ITT: Terrible film criticism

I'll start

>Cheeto dust

Other urls found in this thread:

filmschoolrejects.com/this-is-what-happens-when-two-directors-make-the-same-script-into-different-movies-1cb00f1a6f85/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>kino

>It's in-your-face

>a mess
(A movie could literally be a "mess" but I noticed that critics use it when they can't give a reason for dislike a flick)

>tone is all over the place
>the pacing is off
>bad editing

Post what you actually mean. Don't just post vague buzzwords. Actually explain what you found wrong

Bad move OP, you just outed yourself as an individual who enjoys the flicks of Denis Villeneuve.

>movie has white people

>pacing is off
it's pretty fucking obvious what this means though

HOW TO SPOT A BRAINLET PLEB 101

>only able to discuss literal plot points and the logical order of the narrative of a film
>every film has a singular universal "deep meaning" which you have to "get" to understand it
>"The writing is the most important filmmaking element!"
>thinks that empty pretty pictures means "good cinematography"
>"I don't find this part of the narrative plausible or realistic, therefore the movie is SHIT!"
>treating a film like a puzzle which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to get it
>a film is either utter dogshit or a masterpiece, there is no inbetween
>"Who cares about editing, framing and composition sound and whatnot if the story isn't great."
>considers heavy use of direct symbolism as a positive factor
>using "boring" and "nothing happens" as arguments ever

>The cinematography is so on the nose and leave you wanting

>it was piss your pants funny but had poor filmmaking

>boooring!

>moovie waz boring

>BITINGLY funny
>BITING humour
>BITING satire

Bad editing specifically refers to a major element of filmmaking. How can it be more clear?

>subtlety is better than overtness
The biggest red flag of them all, applies to all art.

>"I didn't relate to any characters"

>not enough women

only valid post ITT, though in some movies actually nothing happens, not in a 'lol no explosions' way but in a 'this movie is completely useless' way.

All of this.

How it was badly edited?
Are they talking about the cuts in the fight scenes, color grading in certain shots, sound editing etc

>it's le mindfuck
(for a positive review)

>there’s no direction
Good. I like that. I like real life movies. I won’t knkw what’s gonna happen next if the movie isn’t following a set structure.

I'll take DC movies for 500

What the fuck does cheeto dust mean in film criticism?

To accept Paul Thomas Anderson as a quality director is to garb yourself in a coat of hot pockets and video games and then writh around on the ground in a supermarket while screaching and slapping yourself on the sides of your head.

He is cheeto dust. Nothing more.

Nothing more than a hack, a useful tool for studios to trot out to say "Hey, we're making art house!". I cannot wrap my head around the adulation he receives, let alone the wide praise this has got. The film trudges from set piece to set piece, leaves us no real questions or anything to think about really.

The same bullet that kills a capeshit fan will also kill the Paul Thomas Anderson fan. They come from the same root, from the same Doritos stained console. They are frauds, and as a warrior of Cinema it's my duty to expose the fakes and the inauthentic when I see them. I will fight with crawls and teeth until the last imposter is fallen to the ground.

>it has plotholes
Sure it's a point against it, but it's not enough to make a movie bad by itself like people pretend.

>despite never being in a similar situation a character does something I wouldn't have done
>PLOT HOLE

>hog stealin noose tyin yellow bellin

>it was boring
>the cgi sucked

>amazons outfit were sexist

>i hated it but it had good waifus

agree on all but
>"I don't find this part of the narrative plausible or realistic, therefore the movie is SHIT!"
>"Who cares about editing, framing and composition sound and whatnot if the story isn't great."
its part of the reason why i dont like STD

>HOW TO SPOT A GOOD CINEMATIST
ftfy

>it just opened more questions than what it answered

editing in that sense refers to the rhythm that the dialogue and actions were chopped too. Watching bad editing is like listening to a drummer that can't keep on the beat

>a film is either utter dogshit or a masterpiece, there is no inbetween
ISNT THAT WHAT YOURE DOING IF YOU SHILD THE WRITING FROM CRITICISM

>slow pacing

More of a trailer trope, but it crops up in criticism a lot too:
>Visionary director

I love it when I'm in a fight and I swing at someone and miss them by a full 12 inches, but they fall down anyways.

this one is gold

>NA ENOUTH DYVERSYTI

>a glib facsimile

>it was tonally inconsistent

It just sounds like you're an idiot who doesn't understand words. Those are valid criticisms.

I agree that those can be red flags but honestly if it is egregious enough you can't discount a very poorly constructed story. A film really needs to be firing on all cylinderd so to speak to be great.

>a film should be made for its audience
>by "audience" they mean "me"

>it's not fun

>a tour de force

>the movie was bad because I don't agree with character's point of view

This webm should be posted whenever someone claims this movie is a good adaptation of Watchmen.

But the editing being bad is a legitimate criticism
Bad editing can ruin a movie

>Too much water

Kek I remember that one

>movie overly reliant on cgi
>not enough practical effects

>Movie relies too much on cgi
>cgi looks like shit
It happens a lot and it highlights the director's incompetence.

>it doesn't pander to my political beliefs.

>faggot op spamming retard wojack
So this is the full untapped power of reddit

>you just didn't "get it"

>Film is different/"unfaithful" to the source material

This.

The social network used shit loads of CGI and VFX the twins were both 1 actor with his his face CGIed onto a twin and you would've never known

>this is how a film will look like in 2050 (And It's Beautiful)

Worst fucking criticism.

Anime will never look like film the medium and style is completely different for a reason. Certain things from a book or comic just can't be translated into film without breaking immersion or looking so out of place. Yet these sourcefags think it's so easy to just do it and want it EXACTLY like the source material.

>It tries too hard

>Watching Zuckerberg bio-pic
Yes goy, jack off your masters, mmmm yeeessss

This.

>BASED random chauvinistic one-dimensional character makes up for the otherwise poor plot

Forgive me lord I'm about to commit sin

Bronn?

Just because you're too stupid to understand basic concepts doesn't mean they're bad at communicating.

Rhettal is a goddess

...

Any criticism A Cure for Wellness got. Just make a thread and cringe.

They are only vague if the critic doesn't try to give examples (which is the norm)

>twins were both 1 actor with his his face CGIed onto a twin

I am embarrassed I didn't realize this.

no fucking way
i'm actually astounded

>hasn't seen Scott Pilgrim

hi star wars how are you

>I fell asleep in the theater

I shit you not I heard this from a girl who writes film reviews

That was adapted well

It didnt go for the CGI eyes and it worked with them looking like normal humans, Mew had blue hair but it didnt look like an abomination of hair like the DBZ movie

>it insists upon itself

>the characters are unlikeable

>>"The writing is the most important filmmaking element!"
But it literally is.

You can take the same exact script of almost any film and make a completely different film out of it.

Give me an example.

Dr. Strangelove and Fail-Safe are about the same exact subject and are based on the same exact novel, yet one is a satire black comedy while the other is a bonechilling thriller. Yes their scripts are not the same, but the "story" is completely the same.

One written line in a script can be 5 seconds or 5 minutes long in a film, depending on how does the director want to interpret that line on-screen.

Now give me a better example of two movis using the exact same script

filmschoolrejects.com/this-is-what-happens-when-two-directors-make-the-same-script-into-different-movies-1cb00f1a6f85/

You have to admit, the story was a little bit sparse. But apart from that, it was one of the best films of 2017. Not top ten, more like top twenty.

>a tour de france

>it's fun
>it's not fun
>Ur a pleb
>Ur underage
>soyboy or whatever
>avoiding giving a proper argument