twitter could have gotten the gist of his issues with the film before the review was published.

 

But I didn't read the review. I read reviews after I see the movies. Occasionally I'll use "buzz" to gauge whether I'm making it to the theater for one reason or another, but individual reviews? You're all just a bunch of dudes (and Elisabeth) pissing in the wind, in the grand scheme of things. If internet reviews ever made a dent in audience's decisions to see a movie, they sure don't anymore. It's why scoops and online feuds are the hit-getters, not the reviews (although a well-reasoned dissenting opinion tends to stir the pot, but I don't see that as a bad thing).

post #14 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post

But I didn't read the review. I read reviews after I see the movies. Occasionally I'll use "buzz" to gauge whether I'm making it to the theater for one reason or another, but individual reviews? You're all just a bunch of dudes (and Elisabeth) pissing in the wind, in the grand scheme of things. If internet reviews ever made a dent in audience's decisions to see a movie, they sure don't anymore. It's why scoops and online feuds are the hit-getters, not the reviews (although a well-reasoned dissenting opinion tends to stir the pot, but I don't see that as a bad thing).


This is my policy in general. I tend to like to read reviews after having seen a film to open my eyes to shit I didn't pick up on/feel bad about having shitty taste.

 

post #15 of 57
Thread Starter 

So, you guys read them sort of as entertainment or to see how others interpret it after the fact? That's healthy.

post #16 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata View Post

So, you guys read them sort of as entertainment or to see how others interpret it after the fact? That's healthy.


 

Little column A, little column B. I have critics I read, and have been reading for years, and just as I don't want a friend coloring my perception of a movie beforehand, I want these film critic "friends" to weigh in only after I've seen the film. Couple that with the interactive element we now have, and you can actually engage that critic afterward, once you're both on the common ground of having seen the film. It's weird to rail against them or fist pump a "fuck yeah" before I fully know what it is they're critiquing.

post #17 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata View Post

So, you guys read them sort of as entertainment or to see how others interpret it after the fact? That's healthy.


The thing is that it's too easy to colour your experience of a film going in, expect it to play like A and have it turn out like B and be mad at the film for it. I like reviews which are more analytical, which really go into detail about why stuff that I thought was just 'pretty cool' is actually cinematically impressive.

 

Edit: I didn't mean to make a dumber version of Phil's post. Looks like we posted at exactly the same time.

post #18 of 57

It depends.  There are certain films I KNOW I'm going to see.  If that's the case, I'll read the review (of a writer I trust and whose work I enjoy reading) after seeing it.  But if that writer has a positive review for something I had previously dismissed, I'll skim through it to get a general sense of what goodness to look forward to.  Then I'll see the film just to be able to read the review and talk about it with others.

post #19 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata View Post

So, you guys read them sort of as entertainment or to see how others interpret it after the fact? That's healthy.


Yep that's usually what I do too. I can decide for myself what I do and do not want to see. (Worthwhile) Reviews are for the discussion afterwards.
post #20 of 57

Usually I read everything I can beforehand, freak out about it, lob unfounded accusations at people through anonymous comment sections, and then update my homemade Tomatometer.

post #21 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devin Faraci View Post

Would this be the time to bring up the CHUD.com and Guy.com quotes on DEEP GOLD newspaper ads?



Oi vey, how do you get through life with skin so fucking thin?

 

Anyway, the only reviewer I read reguarly is Roger Ebert since he writes so well.  He generally keeps personal details out of his reviews, but if they slip in they amount to something. It doesn't read like he's trying to be  the star of his critical review, the same cannot be said of many of the web writers out there. 

post #22 of 57

CreepyThinMan here,

 

The problem is this Nick; when it comes to film critics like you, Faraci, McWeeny and Knowles, in the back of my mind I have to always be wondering if you are telling me the truth about how you really feel about a movie or if there's some sort of ulterior motive. I may rant and rave but I'm telling you my honest feelings about something when I provide an analysis of a movie. Of course, all reviews are subjective but when I talk movies, I usually go on about the story, structure, Direction, cinematography, production design, the theme's and subtext of the movie as well as things that could have made it better.

 

But I know that a lot of you internet critics like to butter up various movie makers and kiss the asses of those who cater to your ego by giving you interviews, freebies, sneak previews and premiere tickets. We also know that all of you want to work in the movies and, like Mick Garris, will use your position and access to suck up to whoever might give you a break. To me this seems like the obvious reason why you have been polishing Guillermo Del Toro's knob for almost a decade which has landed you a credit on the Don't be Afraid of the Dark remake. Don’t get me wrong, good for you, but it makes everything you do look like that of a scheming hack whose real aspirations is to make money and become famous as opposed to actually creating innovative and challenging cinema. You alternate between pretentiousness while also deflecting charges of snobbery with self-deprecating humor. It's rather obvious and you're not fooling anyone except for the mindless plebs here who praise every brainfart that the writers of this site have. Everyone else who says otherwise gets banned.

 

You, and CHUD’s, well documented hatred of Kevin Smith is testament to this. You alternately despise him because he’s successful, in his own way, while lamenting that you could create soo much better cinema than he does if you had his resources. But instead of actually going out there and, you know, MAKING A MOVIE, you’d rather suck up to whoever you think will give you a shot. Kevin Smith is no different than every guy on CHUD, AICN and every other message board out there who would love to make movies. Give or take a few hundred pounds. Smith is doing his own this and you rail against him for not making Lord of the Rings which supports my thesis that all you really care about is wealth, fame, status and accolades. What the fuck do you care if he’s content to make movies about dick and fart jokes?

 

Anyway, getting back to internet critics, I can hardly take someone like Faraci seriously when he actively campaigns against movies like The Dark Knight while also advocating lawsuits against Avatar. I’m not a mindless fanboy of either movie as they both have their strengths and weaknesses. But Faraci’s behaviors is completely un-fucking-professional for someone who claims to be a critic and a journalist. Of course the term “journalist” is usually synonymous with “SHILL” as we’ve seen you, Faraci, McWeeny and Knowles use your position to grease fill your pockets while trying to climb up the Hollywood food chain.

 

Seriously, Paramount gave internet critics a free screening of G.I. Joe, before mainstream critics, and they had all of you eating out of the palm of their fucking hand. Faraci himself was on here praising that piece of fucking shit and not one single asshole that saw the movie had the balls to call it out for being the fucking wretched piece of fucking trash that it was for fear of losing access and not getting future preferential treatment by the studio’s. The studio’s may have worried about internet sites like CHUD and AICN a decade ago but they now know how to play you by dangling carrots in front of your faces. Do I really need to trot out every single review from Knowles where he slobbered over some rancid pile of shit because he got flown to the premiere and was given pweasants? He actively fucking lobbies for free shit for fuck sakes.

 

With CHUD and AICN, I see two groups of people who have similar goals. On the one hand CHUD is rife with stuck-up assholes with superiority complexes who cop to watching low grade exploitation flicks and outright trash just so that they can claim to enjoy it purely on an “ironic” level because they can’t admit that they genuinely like watching that’s sort of stuff. Then you have Knowles who pretends to be this simpleton which masks his craven deviousness in getting whatever he wants like the gluttonous scumbag that he is.

But at the heart of both sites are people who desperately covet money, success and fame just like everyone else that is honest with themselves. You can wax philosophic about movies all you like but when you use your position to suck Hollywood dick, you discredit yourselves as nothing more than bottom feeders.

 

 

post #23 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devin Faraci View Post

Would this be the time to bring up the CHUD.com and Guy.com quotes on DEEP GOLD newspaper ads?



How about we bring up the fact that you called the man who gave you your break a "deadbeat" because he was late on a check? Besides, I'm surprised you have time to post what with your tongue in Joss Whedon's ear.

post #24 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata View Post

So, you guys read them sort of as entertainment or to see how others interpret it after the fact? That's healthy.



....yes?  

 

Is this a trick question?

post #25 of 57
Thread Starter 

I'm just intrigued. I'm trying to evolve my style and I don't want to get more strict or dense or whatever. I want it to be fun, but I want it to deliver what I feel cuts to the essence of a film. I think there are some excellent writers out there (Devin especially) who write "better" reviews than I do. I just dunno what people are looking for anymore. People are so different now as an audience then when I started.

post #26 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata View Post

I'm just intrigued. I'm trying to evolve my style and I don't want to get more strict or dense or whatever. I want it to be fun, but I want it to deliver what I feel cuts to the essence of a film. I think there are some excellent writers out there (Devin especially) who write "better" reviews than I do. I just dunno what people are looking for anymore. People are so different now as an audience then when I started.


Just write honestly and argue your position without saying "Oh yeah, well, my opinion is superior to yours, oh yeah, fuck you, BANNED!!!", you know, the Faraci method. 

post #27 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata View Post

I'm just intrigued. I'm trying to evolve my style and I don't want to get more strict or dense or whatever. I want it to be fun, but I want it to deliver what I feel cuts to the essence of a film. I think there are some excellent writers out there (Devin especially) who write "better" reviews than I do. I just dunno what people are looking for anymore. People are so different now as an audience then when I started.


Well, if by "entertainment" you mean reading a reviewer literally for shits and giggles even though I don't respect or trust them, then no.  I have no idea when I read a Knowles review last.  But of course I find interesting and well-written reviews entertaining.  And I generally don't like to scour reviews before I've seen a movie.  My interest in a movie is based on premise/property/director/what-have-you, or if it's getting positive word of mouth and rave reviews, which don't require reading every word of ahead of time.  But afterwards I most definitely want to read what other people thought of it, especially eloquent, knowledgeable film critics.  I'm not ashamed to say my opinion can be influenced or colored by someone else's thoughts, especially if they are raising points I hadn't considered, but I don't really like to go into a movie heavily "pre-influenced".

 

But I think you're overthinking it in general.  I don't think many reviewers write with an actual agenda, i.e. an obstinate preconceived notion that has nothing to do with the actual film being reviewed, and I certainly don't recommend writing that way.  Also, Devin may be very vocal about his impressions and expectations for a film before seeing it (and have arguably strident ideologies) but that's not an "agenda".  He actually seems to be one of the more self-admittedly malleable reviewers, to me--he's willing to blow up his earlier impressions if a film surprises him, and then do it again to the same film after re-visiting it.

 

post #28 of 57

I agree and identify with a lot of what Spike and Phil just said. I also think Andrew O. is on to something, although I'd argue that a person's opinions and preferences are just as likely to inform a review of a blender as a film; that's the furthest thing from bad though. Part of the reason so many reviewers aren't worth reading is because they don't put enough of themselves into their work; it's no coincidence that the best Empire reviewer, Kim Newman, is by far the most idiosyncratic, personal, and readily identifiable.

 

Nick, I think the best thing for you to do is just review more films and contribute more articles generally to the main page. One thing I definitely wouldn't want to see, though, is you over-thinking about it. Your unhinged reviews, editorials, and news articles are a massive part of what started bringing me back to this place to begin with. I don't know about the rest of you, but I reckon if you (and all the other main writers) just say what you want to say, the way you want to say it, you'll be giving people what they want.

post #29 of 57

It's tricky. Should reviewers merely serve the material at hand in as honest a fashion as possible, or are they themselves responsible to entertain? Certainly, I was drawn here so many moons ago not just by the quality of the writing as by the personality of it. Whether said 'personality' should be considered that of the site or of the individual writers is yet another question.

 

I'm reminded of the old byline format in the New Yorker, wherein the authors' name was printed at the end of an article instead of at the start. It reinforced the idea that the magazine had a cohesive voice. If a piece got printed there, that was the guarantee of quality in itself; it didn't matter who wrote it. (Plus, you could feel smug if you could identify the author based on their prose.)

 

In modern publishing, writers have to fend for themselves a lot more. They have to stand out from the crowd, and it's easier to establish a unique identity through attitude than through command of language or analytical ability. Bottom line? When I see the tag "Nick's Review", I click on it.

 

If CHUD has an identifiable brand, it's one that fosters informed debate and healthy skepticism. It's also one that draws far more boys than girls, and one where plasma rifles merit more attention than potting soil, but it would lose something if it strained to please everyone.

post #30 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I read reviews after I see the movies.


Always thought I was alone in this regard.  Good to know that the company is this good.

 

I see what I want to see about 80% of the time and 20% what is being bandied about on the main page and the boards.  If things are being championed then I want to see what the fuss is about.  That is actually the only thing I miss in Devin's departure and I don't think anyone on CHUD has adequately filled the gap for; niche little films that I wouldn't have heard of or gone to go see without someone being geeked out for it.

 

post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall View Post

I’m of the view that you can’t have objective reviews. As such I find that I follow certain reviewers and kind of work out their blind spots and their fetishes. Work out what they’re going to go easy on, what they’re going to be super tough about, and how that aligns to my personal taste.


 

I'm in line with Spike on this.

 

In terms of how I skim reviews prior to watching the film, to get all dodgy metaphory up in this shit; no reviewer is perfectly aligned with where I am in the geography of the cinema watching landscape, but I have worked out pretty well who are the navigators I can rely on to help me pinpoint my position. Thing is, they're navigators - human beings - not lighthouses or beacons. They're not fixed points, they're people, using the same stars we all are to work out their own positions. I've worked out where I am in relation to them so once they give their own position I'm well served in working out my own.

 

I think, for reviewers, instead of trying or pretending not to have biases it's more illuminating and valuable to the reader to wear them on your sleeve somewhat so that your readers can relate them to their own sensibilities. And most of all what's valuable is to be consistent and regular so that the point of view is knowable and reliable. I don't see it as a negative that I can often guess a reviewer's take before I see it. That just tells me I have a useful knowledge of them and of film.

post #32 of 57

I will read reviews for something I'm extremely dubious or on-the-fence about to see whether a film is as crap as it looks or just bad marketing.  Case in point:  all the early reviews for the Nightmare on Elm Street remake saved me $12.00.  Thank all of you. 

post #33 of 57

Nick Nunziata, I usually...Disagree with, most critics.  I have read reviews in a variety of newspapers, websites etc, and I have found there are some genres that a bulk of critics seem to hate.  Martial Arts films, Superhero films, and Space Opera, seem to get more negative reviews, as the reviewers seem to hate having to watch such a film.  One time the New York Post had their Gossip expert Liz Smith review...Total Recall!  She gave the film a bad review on the ultraviolence alone!  Roger Ebert wanted...Will Smith, Martin Lawrence and director Michael Bay arrested for the sequence that our heroes, the titular...Bad Boys, rampaged through that mountain village in Bad Boys 2!

post #34 of 57

The problem with internet reviews in general is their shallowness. Seriously good film reviews are hard to come by, largely because seriously good film critics are few and far in between. What passes for film criticism these days is more often film promotion (or its opposite).

post #35 of 57

I find Vern is pretty accurate in his take on Action films.

He tends to be a bit spoilery in parts, which is why i usually read his reviews after i've caught the film.

post #36 of 57

There are two kinds of reviews I don't like.

First is the short one. Short intro, long summary of the synopsis, one or two very general lines about the quality of the flick. For movie lovers, reviews like that are worth dick. We mostly already know the synopsis and one or two sentences give nothing. There are AICN talkback comments with longer content, yet many of the official Rotten Tomatoes members write reviews like that. Napkin reviews, basically only saying thumbs up or down. At best, that better be a closing paragraph. That is NOT a review. A review shouldn't just tell if a movie is good or bad, but most of all: why it is good or bad.

The more annoying one is the blog one. Harry does it all the time, so does Ebert. Writing about personal and private stuff, then somehow finding a loose connection to the movie. Don't get me wrong, I don't think injection of personality is a bad thing - I really enjoy the bits Nick and Devin and Alex and Damon etc put in their articles. But they keep it small, they don't put it above the movie. It's really annoying seeing Harry pull another one of his childhood memories where he writes three or even more blocks about how much he loved dinosaurs as a kid out of his hat. Then quickly saying the new movie is unbelievably super amazingly super awesome because (spoiler) IN FACT it has dinosaurs in it. That's like a musician taking a ten minute break from his concert to tell you how awesome he is. In short doses, that may be fun and welcome, but the WHY is the music, the most important element of a movie review. That's what most of it should be about.

There's always tons of comments and opinons about a flick, but a good in-depth analysis WHY something is good or bad is a rarity.

post #37 of 57

As per many people above I'll generally read reviews after the fact.  It can make me think about the film in a different way or highlight things that I didn't know.  I'm certainly no cinema expert so it's often refreshing to read that a certain technique has been used, or a subtle homage has been used.

 

I think the reviewer that does that most for me is Beaks.

 

I'm trying to get less incensed by reviews that I don't agree with since everyone has, and is by and large entitled to, their own opinion.

post #38 of 57

God love Ebert, but I've heard so many stories - going back 15 years or more - of him snoring during screenings, that I often read his reviews just to see how he creatively fills in the narrative nap gaps in his viewing experience. It's fun!

post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucho View Post

 

I think, for reviewers, instead of trying or pretending not to have biases it's more illuminating and valuable to the reader to wear them on your sleeve somewhat so that your readers can relate them to their own sensibilities. And most of all what's valuable is to be consistent and regular so that the point of view is knowable and reliable. I don't see it as a negative that I can often guess a reviewer's take before I see it. That just tells me I have a useful knowledge of them and of film.


This may be the most honest way to go about a review.  Every observation has two moving parts, the observer and the observed.  To try to present your review as if the two aren't essentially tangled is to practice deception.  See also Hunter Thompson's criticisms of modern journalism.  If you try hard enough to manufacture objectivity, it's easy to end up removing all truth from what you write.


Edited by Reasor - 6/1/11 at 5:39pm
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTM1978 View Post


 

 

 

Seriously, Paramount gave internet critics a free screening of G.I. Joe, before mainstream critics, and they had all of you eating out of the palm of their fucking hand. Faraci himself was on here praising that piece of fucking shit and not one single asshole that saw the movie had the balls to call it out for being the fucking wretched piece of fucking trash that it was for fear of losing access and not getting future preferential treatment by the studio’s.


 

 


This paragraph, in your long screed against The Jews, caught my eye. I think in that case the Studio created the optimal experience for viewing that film.

 

People seem to forget that watching a film is meant to be a communal experience. It's you in a room full of strangers, hopefully responding in sync to the film. And in this era the kind of film most likely to get that crowd reaction is the BlockBuster. So Paramount getting a room full of Internet critics in a room to see GI Joe meant that those critics would then tell their readers about the film in a way that would attract the same type of audience. And from the post-release threads and box office that's pretty much what happened. 

 

And of course it's not a film to be bandied about at Oscar time. If you rent GI Joe and watch it alone I very much doubt you'd enjoy it much, GI Joe fan or not. Because it's a film designed to be enjoyed for what it is, with a crowd of like minded people. So the Studio and the Internet Critics portrayed the film accurately.

 

post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm View Post




Always thought I was alone in this regard.  Good to know that the company is this good.

 

I see what I want to see about 80% of the time and 20% what is being bandied about on the main page and the boards.  If things are being championed then I want to see what the fuss is about.  That is actually the only thing I miss in Devin's departure and I don't think anyone on CHUD has adequately filled the gap for; niche little films that I wouldn't have heard of or gone to go see without someone being geeked out for it.

 

Yeah most of the time I know what I want to see. It's the films on the margin where a critic's opinion might away me. So I saw The Fountain because of Devin. Then again, I choose not to see Antichrist, again based on a review by Devin, because from his review I knew it would not be my thing. It's the argument that I enjoy, even if I disagree on the merits of the film, and regardless of whether I see it or not based on that review.
 

 

post #42 of 57

I tend use reviews more on movies I'm not sure about and then i will read a couple of reviews to help sway me ether way.  So like Spike said one of the best things Chud does is a Tag Team review, differing voices debating a film makes for a more interesting read than one persons attempt at being shocking, clever or whatever.

 

 

post #43 of 57

I don't want anyone to misconstrue what I'm about to link as an attack.  I think Nick has only gotten better and better over the years, and he already had the "fun" piece of the pie down back in 1999.  But I just saw this yesterday, and it's the first thing that popped into my head while reading this thread:  

 

http://www.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/writing-wednesdays-2-the-most-important-writing-lession-i-ever-learned/

 

 

Quote:

Here it is. Here’s the #1 lesson you learn working in advertising (and this has stuck with me, to my advantage, my whole working life):

Nobody wants to read your shit.

Let me repeat that. Nobody–not even your dog or your mother–has the slightest interest in your commercial for Rice Krispies or Delco batteries or Preparation H. Nor does anybody care about your one-act play, your Facebook page or your new sesame chicken joint at Canal and Tchopotoulis.

It isn’t that people are mean or cruel. They’re just busy.

Nobody wants to read your shit.

There’s a phenomenon in advertising called Client’s Disease. Every client is in love with his own product. The mistake he makes is believing that, because he loves it, everyone else will too.

They won’t. The market doesn’t know what you’re selling and doesn’t care. Your potential customers are so busy dealing with the rest of their lives, they haven’t got a spare second to give to your product/work of art/business, no matter how worthy or how much you love it.

What’s your answer to that?

1) Reduce your message to its simplest, clearest, easiest-to-understand form.

2) Make it fun. Or sexy or interesting or informative.

3) Apply that to all forms of writing or art or commerce.

When you understand that nobody wants to read your shit, your mind becomes powerfully concentrated. You begin to understand that writing/reading is, above all, a transaction. The reader donates his time and attention, which are supremely valuable commodities. In return, you the writer, must give him something worthy of his gift to you.

When you, the student writer, understand that nobody wants to read your shit, you develop empathy. You acquire that skill which is indispensable to all artists and entrepreneurs: the ability to switch back and forth in your imagination from your own point of view as writer/painter/seller to the point of view of your imagined reader/gallery-goer/customer. You learn to ask yourself with every sentence and every phrase: Is this interesting? Is this fun or challenging or inventive? Am I giving the reader enough? Is she bored? Is she following where I want to lead her?

When I began to write novels, this mindset proved indispensable. It steered me away from Client’s Disease. It warned me not to fall in love with my own shit just because it was my own shit. Don’t be lazy, Steve. Don’t assume. Look at every word through the eye of the busy, impatient, skeptical (but also generous and curious) reader. Give him something worthy of the time and attention he’s giving you.

 

and

 

 

Quote:
You’ll know you’re on the right track when beads of blood begin to pop out on your forehead.

 

As I start trying to write again after years of atrophy and neglect, I'm going to try and keep this advice in mind.  Hell, it's not bad advice even for something like a message board post or a tweet.

 

As for movie reviews:  I just love the form.  I'll read them both before and after seeing a movie.  I'll even go back and revisit particularly insightful, funny, or savage reviews years later.  I especially appreciate the varied voices out there, even Harry's.

 

But my favorite working critic is (full disclosure) my wife's cousin Walter Chaw over at filmfreakcentral.net.    A few of my recent favorites:

 

http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/treeoflife.htm

http://filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/beverlyhillscop.htm

http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/pirates4.htm

 

But this is all a roundabout way of saying: be *Nick*, Nick, and it'll be fine.

 

post #44 of 57

Awesome quote and one I need tattooed on my forehead or something.

post #45 of 57

Do your thing Nick like some around here I remember your IGN reviews. They were good and I look forward to your reviews. Tag team be damned (I know for some blockbusters they are optimal) but i'd like to hear your voice in detail on specific films.

post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker View Post

Do your thing Nick like some around here I remember your IGN reviews. They were good and I look forward to your reviews. Tag team be damned (I know for some blockbusters they are optimal) but i'd like to hear your voice in detail on specific films.



As someone who became a chewer thanks to Nicks amazing review of all three LOTR's I concur. Thoroughly.

post #47 of 57

I admit that I review films for my friends from 3 views:

The film by itself, no outside influences (adverts, people), just itself based on logic of storytelling and making it all coherent.

My personal things I like, or cut slack too

What my friend will most likely enjoy.

 

In fact, I'm writing a Smallville entire series from that perspective.

3 view grade: D-,C,C+

 

Nick, do what makes you feel happy and what you can live with. May I suggest actual video reviews? Just another possible outlet. Just use that webcam in the office, insert a few clips from the movies, insert hijinks, done.


Edited by SAIRUS - 6/2/11 at 6:08am
post #48 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyeball Kid View Post

I don't want anyone to misconstrue what I'm about to link as an attack.  I think Nick has only gotten better and better over the years, and he already had the "fun" piece of the pie down back in 1999.  But I just saw this yesterday, and it's the first thing that popped into my head while reading this thread:  

 

The guy's general point is dead-on, but I can't help but hear Bill Hicks' voice in the back of my head talking about how much advertisers could help the world by blowing their fucking heads off. Creative people do need to learn to be clear in their message and to meet their audience halfway. But man oh man can that attitude be taken too far.


 

 

post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyeball Kid View Post

I don't want anyone to misconstrue what I'm about to link as an attack.  I think Nick has only gotten better and better over the years, and he already had the "fun" piece of the pie down back in 1999.  But I just saw this yesterday, and it's the first thing that popped into my head while reading this thread:  

 

http://www.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/writing-wednesdays-2-the-most-important-writing-lession-i-ever-learned/

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

As I start trying to write again after years of atrophy and neglect, I'm going to try and keep this advice in mind.  Hell, it's not bad advice even for something like a message board post or a tweet.


This is my guiding philosophy for MB postings, and also why I've never bothered with twitter or a blog.  I'll still let one get away from me sometimes, but in general I try to make no more than two points in a single post.  And it's not about laziness or contempt for the audience.  The truth is, there's power in simplicity.  Ramble long, ramble wrong. 

 

I'm not sure how this really applies to Nick, though.  Reviews by nature demand a greater amount of depth, and his personality was the guiding force in making the site what it is.  I'd just suggest to just let the movie experience dictate how you write about it.  Should Tree Of Life move you to ruminate on your relationship with your father and eastern philosophy at great length, do so.  And if Transformers 3 inspires a few paragraphs of hyperbolic absurdity, have at that too.  Having a rigid "approach" to criticism, while appealing in the sense that it will increase the efficiency of one's output, is only going add another layer between what you're trying to say and the people you're saying it to.

 

post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post



 

The guy's general point is dead-on, but I can't help but hear Bill Hicks' voice in the back of my head talking about how much advertisers could help the world by blowing their fucking heads off. Creative people do need to learn to be clear in their message and to meet their audience halfway. But man oh man can that attitude be taken too far.


 

 


Examples!

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Reviews, Agendas, and Reliability