Movie review

>movie review
>..but ultimately, it falls flat

Other urls found in this thread:

cracked.com/blog/ong-bak-2-action-porn-evolved/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>"It's not without flaws"

>romp

>It's not that fun

>This is a new perfect film. 10/10.

>author is jewish

>"a tour de force"

I meant

>a *near* perfect film. 10/10.

>I didnt laugh as much as i wanted to
>i laughed a lot, so its good

>"a glib facsimile"

>You'll love this movie
>Unless you're a woman

>here's the thing

>you're not going to get a rant out of me
>*proceeds to rant for 10 minutes*

>Critic brings up the main actor's personal life as a means of criticizing the movie

>it doesn't live up to the magic of the first installment in the trilogy
>but it still has enough goodies in its bag of tricks to make this film really shine in its own light

>it wears it's flaws on his sleeves

>maybe a more subtle approach...
>but, it was to hamfisted

>vistas

>an important movie for our times

>reviewer is Chris Jericho

>Yes, yes well done movie, well done. HOWEVER

what does this mean

>A love letter to...

Why do all reviewers write in the same way? It disgusts me

>compelling

It didn't overdo something exept for when it did.

>A scathing satire of Trump's America

>it's more of an experience than a movie

>EPIC ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
>A triumph ⭐⭐⭐⭐

>the latest installment
>at times a little too real
>a decent effort that couldn't quite live up to expectations
>that left audiences on the edge of their seats

>riveting tour de force

movie review, 80% of it focused at
>...all white lead
>...no diversity
>...sexism
>...it is political commentary to X/Y
>blabla about bullshit
then
>ye but it is nice to watch and got nice sound effects
NOT A SINLE WORD ABOUT WHAT MAKES MOVIE A MOVIE INSTEAD BOOK
when was last time You read review breaking down to audio/video formats, editing, and other things that make movie 'VISUAL MEDIUM'?

What does a good review look like to you guys?

>A ROLLICKING, RIVETING ROLLER-COASTER

>cover blurb by Earl Dittman

>A classic case of style over substance

>info about makers
>technical specs, length, format
>short synopsis without spoilers
>solid words about it's 'visual medium' side
>maybe, maybe few words about pol/sjw shit
>NOT BIASED, NO POLITICAL PREFERENCE
just like old, good reviews

when has this ever happened?

>FUN!
>Three stars!
>A RIP-ROARING GOOD TIME!
>Your kids will love it!
>Movie of the week!

90's reviews were so much more honest.

Any Mel Gibson movie

>two thumbs up!
>a masterpiece!

>we give this film two thumbs WAY up

Film school reports

>...golden age of Hollywood

>...bbbuuuuutttttt

No cliches, and some attempt to describe the experience of watching the film, rather than just recounting the plot and naming all the lead actors.

Basically, reviews are shit, criticism is good. I want to read film critics who seem aware that criticism is a literary genre, and who seem to have read something other than film reviews in their lives.

Here's another for the list of reviewer bullshit phrases: "[title]-era [director]". Like, I read a movie recently described as being reminiscent of "Which Way to the Front?-era Jerry Lewis". So what you mean is, it reminded you a bit of one Jerry Lewis film. Probably not that much, or it would have reminded you of all of them - Lewis's style in that film isn't a major departure from the style he'd already established. So why say it? To seem like you know what you're talking about, when you know perfectly well that you're bluffing.

Shit like this is why most viewers regard professional film criticism as thieving a living - if you write as lazily as most of them, yeah, it is theft. But it shouldn't be, and it doesn't need to be.

>a marvelous piece of entertainment for the whole family. 10/10

Just read some reviews by Armond White or Vincent Canby

It's usually "Hollywood's Golden Age", because that's one less word and the capitalization makes it seem more informed.

>A PANTS-RIPPING GOOD TIME

I absolutely hate when people write an essay about who is in the movie and what it's about. Especially when there's usually a fucking synopsis right above it. I don't even read those anymore.

A short simple I liked it because xyz / cinematography was xyz / soundtrack was xyz is enough for me.

>sperging out about blacks
>calling every female character a mary sue
>crying that it makes fun of Trump
>some mention of Armond White
There.

White is fucking atrocious though, much as I'd like him to be good. He writes like he has a far more restrictive word count than he has, and his pieces aren't interestingly compressed, just journalistic and buzzphrasey.

No man, this thread is about real examples of reviewer laziness, not Sup Forums whining.

>it has product placement so that makes it automatically bad

>movie review
>its just a summary of the plot with some commentaries like "the cinematography was good, "the music was ok" in between

Lol sure it is.

>Letterboxd movie review
>OMG THIS BLOCKBUSTER WHICH I'LL FORGET IN TWO WEEKS IS MY NEW FAVOURITE MOVIE I HAVE TO WRITE IN ALL CAPS BECAUSE I'M SO EXCITED
>btw fuck white males

>It's new, so it's good.

Literally never happens.

>AN ASS-BRAAPING GOOD TIME

Why not read all the posts which make that clear, threadshitter?

>nothing happened
>pretentious

>AN ASS RAPING GOOD TIME

>This kafkaesque piece of sneed flick will make you and your friends chuck off to the nearest toilet for a good barf.

>we tip with a rip

cracked.com/blog/ong-bak-2-action-porn-evolved/

>Cracked

>a riveting tour de France.

>[INSERT CITY HERE] is really the main character of the film

>hating on prime Seanbaby
You're the one with problems.