Author Topic: The reviewer should be (publicly) embarrassed.  (Read 1931 times)

bb6634

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 532
Re: The reviewer should be (publicly) embarrassed.
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2009, 02:13:49 PM »
There is a pretty interesting article written by Entertainment Weekly's Owen Glieberman.  In it, he explains that when he originally reviewed the movie Let the Right One In a year ago or so he panned did.  It was a short review given the magazine's length  constraints.  The reaction to his negative review was hostile.  Many people love this film  and was incredulous that he would actually go against the majority and pan the film.  Well, in this article, he talks about how some films tend to engender reactions that can be divisive since the object of the reaction is loved or hated passionately.  He gives a few examples such as Moulin Rouge, Boogie Nights, Natural Born Killers.  I would probably add any Lars Von Trier or David Lynch film.  His thesis if I am getting it right is great art, art that doesn't conform or isn't homogeneous, causes division, and those that love/ hate it do so passionately.   I found a similar situation last year for anyone who said they did not like The Dark Knight.  There was just this mass, unreasoned backlash against that person.  They took it personally. Glieberman explains he went back to Let the Right One In and re-watched it, to see if he may have missed the boat on this one...  and, well you can read the article.  But I found it a fascinating take on why some people care so passionately about films and what it means to be against popular opinion...

http://movie-critics.ew.com/2009/10/31/let-the-right-one-in-yes-i-saw-it-again/
« Last Edit: November 01, 2009, 02:16:09 PM by bb6634 »

Bill Thompson

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17562
  • DOOM!!!!
    • Bill's Movie Emporium
Re: The reviewer should be (publicly) embarrassed.
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2009, 02:23:54 PM »
There is a pretty interesting article written by Entertainment Weekly's Owen Glieberman.  In it, he explains that when he originally reviewed the movie Let the Right One In a year ago or so he panned did.  It was a short review given the magazine's length  constraints.  The reaction to his negative review was hostile.  Many people love this film  and was incredulous that he would actually go against the majority and pan the film.  Well, in this article, he talks about how some films tend to engender reactions that can be divisive since the object of the reaction is loved or hated passionately.  He gives a few examples such as Moulin Rouge, Boogie Nights, Natural Born Killers.  I would probably add any Lars Von Trier or David Lynch film.  His thesis if I am getting it right is great art, art that doesn't conform or isn't homogeneous, causes division, and those that love/ hate it do so passionately.   I found a similar situation last year for anyone who said they did not like The Dark Knight.  There was just this mass, unreasoned backlash against that person.  They took it personally. Glieberman explains he went back to Let the Right One In and re-watched it, to see if he may have missed the boat on this one...  and, well you can read the article.  But I found it a fascinating take on why some people care so passionately about films and what it means to be against popular opinion...

http://movie-critics.ew.com/2009/10/31/let-the-right-one-in-yes-i-saw-it-again/

There's a lot of truth in what he says, I tend to take the same view he does on this matter. Just because I love a film that doesn't mean you can't hate it, and vice-versa. However, I think there's a difference between what Glieberman is saying and what Simon is saying. Glieberman argues that certain films are not worthwhile works of art, conversely Simon appears to be arguing that certain movies aren't art, as well as arguing that there should be one universal view on films.

Holly Harry

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2222
  • Bite my shiny metal...Well, you know.
Re: The reviewer should be (publicly) embarrassed.
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2009, 02:26:21 PM »
I agree with him in that I don't think a movie should ever exist in a vaccum of perpetual positive criticism, though I also think he misses the point of that movie entirely.
"Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral, not important. History is the same thing over and over again."-Woody Allen.

joker

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1958
  • CINECAST! off
Re: The reviewer should be (publicly) embarrassed.
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2009, 01:19:00 PM »
talk about being way off with their review... greatest movie of all time...

Siskel & Ebert - Jaws: the Revenge (1987)
"This movie made me laugh so hard, I had mild headaches. So I went to the doctor to get checked out, I'm currently awaiting results"
-Gene Siskel