Too much of film review culture has been pidgeon-holed into this one brand of criticism. And it's exhausting. The self imposed importance of it all, the sheer amount of reductivism and push you get if you dare insinuate that maybe, just maaaaaybe, you're inflating these issues. It borders on religious. This Mauler, YMS, Critical Drinker culture is the worst thing to happen to film reviews, because most of the time their criticisms can be easily explained with a fair assumption, was explained in the film, is based on their assumptions or is really just a trivial nothing (I believe the kids call that a nit-pick), yet we're suppose to pretend you've proven that the film is "broken." None of these once, rarely if ever, have explained in a human and relatable manner if a character increased in their interest in a narrative, if a plot choice flipped the tone, if the structure creates the right balance between drama, humor and action, if the pacing maintained their immersion etc. Apparently we're all machines and we only go to the theater to perform a maintenance test.Mauler's review of the Snyder Cut was the last straw on this type of review. (disclaimer I am not a fanboy and I do not believe the film was perfect, so please, keep your character assassinations to a minimum). Almost every five seconds I kept going "wait, what no that was explained..." or "why are you assuming..." or "what, no that's because..." or in the rare case he came close to a point "whoooooooo cares?" Case in point, the reason Flash's feet didn't get cut up on the ground is because he's protected by the speed force. The fact he's able to travel at those speeds without being torn up obviously that he is shielded when he uses it. Unless you want a film to be six hours, at what point is artistic license going to enter into the equation? Or is every popular youtube review going to be a human algorithm who is constantly missing the forest for the trees? via /r/movies https://ift.tt/3sYJnqP
No comments:
Post a Comment