Somebody correct me if I'm not reading the new "Uncle Orson Reviews Everything" correctly, but did OSC actually use his newspaper column to pan a film he hasn't seen, based solely on what others have told him about it? What in the name of Bob is going on here?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
He's been known to do that before. Kill Bill is a fairly recent example.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree. That's annoying. The minimum for any review of something is to actually see it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It wasn't so much a review of Van Helsing as a comment on the continuing trend in this screenwriter's work.
Dagonee
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
That would be far more comforting if the title of the column didn't include the words "Van Helsing."
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
I agree that a person should at least watch a movie and make their own decision about it, but he has a point in that it totally wasn't what it was made out to be, and that is fairly valid hearsay.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I totally agree with this review. I'll often base my movie-viewing choices on the track-record of the "project choosability" of the talent involved. Also, I'd read that it was silly romp'em'-stomp'em' fun. (promising mix) But, then I heard it was just thin.
oh well. -1 for H.J.
fallow
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Plus, the fact that he's up-front about his not seeing it means he didn't misrepresent himself. He's telling you what he thinks of the movie and why. If his basis of knowledge isn't good enough for you, don't give the review any weight in your movie-watching decisions.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree, Dag. He didn't mislead anybody. He shared his thoughts about it and where he got them from.
And I'm not surprised at his 'review' after the previews I've seen. I would have been really surprised if it had much more going for it besides Hugh Jackman, special effects, and that woman's breasts (not necessarily in that order).
Posted by the Somalian (Member # 6557) on :
Where did Card say something about Kill Bill?
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
quote: Movies that grossed over 35 million bucks but are so spectacularly bad that those responsible for making them should sit in the penalty box and make no movies at all for at least a year: The Cat in the Hat (100+), Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (69.9), Hulk (132), The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (66.5), Mona Lisa Smile (63.5+), Rugrats Go Wild! (39.4).
That's from the Feb. 22 Uncle Orson Review column. I seem to remember him saying that he wouldn't see Kill Bill, but I'm assuming he changed his mind. He must have decided to watch it in the end. Either that, or he's decided to start reviewing movies he hasn't seen on a regular basis, in which case his opinion would mean very little.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
This is from the October 19, 2003 review:
quote: was surprised that the Saturday night turnout at Runaway Jury was so light. There were long lines -- but it turns out they were mostly for a vicious little horror film about chainsaws and the second week of Quentin Tarantino's pretentious remake of everybody else's martial arts revenge movies.
What can I say? If you're a grownup who thinks dismemberment is not entertaining, and if you are among those who have noticed that Emperor Tarantino is naked and don't wish to appall yourself with further displays of his "talent," Runaway Jury is a good movie.
So I'm guessing he didn't see it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Aw. I thought Kill Bill was cool. So many people had samurai swords in it. It was crazy.