posted
Frisco- Charles Darwin rolled over in his grave when the Reign of Fire plot turned on biology. How long do you think a species which depended on a single male which apparently could not be replaced would last? Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They could've lasted forever if it weren't for the jerk who invented the exploding arrow!
Maybe if the male is killed, one of the females undergoes a spontaneous sex change! But now we'll never know, will we?!
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
After the male was killed, it's not like all the females suddenly dropped dead. Where were all the POed concubines at the end of the flick?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it wrong for me to have sex with a dragon?
What if it's a half woman half dragon?
What if two male dragons fools around?
What if Matthew Mcognahey makes a movie with Ben Afflucked, is assisted suicide then moral?
EDIT: I know that Matthew Mcognahey and Ben Affleck were in Dazed and Confused together, but Ben played an absolute dolt, and this was before he became Ben Affluckt American Hero.
[ August 05, 2003, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: The Silverblue Sun ]
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the past year or so, I've been waiting for OSC's film reviews so that I'd know which movies to avoid like the plague. I love the guy, and I think he's brilliant, but he really has the strangest taste in film. I've literally been checking rhinotimes.com almost daily to see how he's going to find a way to rave over Gigli. Perhaps he uses those columns as an exercise in creative writing. I really think that it takes nearly as much talent to write a good review of Charlie's Angels 2 as it did to write several of his novels. He's just that good. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus there's his rabid irrational hatred of all things Lucas...
And his loathing of anything that portrays the middle class as less than perfect (he walked out on American Beauty for crying out loud)...
And someone mentioned how much he liked MIB2. Whats weird is that when I do agree with his reviews he seems right on, but at least half of them strike me as being out in left field.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Critics see a lot of movies. So does OSC. Rather than getting bored and deciding most of them are crap, he decided most of them were decent.
No, actually, if you read his reviews carefully, notice that he didn't rave about these movies. He hasn't said he would go out and buy them. He simply said they had good points. I remember more specifically the review for Reign of Fire. It wasn't the set up that was good. What he liked was the character story, and I agree. Take away all the silly back drop, and you have some pretty interesting interaction between people. This isn't a movie that will make it into our ever expanding library, but it isn't time I thought was wasted, either.
quote: Plus there's his rabid irrational hatred of all things Lucas...
He is a writer. You have to allow him at least one artsy bias.
posted
Maybe I missed it, but what I find rather sad is that he never reviews independent films. He's got fairly eclectic taste in music, theater, and literature. Why not movies?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't have to be rabid and irrational to hate Lucas these days. I've got to say, Knights of the Old Republic is the best Star Wars story to come out in twenty-three years.
That said, I'm often confused by Card's taste myself ... but I think Amka has hit it on the head. There are classic, amazing movies, and then there are fun movies. You don't have to think a movie is Gone with the Wind to think it's an evening well-spent. Card's only problem is, he writes good reviews in such mellifluous superlatives, it's hard to tell a rave from mere faint praise Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saxon, he lives in North Carolina. They haven't heard of indie films there. When my wife went home and tried to rent Amélie, the video store only had it on DVD. Why? Because North Carolinians won't buy movies that make them read, and only the DVD had an English sound track.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but he's writing his reviews for a North Carolina audience in the Rhinotimes. So reviewing a movie that none of his primary audience sees (I would submit that in this case jatraqueros are secondary) isn't going to do any good for any of his primary readership.
Even when he writes his novels while I know jatraqueros are important to him, he is writing for a wider audience than just us.
Good point. Duh. He is writing about movies he goes to see at the theatre in his town for people who live there.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As he points out in this most recent article, though, he *isn't* a movie reviewer. He just happens to write about the movies that he sees. He won't go and see a movie just to review it, and I'll bet that if he were to see a movie that was obscure, and liked it, he wouldn't hesitate to talk about it in his column.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoffrey, not all of North Carolina is adverse to movies with subtitles or Independent films. I live in Raleigh and in the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area we have over a dozen screens devoted to indy and foreign movies. I read somewhere it is one of the highest indy screens per capita in the country. The Greensboro area could be different. I wouldn't know.
I would agree that I wish that OSC would review more independent movies. I have learned which types of movies I trust his opinion and the types that I disagree. I guess I have read his column long enough for that.
Posts: 115 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost never agree with OSC when it comes to movies, but I've always read his reviews since he thought so much of The Hudsucker Proxy, he found my weakness!
quote: Yeah, but he's writing his reviews for a North Carolina audience in the Rhinotimes. So reviewing a movie that none of his primary audience sees (I would submit that in this case jatraqueros are secondary) isn't going to do any good for any of his primary readership.
I guess I would ask why you think his audience won't see something once he reviews it? He reviews theater and *books*. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic (or is it optimistic?), but in my experience, about the same proportion of the population sees independent films as read for pleasure. I would say a much, much smaller proportion actually see live theater with any regularity. So, I don't see it as him only reviewing things he thinks his audience will see.
I'm not clear, but maybe you're making the same point as Geoff. That is, that there aren't any venues for indie theater in NC. I don't know. I can't picture there at least not being one around Chapel Hill. In any case, while there may not be an art theater around where OSC lives, he can still rent a lot of independent films from the local Blockbuster. So, that option is there.
But your point does raise a good question, should OSC only review, or talk about, stuff that he thinks most North Carolinians will probably see; or should he expose them to things that he thinks they ought to see? Granted, he has limited time and only writes one column a week. However, as I said before, it seems to me that if he's reviewing theater, he's already reviewing things that many of them probably have never experienced. But, let's speak hypothetically as if he weren't already doing it.
Please note that I'm not slamming OSC. I'm just curious/speculating.
posted
Well, he has written reviews about restaurants in California and Utah, so he doesn't limit his reviews purely by locale.
Another thing I wanted to say about him being an anti-critic. Card is a teacher, and a damn good one. Every story I saw him read and critique, he pulled good stuff out of. He understood the story I had been attempting to convey. The other people I actually talked to about it had the same experience. I think I came to be more in awe of his reading and teaching ability than his writing in the short time at Bootcamp.
I think he brings this aptitude into the theater with him.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's just writing a column about stuff he happens to do. Maybe Geoff can tell us more, but it seems to me he is just giving us a peek into his life, letting us know what he thinks of things he's seen/read recently. Not really trying to shed light on any particular bit of culture, or going out of his way to see obscure movies or read obscure books to educate the 'unwashed masses'.
posted
Why would/should we take his movie reviews seriously anyway? I wouldn't expect a great line cook to be just as able if called on to be a Sommelier in a restaurant so why should I expect Orson Card to be as skilled at critiquing movies as he is in writing novels?
Nope, after reading a couple of reviews just to see his tastes, and checking out some of his best and worst lists I knew to steer clear of his ideas when it comes to movies.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's weird. People can have all kinds of different tastes in food, and we don't think any different of them. But if someone dares to like a bad movie, they suddenly lose all our respect. We're such snobs!
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly didn't mean to put it that way. My point is simply that opinions are opinions, Sommelier's know wine and food and wine matching, line cooks know how to handle the pressure cooker reality of working in the kitchen during a dinner rush, a gifted writer like Orson Card knows how to write, and a gifted critic (say, Anthony Lane, or even George Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde) knows their business well.
In the end, critiquing is all about opinions, not necessairly about facts, but I don't think Orson's status as a writer necessairly makes him by nature more qualified to interpret and review films than anyone on this board, or even in one of my class rooms. He has some advantages, people posting here, or in my class room environments would also have other advantages.
That's my view anyway, but I've got an open mind, feel free to show me I'm wrong and I'll listen if I buy the argument .
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Geoff, the fact that you eat (insert your favorite food that I happen to dislike here) has utterly changed my opinion of you. I didn't plan to mention it, but since you brought it up . . . Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I feel the opposite. I think that just because somebody got appointed a critic doesn't neccesarily make them more qualified to critique movies than you, me, or OSC. The only real talent it takes is being able to sit through a movie and then express what was wrong or right with it. Since none of us can knock OSC his ability to express his opinions well, he's as much of a qualified critic as anybody.
Are his tastes mine? No. Thank goodness. The last thing I need is somebody to sit down and tell me what I think of a movie.
But he also lacks the perpetual need to justify his own position as a critic, and proceed to tell all of us why his opinions about movies are better than all of ours.
He's also not afraid to reveal his own biases, which fortunately aren't tied in any way to getting interviews with the people he's reviewing. (If I had a nickel for every "real" critic who's tempered his review with a line like " . . . except for ________, who does his best with what he has to save this dismal failure . . ." even when _______ stunk up the joint, I could get the Simpsons season 2 on DVD.)
Cactus Jack
(Who liked Kung Pow)
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's weird. People can have all kinds of different tastes in food, and we don't think any different of them. But if someone dares to like a bad movie, they suddenly lose all our respect."
I don't even tell people about movies I like anymore. I tend to have a sick, weird sense of humor, and I found "Drowning Mona" to be one of the funniest things ever. I got such a "what a boor you are" reaction from that, that I never(well, until this moment to 800 people) said it again.
We used to get the Independent Film Channel. Our favorite movie was called "Joe and Joe," about two idiots on the Cape whose life desire was to own a riding lawn mower.
Honestly, I have nary a clue what makes a good movie. I just like it, or I don't.
posted
Yeah, I don't quite agree with his tastes in movies either... So... does this worry anyone else how the Ender's Game movie (if it ever comes out) will be?
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's weird. People can have all kinds of different tastes in food, and we don't think any different of them. But if someone dares to like a bad movie, they suddenly lose all our respect. We're such snobs!
Come on, Geoff, are you are really surprised about that? It's one thing if someone has fashion sense we don't agree with, it's another if they beat their spouse. The latter goes to the core of our morality and our precious humanity.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note to Geoff: I don't think even the DVD of Amelie has an english language track. Part of what makes that movie so enjoyable is the flow of the language in the narration (and I don't speak a lick of French, and I loved it, and would refuse to watch an English sub).
That said - don't you have a DVD player, Geoff?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bend It Like Beckham was a good movie. That being said, when I saw it, I found it to be a sterling example of a weakness I've always found with Rottentomatoes.
As you may know, the movie got pretty darn close to 90% on the tomatometer. That's an unusually high score. Does that mean that it's better than all the movies that got a lower score? Absolutely not, although one may expect that. What it means is that, although it's not in the top 10% of movies ever made, it is an undeniably good movie. You'll laugh while you watch it. You'll leave the theatre with a smile on your face, and you won't feel cheated at having spent your time and money on it. It's almost impossible to deny that it's a cute, fun little movie, and if you were to review it, I'm sure that you would join the vast majority of other reviewers in giving it a positive review. That being said, there are many movies with a more polarizing effect upon critics and audiences that are obviously much, much better than this movie, but will get a significantly lower rating. For this reason, when I'm checking rottentomatoes, I find it much more useful to use their links to read a few full reviews than just to look at the straight numerical result.
Point is, it's a good movie. Go see it. In the theatres, if you're so inclined. But don't expect to add it to your DVD collection.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just adding (as a newbie) to the discussion - having read past columns on the site, I have to say that I agree with most of OSC's book reviews, and disagree with most of his movie reviews!
posted
I agreed completely with his reviews on Pirates (both viewings) but must respectfully disagree with "Sylvester Stallone is never, never, never intentionally funny." Oscar remains one of my favorite movies.
A lot of what disappointed him in Spy Kids #d - which I also agreed with - was, I believe, due to the movie originally not being a Spy Kids movie. From what I understand, it was supposed to be a stand-alone movie that the director was poressured into making another sequel, so the Spy Kids mythos had to be shoehorned in. The horrible tacked-on ending is evidence of this.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:having read past columns on the site, I have to say that I agree with most of OSC's book reviews, and disagree with most of his movie reviews!
Yeah, I've noticed the same for me... I think part of this is that OSC used to write book review columns and as a writer himself he shows his understanding for writing, and respect for fellow writers, in his book reviews.
When he's OSC is doing movie reviews, it seems like he's usually reviewing movies he goes to see for fun and doesn't have his professional reviewer's cap on... seems like he also has a tendency to see (moreso than books) a movie as being a commentary on American life, and if he sees a movie as having a shallow commentary on politics/morality/culture/religion he's more likely to give it a hard time. (Maybe this is because movies ARE more likely to be shallow, since it's more challenging to tell a good story in a movie than in a book?... but still OSC does seem to have a tendency to jump on a movie if he thinks it's shallow and doesn't like its message -- Pleasantville, American Beauty -- while pardoning shallow movies if he likes the message -- Sweet Home Alabama, Maid in Manhattan.)
Ah, enough rambling, off to work... anyway, I like OSC's reviews, they're fun to read and usually interesting, but I definitely like his book reviews more than his movie reviews...
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Perhaps I'm being pessimistic (or is it optimistic?), but in my experience, about the same proportion of the population sees independent films as read for pleasure. I would say a much, much smaller proportion actually see live theater with any regularity. So, I don't see it as him only reviewing things he thinks his audience will see.
