Still butthurt from being called out on Spiderman I see...
@Anonymous 12:55Still completely missing the point, I see...
"Luigi is a fox. Your argument is invalid." I'll admit it, I actually laughed loudly at that. Someone needs to put that on a t-shirt.Anyway, wasn't planning on seeing the "Total Recall" remake anyway. I totally agree that Hollywood needs to let Colin Farrell just be a character actor.However, I also think they should let him use his native Irish accent more for movies. Say what you will about the "Daredevil" movie, but the fact they let him use his native accent for Bullseye was actually kinda cool, and added an element of fun to the character.
Disappointed by the Dark Knight Rises? Got nobody to blame but yourself, son.I'm an amateur critic myself, but I don't look for reasons to hate a movie. You can say something for looking for advanced script issues and whatever, but when you're sitting down and can no longer enjoy movies, then there's no point. Why even bother anymore?
Speaking of accents, your "Bawston" accent slipped through several times, Bob.Just teasing, though. :P Good review for a not-good movie.
I think Colin Farrell is a lot better than most people give him credit for. He was goddamn Oscar worthy in "In Bruges," and since ::puts on thick hipster glasses:: I saw him in "Tigerland" before he got so famous, ::removes glasses:: I was jazzed to see him get as much exposure as he did. No, he's not one of those actors who can elevate subpar material into something great, and he's not Nic Cage who can at least be entertaining about it, but with the right material to work with he's pretty damn stellar.
@Blue HighwindPersonally, when I "look for reasons" to dislike a movie, it's because I'm not enjoying the movie and I'm trying to figure out why. We all do this, it's just film critics like Bob have a lot more experience and thus can usually pin-point reasons for their lack of enthusiasm.For me, TDKR was no exception. I wanted to love it, but I didn't, so I started trying to diagnose why, and I came upon many of the same reasons Bob did.The point is, Bob CAN sit down and enjoy movies. It's only when he DOESN'T enjoy the movie that he starts to overanalyze its shortcomings to explain why he believes he didn't enjoy it so that the rest of us can figure out whether or not WE would enjoy it.As an amateur critic, I'm sure you find you generally have a lot more to say about movies you dislike than movies you like. It's the same thing. In a way, that's the whole point of criticism.The reason you apparently think he's just looking for reasons to dislike TDKR is because you liked the movie. For you, the shortcomings Bob pointed out are trivial and didn't spoil the overall product, so you feel like he's reaching or finding excuses to hate on it. The things that matter to Bob don't matter as much to you.
What I saw of threetit in the trailer made me mad.
"Shwartzaneggah" haha... That is all.
Rich class lives in Britian, while the poor are down here in Australia?Um. Wow. That would have been topical like..... 80 years ago.
I'll go ahead and leave this here...http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b144/ChroniclerC/LuigiFox.png(Spread it around if MovieBob approves!)
So about intermission....Look, I don't disagree with what you're trying to say. Criticism is a personal endeavor. It takes character to do criticism. You rely on yourself and your own experiences when you write good criticism.These are good statements.But those are not the reasons people clamor for objectivity. If critics or magazines employing critics fall into the trap of reducing or making invisible the subjectivity of criticism, they're bad critics and deserve to die.I don't really think you need to be arguing against this trend; I don't think safe criticism excites that many people. In fact, no video-based internet critic is able to do this and be successful, and I'm pretty sure its bound to spread.Here's the issue though: Sometimes critics are being absolutely incompetent, and its hard to narrow down other than to say, their way of experiencing the object under review was _wrong_ because of who they are. They don't have the capacity to approach the object in a reasonable fashion. Therefore their criticism is fine to ignore.You try to twist this as if to say, when this happens to a critic, it's just because the reader disagrees with him and is trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink at the reviewer...simply because he does not like being on the opposite side of an argument with the critic. In fact, he wants to beat the critic. That's why he does it. That's why that type of criticism of critics is unreasonable.Well, first of all, that argument is bogus, second of all, you're accusing _critical readers of critics_ of being biased, and saying that _their_ bias is somehow the reason they criticize the critics, therefore invalidating their criticism of the critics.It's...It takes a special kind of schnob to argue that his bias shouldn't invalidate his criticism of things, and then when people accuse him of unfair bias (a legitimate criticism), he argues that those arguments are invalid because of the accusants bias.Anyway accusations of inobjectivity for a critic is often a perfectly valid criticism, because what is meant is really, the critic cocked up and it appears to be because of predisposition.For instance, do you remember jack thompson? He is not merely a critic, he's an activist...yet people would clearly say, he is biased in his oppinions to such a degree that they're insensible.And that's the point: Sometimes, people accuse you of bias because it seems like it is the reason you cocked something up, not because they're just throwing everything and the kitchen sink at you because they disagree. Just trying to exonerate yourself from criticism here is really...it's dissapointing that you'd do that, rather than try to take it seriously..
I realized we got a bad remake of an Arnie flick last year. Also, who the HELL did Verhoeven piss off to make Hollywood feel inclined to also remake two other movies of his? Robocop is fine the way it is and Starship Troopers being played straight is a STUPID idea.On Intermission:Objectivity is an illusion spouted by twits to try and make something seem more valid than it really is. The only time people whine for "objectivity" is when they hear something they don't like.
@ AiddonThat's idiotic. People don't say, oh, this guy says something I disagree with, he must be lacking in objectivity.Retards and idiots might say that, and you know, if you assume that everybody who says it is a retard, ok I guess then the argument is fine, but then you're a bloody retard yourself.A lot of people say what they say because they legitimately mean it, not because of unfair bias, that's the entire point of Bobs intermission article...he's just apparently not been able to apply it all the way to the logical conclusion...and to assume that so many people on the net are retards and idiots, well, what the hell are you doing here then. Why do you even want to participate in the discussion. Why is it worth it to you.Some people are legitimately biased to an unfair degree, it's a legit criticism, and the best example is Mr. Jack Thompson, the disbarred lawyer. Or are you honestly saying I'm simply saying that because I don't like what he says? Do you honestly think he's fair?
Luigi is a fox; I... don't get it. I will hide my head in shame later.
Today, Colin Farrell at the premiere in Moscow
Post a Comment