The New Yorker Rogue One Review

>The director of “Rogue One,” Gareth Edwards, has stepped into a mythopoetic stew so half-baked and overcooked, a morass of pre-instantly overanalyzed implications of such shuddering impact to the series’ fundamentalists, that he lumbers through, seemingly stunned or constrained or cautious to the vanishing point of passivity, and lets neither the characters nor the formidable cast of actors nor even the special effects, of which he has previously proved himself to be a master, come anywhere close to life.

whaaaaaaaaa?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point
youtube.com/watch?v=-IpuCY1LmKU
vocabulary.com/dictionary/glib
vocabulary.com/dictionary/shallow
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

"It's shit"

someone got a thesaurus for jew christmas

the director was so constrained by star wars' shitty lore and die hard fans that he didn't take any chances to make a more interesting movie
tl;dr rogue one was too safe

congratulations you found the one bad review in the sea of millions of positive ones

No need to be so defensive, user

I checked metacritic and it had tons of mediocre to bad reviews. Almost half.

He clearly didn't want to review the film and doesn't want to review other SW films in the future so he self-sabotaged with impenetrable writing and braindead opinionating.
His assertion that Attack of the Clones and Phantom Menace aer the best SW movies is what made it obvious to me

>metacritic
next time try the site that matters

>hates on metacritic

Nice edge there. Of course you know where to go for your truest of true reviews right.

>the site that matters
Which one?

What a fucking bungled sentence.

maybe he means rotten tomatoes, although both sites are aggregators so what's the difference anyway

>smart people who cant write properly

FUG

Whichever one gives it a higher score

i cant fathom what this guy is trying to say? does he not like it? just say its shit then, you dont have to prove to me that you have an online degree

Do I have to an English professor to fully appreciate the quoted sentence?

B-but it sounds smart, r-right guys?

Also he knows how pointless a review is for this particular movie

>a glib facsimile

It's muh purple prose, but basically
>a mythopoetic stew so half-baked and overcooked, a morass of pre-instantly overanalyzed implications of such shuddering impact to the series’ fundamentalists
>the script wasn't well thought through and is basically just a bunch of lame throwbacks to all the other SW movies
>he lumbers through, seemingly stunned or constrained or cautious to the vanishing point of passivity
>Edwards is so terrified of doing anything that would upset anyone that he does nothing of note at all
>and lets neither the characters nor the formidable cast of actors nor even the special effects, of which he has previously proved himself to be a master, come anywhere close to life.
>actually relatively self-explanatory but just in case, Edwards fails to utilise anything and everything he was given in order to make the movie good
t. Literature degree

is this based brody?

thanks friend, im a dummy wage slave who works in a warehouse, i dont have time for all that fancy book learning, i just like my laser swords and space wizards

>wage slave who works in a warehouse
We're not so different, you and I
t. Literature 'degree'

What a shitty fucking sentence.

From my point of you, its the people with degrees who are proles!

fuck fuck fuck this is disappointing.

I never trust glowing reviews the first week of a blockbuster. It all seems like shills blowing smoke up my ass and fanboys in denial.

This is Phantom Menace all over again. I was really excited to see this tomorrow.

Wow what an intellectual!

>tfw to hibrow for star wars

"There’s none of the Shakespearean space politics, enticingly florid dialogue, or experiential thrills of the best of George Lucas’s “Star Wars” entries (“Attack of the Clones” and “Revenge of the Sith”)."

It's a sarcastic article not worth the paper or megabytes its printed on.

>sarcastic
>review

come on lad. I know it's disappointing but I'm glad for honest takes instead of the shills.

I'm not gonna see this movie because the general opinion is that it's a jarring mess until the final battle and end scenes. I was hoping they'd do something new and interesting with Star Wars.

I was excited for this until yesterday but I hate giving full price for stuff like Suicide Squad that gets ruined in editing & doesn't have much of the classic villains.

He's really working his BA in English Lit

>illiterate.

Its really not a complicated sentence, the only word that's peculiar is "morass", and the only word that is questionable for its redundancy is "vanishing".

If you're in the habit of writing its usually useful if not even fun to be able to sum up all your thoughts in one sentence. Its entirely grammatically and syntactically correct so why not?

My sides

I can easily tell how many serious books the average person in this thread reads per year.

The answer is zero.

Jesus, how illiterate are you people? This is Idiocracy in action

>A talented director didn't do a very good job making a should-be lively movie with a high budget and good cast

What's not to understand?

Yes of course that's what he said
the point is a) what he's saying is ridiculous and b) so's the manner he's saying it

Not OP, but this is the only review of Rogue One I've read that was decently written.

>inb4 "you're just a pretentious wannabe contrarian elitist who liked it because big words=smart fallacy!"

That might be somewhat true, but it doesn't change the fact that the review posted in the OP is the only critique of the movie that has a real thesis and says something, ANYTHING. All of the positive reviews I've read of the movie from major publications so far can be boiled down to "It's Star Wars! There's a lot of cool action in this movie, and some real great special effects. How can you not like Star Wars? There are so many Star Wars movies, and this one is another great one! Disney did good here."

It's cloying and not a single one has given me any idea of the film, as a film, and not as a weird crypto-advertisement that reads like the critic read the wikipedia synopsis and slapped some paragraphs together and maybe capped it off with a generic sentence about how Star Wars is a modern cultural touchstone, blah blah blah, contemporary mythology, blah blah blah.

I saw a bunch of normies on facebook circle-jerking an article that was literally block quotes from that review with "Whaaaa???" and "Yaaaaawww?" after it.

Just like op's post.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point

A glib facsimile.

I never got why people didn't get that. He said "it's a shallow copy". That's all that glib facsimile means.

>Edwards is a talentless goon wandering through his job like a confused child

Not surprising.

I just thought people latched onto it because it was one of the earliest reviews and the entire review was 'A glib facsimile', easy meme material

so basically the same as TFA

who saw that coming

I guess so. I think the meme was that, out of everything he could have said, he said that. That's the height of writing reviews these days.

I think it's an entirely valid review for something that really was a glib facsimile, it didn't warrant much more than 3 words worth of attention

>A shallow copy

There. That's not pretentious.

>take a single line of dialogue from a movie and make a film about it

How did you idiots not see this coming?

It is to someone ignorant enough to not know what the word shallow means, much like your idea of what is and isn't pretentious revolving around the language you personally are comfortable with
I mean, your perspective is not universal, was that dumbed down enough for you?

>the jew yorker

fake news

what's not "fake news"? Breitbart? But oh wait Sup Forums, it's pro-Israel and constantly shills for Jews! What's left, Richard Spencer's blog?

But it isn't. He said it's a "glib facsimile", which can be turned into "shallow copy". Glib = shallow, facsimile = copy. There. A shallow copy.

It is pretentious because instead of writing a decent review on why it is a bad film, he resorts to a three word sentence. Okay, fine, but the three word sentence is using superfluous words for no reason other than... What exactly? Instead of actually including a much larger range of readers by saying it's a "shallow copy", two words which are infinitely more recognisable and used in daily life, he has to say "glib facsimile". There is a reason it became a meme, user.

Get your ego out of your ass and understand that your perspective is not unversal, neither is mine, but it's damn right more universal than using 'glib facsimile' to review a film, when going "Copies the originals" could have been a much more informative and helpful... AS A REVIEW.

>The only force at work here is the force of habit.
>Millions of people will sit through this thoroughly mediocre movie (directed with basic competence by Gareth Edwards from a surprisingly hackish script by Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy) and convince themselves that it’s perfectly delightful.
t. New York Times

fuck. I wanted this to be good.

5 star post

>it's a Trump voters can't understand words longer than 2 syllables episode.

People come here to act dumb.

It's not hard to understand, but it's written in an overly flowery style.

youtube.com/watch?v=-IpuCY1LmKU

WONDER WHAT HAPPENED

THEY HIRED WRITERS WHO "LOVED" STAR WARS, R-R-R-RIGHT?

>Its a make even the most vague conversation about politics post.

This. TFA was safe to the point of boredom.

>Film from last year featuring a black storm trooper

I don't know what to believe anymore

He also gave Spy and melissa mccarthy a raving review

women are funny. GET OVER IT.

>women
is that Hawaiian lookin dude trans in the film?

Well, English isn't my first language.
Not even second.

so what happened in the re-shoot, Sup Forums?

quips, lots of quips

...

It's over.

Shallow =/= glib

vocabulary.com/dictionary/glib
vocabulary.com/dictionary/shallow

it's fucking worse than TFA. Christ I'd rather some fucking EU writers get hired by disney than rehashing this same old shit with a SJW/diversity/strong women theme all the time. Fucking garbage.

66% score on metacritic fugg

I wanted this to be really good

5>4>6>3>powergap>1>2>shit>8>7>aborted nigger fetus>rogue one

Careful with that edge, son.

its that guy with the big beard isn't it? i forget his name, richard something? his writing is so fucking pretentious.

seems like the reshoots ruined it, like they always do

>pre-instantly overanalyzed implications

what did he mean by this?

DUDE GLIB FASCIMILE LMAO

it's only a 64 on Metacritic so it's not just a hoity magazine that illiterates can't understand

Disappointed.

Sounds like a dick

...

Classic try hard review
He must browse Sup Forums

Armond White and Richard Brody are the two sides of the Sup Forums coin

Armond White is the troll who writes inflammatory reviews designed to piss off as many people as possible

Richard Brody is a pseudointellectual who checks his thesaurus every three words and namedrops LE GODARD AND LE TRUFFAUT MUH NEW WAVE every 30 seconds so he can prove his taste in film is superior to the plebs.

Like, seriously, ANYONE who says attack of the clones is the best star wars movie is being intellectually dishonest

If you need to dress up such a simple sentiment so verbosely to fill your word count, then you've got nothing worthwhile to say.

>8
>being from the future
>2016

>1>2
>mvq

>a mythopoetic stew so half-baked and overcooked, a morass of pre-instantly overanalyzed implications of such shuddering impact to the series’ fundamentalists,
what did he mean by this?

>its
>twice
>missing comma
>comma instead of period
wew lad

>so half-baked and overcooked

lol

people will pretend this is great writing just to call people dumb

gotta sell newspapers to someone I guess

>Too safe
[Spoiler]Basically every member of the Rouge One team dies[/spoiler]

Still probably shit-show though

Why do they stop shooting at Vader when he has that guy on the cieling? Both of his hands were occupied but they just stand there.

>t-they were scared okay!
Suuuuure great excuse not to unload as many lasers into Vader as possible. You can film Vader wrecking shit without it looking retarded you know.

Brody is the real deal but i don't always agree with him. If you think he's "pretentious" you're an idiot.

It's not hard to understand. He calls the film's story half-baked, which it is, and the flash of everything else overcooked. Which it is.

I'd just say the movie's bad whatever.

they're shills trying to troll people into disregarding the review

only there's a bunch of other unfavorable reviews

63% on Metacritic now. I was excited for it but I won't shill for this film if it's a so-so film.

Wait this is about Rogue One? I was talking about The Force Awakens.

>only one guy in a group fights the hero/villain at a time

shitty cliche, i wish there was just one goddamn movie where they bum rush the hero/villain and kill him.

Are we just going to pretend he didn't cite Attack of the Clones as a Shakespearean masterpiece in his review?

what's the next step in your master plan?

He called the politics Shakespearean but he said that AoTC and RotS were Lucas' strongest films.