What makes a good critic? Debatable…

Andres Gallego

09/25/2010

Reviewing the arts

What makes a good critic? Debatable…

In the long discussion of what a critic is, the one critic that is on the right track, in terms of what it criticism is and what it has become, it would have to be Anne Holub. There are few statements that is whole-heartedly agreeable with most of these critics. There is not a right or wrong interpretation of what it means to be a critic and it’s just an opinion. Having said that, Holub has a number of statements that one could consider being unbiased to a certain extent. The first statement Holub hits her point home is the statement where she explains “…subjects are constantly changing and growing. It’s likely going to be a lifelong pursuit.” This statement is very true in the sense that it is a great way to describe the current state of criticism and writing since the field has gotten very cut-throat and very harsh not just towards the art they are criticizing, but from one critic to another.

It’s an age-old discussion of Modern vs. the older critic. We have a lot of the older critics like Roger Ebert for printed Chicago Sun times press and some younger critics like Harry Knowles on ain’t it cool news online printing, who do essentially the same job, but have very dissimilar tastes and writing styles. People are always going to have different values and experiences. While you fall into one camp or another, it’s not about judging criticism on just passion alone, you also must take into account that this person specializes in a certain style of writing and that their values may differ from the last critic you read. It’s clear that Ebert comes from a more classical background in watching films as he saw the medium grow from an earlier place and Knowles comes from a more recent age of films, where he grew up with films comparable to your 35 Year-old film lover. Print and online print have the same standards and integrity as most other forms of criticism where it’s about expression of one’s experience with the art or media. An older demographic might look for Ebert’s view on something, while the younger generation may like to read Knowle’s opinion of a film or work.

In going with the previous statement, Holub also nails it on the head with the saying that “it starts with identifying a critic’s viewpoints.” In reading criticism, it’s all about matching your sensibilities. It’s about finding a critic that you can connect to. Not necessarily agree with, but someone whose word you can trust, but not take as gospel. In reading reviews, you can not take the critic’s word as the final word on the work. It’s just his or her opinion and nobody is right or wrong. Everyone has a different choice and view on the world, and a criticism is mainly their perception of how the work affected them. It’s about how it made them feel and not about what you should feel going in to experience the work. All you can do is keep reading till you find a critic you like to read his or her perception on the work.

Overall, Anne Holub’s viewpoint on criticism takes a more adaptive viewpoint to criticism. A critic shouldn’t conform to a viewpoint and neither should the reader. The reader will find their critic at same point and criticism will always grow and change with every new generation and way to get one’s opinions out.

Buried REVIEW!

There comes a film that taps into a primal fear and puts you through an intense experience unlike anything you’ve ever experienced before. "Buried" is that rare film. What Director Rodrigo Cortés manages to put together, with the writing talent of Chris Sparling and the amazing acting talent of Ryan Reynolds, is a brilliant exercise in claustrophobic tension that grabs you from the beginning and doesn’t let you go till it’s pulse pounding finale.

The story of the film is gripping from the very first frame. The premise of the film is contract truck driver; Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) wakes up in a coffin buried underground after a convoy ambush in Iraq. It’s a man-trapped-in-a-box story, but it’s told in a fresh way that re-invents the rules on this genre of high-tension thriller. The film takes place entirely in the coffin for the whole 90-minute run-time. The film never slows down or lets up and it’s just an intense experience and definitely not an easy one to sit through at points. What screenwriter Chris Sparling does so brilliantly with this screenplay is that he continually ups the ante and the stakes, especially for it being a film that takes place entirely in a coffin underground. With every plot twist that happens in the film, you feel that knife twist and turn as Sparling manages to turn a situation from bad to worse. It starts off with a real nail-biter premise that reaches on the Hitchcockian levels of tension that continually surprises and leaves you on edge. Then you reach the end of the first act…all bets are off.



It’s impossible to talk about this film without talking about the amazing performance by Ryan Reynolds. He’s pitch perfect for this role as Paul. This is the type of role that could have been played ugly or that could have outstayed its welcome very fast in the hands of another actor. It’d be tough to imagine anyone else bringing as much emotional integrity, believability, and humanity to this role of a man trapped in the worse of situations that is only getting worse by the minute. Reynolds shows a raw range and a depth to his performance that you just can’t take your eyes off of him or want to leave the coffin without him. The performance holds so much charisma and reliability so emotionally textured and draining that you feel for Paul as each second on the clock ticks as he becomes more unstable and unsure of the outcome of this situation. It’s a fantastic performance that is worthy of the praise as Reynolds successfully carries the whole film from six feet under and in total blackness.

Director Rodrigo Cortés does an outstanding job with the direction of the film. For this film taking as many risks as it does on the screenplay level, Cortés rises to the occasion as he takes more risks with the direction of the film. Most of the film is told in silence with little sound effects and Cortés allows the audience to drown in the lack of details on-screen and puts you through this tense, so that any new development that occurs or when any new item is found; it hard the audience as hard as a child getting an early Christmas present. This fear of the unknown and the sense of being trapped in darkness only helps to heighten the tension of the film as we invest more into Paul as a character. Cortés also reinvents this claustrophobic genre of thriller by using some truly amazing camera movements while in the coffined space of the coffin. For the film being entirely underground, there is certainly a lot of action that just doesn’t let up. Cortés doesn’t bend to the confines of the coffin; he reinvents it and delivers something that we truly haven’t seen before.

While I did thoroughly enjoy the experience with the film, I do have a small grip with it. Revealing this gripe without giving any spoilers would be impossible. All I will say is that it occurs in the final act of the picture, but it doesn’t detract or ruin the experience. It’s a small nitpick at best. I’d give this movie a FULL-PRICE!! Definitely go check this out in a theater because it is such a original and amazing experience going with this ride.

9 of 10

The Scathing Reviewer Vs. The Contrdictrian

Andres Gallego

09/15/2010

Reviewing the arts

There are plenty of reviews, but few are able to really convey the sense of the viewer’s emotional experience reviewing the work. The first piece that works as a review is Devin Faraci’s Negative review for “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.” In the beginning of this scathing review, Devin calls out on the notion of how this big budgeted summer blockbuster didn’t need to aspire to be anything bigger than a fun giant robot film. Feraci, like the audience, was expecting to have fun with the film but ended up asking himself “how is a giant robot film boring?” The review goes on to explain what Devin’s emotional response was to the reader. He aptly puts the viewer in his shoes in the cinema by describing how the combination of the flat jokes, boring character work, incomprehensible action, and long stretches of nothing made him turn to his colleague and exclaim “This is grueling.” This film brought up all of these feelings...and he was only in the first act. That statement sums his emotional experience and that’s an experience nobody wants when they drop ten dollars on a big budgeted spectacle like a “Transformers” picture. Feraci in his writing can have so much to say for a great film experience that when it comes to this film; he nails it square on the head with this hilarious statement: “Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman claim that director Micheal Bay locked them in a hotel room for a month to write this movie; they obviously spent 29 and half days watching pay per view porn and ordering room service.”

http://chud.com/articles/articles/19948/1/REVIEW-TRANSFORMERS---REVENGE-OF-THE-FALLEN-/Page1.html

One review that doesn’t work is Armond White’s review of Toy Story 3. Armond’s hatred towards Toy Story 3 has as many holes in his argument as large screen door. Most of the review is spent with White seemingly trying to defend himself and his beliefs as opposed to what his experience in the cinema was. He starts off the review frustrated with the fact that America and critics have forgotten the film he thinks is a superior toy film. The review comes off as more or less a nitpick of the film than anything. White says the film is full of “brand names and product placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of the imagination…” That statement is said without any real points to back it up. He only goes on to his next point about the plot abruptly before the reader has any sense of what White was talking about with the last point about why the film isn’t imaginative. The biggest flaw about the review is that the tone of the review is very uninviting. While Devin Farci’s scathing of “Transformers 2” was brutal at points, his tone was more inviting in the sense that Feraci was coming from the viewpoint of the audience who wanted a great time at the cinema. White’s tone takes more of “anybody who likes Toy Story is tool.” without mentioning his experience as to why he was disappointed. Absolutism doesn’t make for a good review and neither does White’s “review.”

http://www.nypress.com/article-21357-bored-game.html