 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.81.84.149
In Reply to: The New Yorker and Wall Street Journal dismissed it too, so my question to you is: posted by clarkjohnsen on September 3, 2005 at 09:17:19:
An intelligent movie about intelligent characters for intelligent viewers." studied sociology of culture at Columbia, where I received a Ph.D., at a time when there was M.A. but no doctorate in film studies. I belong to a small group of film scholars who have juggled two careers: teaching and criticism. Over the years, I have taught film at Columbia University, the New School of Social Research, Wellesley College, Arizona State University, and UCLA.
As a critic, I had a prominent voice at Variety, the bible of showbiz, for which I wrote throughout the 1990s. I then assumed the position of chief film critic for Screen International, which I left to pursue more serious scholarship."
His review...
Follow Ups:
I came away impressed by the effort, but with a luke warm opinion of this distinctly non-garden variety flick. It boils down to not being as fully engaged by this film as I should've been considering the content. The problem seems to stem from what Director Fernando Meirelles shows the viewer rather than what he doesn't, or vice versa, and THAT requires a bit of explanation!If the viewer hadn't been shown any of the related action the film might've been a tad more suspenseful, as with a mystery where the threads have to be woven together, but by showing brief snippets of actual horrors as both a preface to the film and in montage as flashbacks without providing the bloodthursty acts on screen it's more difficult developing the empathy you really want to feel for these characters.
This film appears to be neither fish nor fowl, but it is tasty & fresh, if not as readily consumable as one might prefer. As an acquired taste I'd give it a personal recommendation of *** 1/2, with the caveat that it probably won't please everybody.
AuPh
s
There is a shot that last more than 6 seconds --- why though would that matter?It is not a typically shot film and that may be off putting to some - I personally despised NYPD Blue because of the jerky camera work -- this film has a lot of hand helds and POV and angled shots. I don't really find it a plus in most films but nor was it a distraction. Though twice in the film I would have liked a steady dead on shot.
Clearly most critics were not put off by this.
"This is a supremely well-executed piece of popular entertainment that is likely to linger in your mind and may even trouble your conscience.""be on the lookout for op-ed columns and public relations bulletins challenging its dire view of big pharmaceutical companies"
After reading some of the things from some critics they were obviously too stupid to follow the plot or they were paid off.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/movies/31gard.html?ex=1157083200&en=63ad3a91abcb4502&ei=5083&partner=Rotten Tomatoes (Open in New Window)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]