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

Mortal Kombat REBIRTH

Over the past week Mortal Kombat fanboys (such as myself) were treated to not only the news that their franchise would make it's way back to home consoles, but that Warner Bros. and the director of the mixed recieved FAME (2009) has released a "pitch" video for a REINVENTION or a REBOOT of the Mortal Kombat film series titled "MORTAL KOMBAT REBIRTH"

What are the reactions to this video? The fanboys have been buzzing and they all seem to love it. It's a divisive reaction. Film critics are hating the hell out of this short, fanboys love it to all hell.

As for myself? Being both a fanboy and a critic?

See for yourself the short first.



Ok now my reaction in short...I like it a lot actually. Keep in mind, I know that video game films have a tendency to suck majorly. Unlike most of the fanboys out there, I don't see this film as a truly oscar worthy picture or something that needs to be taken seriously. The film borrows and steals from so many sources. The cinematography yells "DAVID FINCHER'S SE7EN". Also, the way everything is explained or given a realistic gritty tone, it almost seems like as if Christopher Nolan came in and said "Mortal Kombat? Make it all make sense." The performances are hammy as all hell. The dialogue and the script is cliche' upon cliche' trying to blend a NYC grit to the story. There's a bit of an uncertainy of tone in the short. I Know all of the flaws. Yet, I still enjoyed it. I saw this short and thought, if they ever made this into a feature length film, I think I would have a lot of fun with it.

3 Main Reasons why I dug the short.

1. It could be an escapist film.
The Filmmakers seem to be in on the fact that Mortal Kombat is just a ripoff of everything that worked before. Historically, Mortal Kombat is a american ripoff of Street Fighter. Mortal Kombat took all the best elements from the Street Fighter game and americanized it. This short takes all the best elements from every other film. It takes the realistic angle to these completely unrealistic characters (A la Chris Nolan and his Batman Series) as the short tries to come up with a new angle to re-introduce these characters that are fragments of the 90's. The short looks like it's taking MK fans on a new ride and they are trying to have fun, but tell the stories of these characters in a new way. The original Mortal Kombat film from 1995 is arguably the best video game adaptation we have ever gotten, but that story has been told, so why not retell this film in a completely different direction and make it hammy and a bit self aware. Micheal Jai White as Jax is not delivering a serious performance whatsoever, but I can imagine him as Jax, no problem. It seems like everyone involved is having fun and trying to deliver something worthy of the fanbase, but take certain liberties. It could be a hammy and fun crowd-pleaser.

2. It is Mortal Kombat essentially.
While they have changed a lot of the mythos that Mortal Kombat has, it keeps the spirit essentially. Reptile is still essentially reptile and Scropion and Sub-Zero's rivalry will finally be told. While these are just small things, they could lend themselves to fun retelling of this story. They take all of these ideas that came up in the video game and give them a gritty realistic tone, but keeps the spirit. I can dig that.

3. It's going to be R-Rated.
If there is one thing the original film didn't get right was the fact that MORTAL KOMBAT is about cutting people to pieces and ridiculing your friend in the worst way after he loses. The short seems to get it right in the sense that people are actually going to die. This ups the stakes a lot more a bit in terms of when these guys fight, there is actually something at sake as opposed to just laying on the floor and punching someone in the chest and saying Fatality. While the original film was trying to be fun and appeal to a broad audience, it was Mortal Kombat in story, but it wasn't the film we fanboys wanted at the start.

Overall, I know the fanboys are maybe going to get the gritty MORTAL KOMBAT REBIRTH movie, but they are going to be disapointed by it. This is not by any stretch to me, looking like this is going to be a serious movie. This looks like something I could pay ten dollars on a friday night and have a blast with. It will be bad, but I may only pay to see it once. It's going to be a glorious train-wreck...while the statement is redeemed by the word "Glorious"

See you later guys

BTW: Check out the new MORTAL KOMBAT game due out in spring of 2011!

Kick-Ass REVIEW!!!!

Ok Let me state the following before going on with this review...

THIS MOVIE FUCKING KICKED ASS!!!!

Whew!...

Ok!

Now...

Where do I start on how awesome this movie was?!


Ok, well the basic premise of the story revolves around everyday high schooler/comic book nerd/ superhero wannabe: Dave as he goes out and takes the alter-ego named "Kick-Ass". Although his superhero career starts off with some messy results at first, he then becomes a youtube sensation. The film then goes on to introduce us to the idea of superheroes who actually in our real-world, but in a way that truly hasn't been done before. The difference between this and something like Watchmen is the fact that Dave has nothing going for him both in and out of the costume and he is almost sad and pathetic in his attempt to become a superhero. Despite all of these feelings towards this character, we still can't help but cheer him during the low points and high points in his outtings because to quote Dave...

"at some point in all of our lives, We all wanted to be a superhero."

The Positives of the film! The script! The script is just very tight and pretty much is Dave's story. The film nails the aspect of being that invisible kid at high school, who isn't the jock, the super brains, or the popular kid; but is the kid that is just there. The script of the film also doesn't take complete left-field turns...well any that are out of the realm of what this film sets up. It's a comic book film? Yes, but its one that knows what it wants to be. it wants to be a comic book brought to our world and it's going to take the audience on a wild ride. The story was just so relatible for the first act that you buy this kid's story and his reasons for wanting this extra-ordinary lifestyle. Hook, line, and sinker; this story got me right from the get-go!


The acting. Aaron Johnson is pitch-perfect as Dave AKA Kick-Ass. He doesn't have anything going for him as a high schooler or Kick-Ass apart from a gimmick (not to reveal spoilers here) that does give him a bit of a fighting chance. Johnson just nails that geek comic nerd that just wants to be like the heroes he's read all of his life and you can't help but just cheer him on though the film. He is an immediately likable, but somewhat irrational character. He is the guy us virgin comic nerds grew up as who comes to learn what it means to be a superhero and what ramifications that has on the world around us. Johnson just did a fantastic job selling the 17 year old kid.


Later in the film we are introduced to superheroes Hit-Girl; the foul mouthed 9 year old, who automatically will generate applause and a huge fan-base! Chloe Moretz does an awesome job at portraying this killer of a 9 year old, who also happens to be a super-badass! There are so many awesomely hilarious and badass scenes with Hit-Girl that could be hard to narrow down and pick as a favorite. Hit-Girl is one badass character who is sure to become the talk of this film!

Big Daddy; the infamous Nicholas Cage doing his best Adam West Batman impersonation...Enough said!!!!

and Red Mist; the rich and pot smoking superhero. Christopher Mintz-Plasse does a suitible job as Red Mist. Without giving away spoilers, he does what he needs to when the time calls for him to. Good job though! Lastly, Mark Strong was great as the main villain of the film as a mobster hunting down the superheroes. His motivation is clear and it is suitable for the film. I dug it!

The one person that needs to get credit for this film is director: Matthew Vaughn. He delivered a film with some great direction that tonally fits the film. He manages to balance a level of seriousness, camp, and bloody violence in a way that just makes the film a ton of fun! The film doesn't take itself too seriously, but it does know the audience wants to see a comic book working in the real world. Matthew Vaughn also does a great job with the action sequences of the film and he delivers some badass crowd pleasers.

I can't think of any negatives to the film. It does deviate from the comic book quite substantially in the third act, but it's a welcomed change. The book and the movie are two different entities that work in their respective forms. The film decides to dump one emotional beat that is present in the book in the third act. The film works and it's pretty awesome! I reccomend reading the book after watching the movie. Both complement each other and maintain the spirit of Dave's story. Apart from this deviation, I can't think of a flaw to the film.


The film has so much heart to it and it doesn't talk down to the comic geeks. It is a perfect example of a film that celebrates geekdom! It is bloody violent and it is just a great thrill ride! Lots of laughs to be had and a lot of eye candy to offer in a "Kick-Ass" package!! This story borrows a lot of notes from previous realistic superhero takes and just runs with them in a new and exciting way! Needless to say: I loved the film!! Here's to Mark Millar, John Romita, Jr, Matthew Vaughn, and the rest of the crew for telling a story about "us" for "us!"

GRADE: A
10/10

Hot Tub Time Machine REVIEW!!

This is not supposed to be a smart little movie, but it has no right to be as good as it was with a shitty concept like a Hot Tub Time Machine. I was pleasantly surprised by how funny the flick was. It takes some of the age old questions of what we would do if we was to have access to a time travel device and what would happen if we had to deal with no changing the time lines. By no means will this change the time travel genre, but it was a funny movie. The filmmakers seem to know that this plot is ludicrous and instead of trying to bring reality to the situation, they just roll with it and they decide to give the audience just a good time. For the most part, it worked.

The acting is funny and the beats all work. The one character that always gets a laugh has to go to Crispin Glover. All of his scenes are laugh inducing and his gags always leave you both on the edge of your seat and ready to burst with laughter! (You'll know what I'm talkin about when you see it) But his role automatically gets the most laughs! All of the cast is funny in this. John Cusack's role is particularly funny in part because of the fact that we get to see him young once again and this is a nostalgic trip to see him young once again and his role is funny. The only one who fell a bit flat and not that funny and underdeveloped was Chevy Chase. Chevy's character was funny at times, but it kinda seemed like he was underused. It's a minor flaw but its still cool to see Chevy doing a good funny movie again. The story works, but don't put it against any of the time travel masterpieces. It does what it needs to and you need to suspend your disbelief because it is trying to be funny.

Overall, it was a great time at the movies. I would say definitely see this with an audience as the bigger the crowd the more fun it's going to be! Its a flawed movie, but man was it a funny one!

Overall, I'd say a definite MATINEE!

Oscar Predictions! (UPDATED)

Hey guys! It's been a while since I had done a post so I thought since it's round about nearly Oscar time, I Thought I'd give ya guys my predictions for What will Win what.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: WAS CORRECT!

What I want to win: UP
What I think will win: UP
UP has become one of Pixar's more accessible academy films and this will easyly sweep this award. As much as I enjoyed Mr. Fox, there are some major flaws to be had with that film. Princess and the Frog is just too safe of a film to earn a Best animated film Oscar.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY- WAS CORRECT!

What I want to Win- UP

What I think will win- THE HURT LOCKER

The Up screenplay provides both a fun ride, a great character arc, and a emotionally gripping closure that surpasses anything else that is nominated. As much as I thought the HURT LOCKER was a greatly directed film, everyone seems to be talking about how this script meshes both Action and story and character development in a great fashion. I am in the minority that doesn't see this come across whatsoever in the final film. All I see is an unlikable protagonist that I am waiting for to get blown up. Bigalow made this script more cinematic than what was written on the page. Tarrinatino had his day and his Basterds screenplay although great is a bit flawed in some areas. I think UP should take the cake for originality. I mean A guy flies his house with balloons and then he meets up with talking dogs and a large bird! ha ha ha ha!

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY- WAS WRONG!

What I want to win: UP IN THE AIR
What I Think will Win: UP IN THE AIR
This is a classic case of what happens when Filmmakers adapt books, Jason Reitman took the essence of the original Novel, and added things that weren't there in the book and made a more emotional pungent film that stayed true to the book's theme and expanded it. It also happens to be a great screenplay despite the fact it was adapted.

What ended up winning: Precious


I was shocked when this won best adapted screenplay. The screenplay basically takes a massive shit on it's main character every chance it got to the point where I just couldn't take the film seriously anymore. I didn't like any of it's characters and felt it gloried and reveled in it's stereotypes. A great disappointment in my eyes. Bad move academy!

BEST DIRECTOR- CORRECT!!!

Who I want to win- Kathryn Bigalow
Who I think will win- Kathryn Bigalow

Bigalow is an underrated director that I think is talented enough to warrant a best director award. She took some of the elements of the script and made tension filled moments as the audience is expecting the worse in the bomb defusal scenes. Fantastically directed sequences.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR- FOREGONE CONCLUSION! CORRECT!

Who I want to win: Christopher Waltz
Who I think will win: Christopher Waltz
Why? Because Col. Hans Landa is a fucking great performance that I can't imagine anyone else being able to pull of and he knocks it out of the ballpark! Chirstopher Waltz mops the floor with the other nominees. HE'S GOING TO GET IT!!!

Best Supporting Actress- CORRECT!!!

Who I want to win: Vera Farminga

Who I think will win: Mo'Nique
I think Vera Farminga has never been more engaging on screen and she is the female foil to George Clooney's Ryan in UP IN THE AIR. She was fantastic. But As we all know, Mo'Nique is a shoe-in for this role, because nobody expected her to be as talented as she was in PRECIOUS. I think Mo'Nique has proved her acting talent, but is it the best performance? I don't think so. I like both actresses and I'll be content with either winning, but I'm leaning towards Vera Farminga.

Best Actress- CORRECT!!!

Who I want to win: Indifferent...but if I had to choose one then Sandra Bolluck
Who I think will win: Sandra Bolluck
A weak year for strong female roles I'd say. I mean most of the nominees are dominated females for the most part and thats a shame we don't have more solid roles for females this year. And Sandra Bolluck is for the most part the one that is going to get this. The movie was good, but the performance is a bit generically good. It does what it needs to, but it's nothing nobody hasn't seen before.

Best Actor- CORRECT!!!

Who I want to win: George Clooney

Who I think will win: Jeff Bridges
Talk about a comeback year! Now a Clooney fan after UP IN THE AIR, because at one point I was annoyed by him, but he proved himself to be a fantastic actor with a chops. Bridges is also the same case. It could go either or. I dug both performances but I connected more to Clooney's Ryan character. Both actors are fantastic!


Those are my predictions for the more tougher catagories, cuz all of the other nominations are going to be pretty Obvious as to who is going to take it home and I agree with most of them. The only problem is that this has been a weak year for the acting category for females. I think perhaps the biggest snub at the oscars this year was the exclusion of Ducan Jones' MOON and ignoring SAM ROCKWELL's fantastic performance!

Sam was utterly fantastic in the film and it's a shame he didn't get nominated at he very least for Best Actor. Think I'm wrong? check out this scene.

Anyways till next time guys! I'll have some reviews up again finally! Sorry for the non-updates, but I will get you some reviews again!

SEE YA FOLKS!!!

(3-09-2010)
Well I was right on all counts except one. Not bad. I think this years Oscars were flawed, but they did what they needed to do.

and Also I purposefully stayed away from the BEST PICTURE catagory because I didn't agree with the whole AVATAR vs. HURT LOCKER Deal. I thought AVATAR was a better film, but HURT LOCKER was a technically good film too but the story and script just didn't do it for me. I would have been on team Avatar, but I thought UP or UP IN THE AIR should have won best picture. Anyways!

TILL NEXT YEAR FOLKS!!!

Review coming later this week again!!!