Fine question. I actually have a problem with his review. You can see enough of the effects in the trailer to see that there look good. This review smells like he is casting pajoritives for the sake of casting the. I feel like he just did not want to like this movie. Get some objectivity Ebert.
I disagree. No I haven't seen the movie but the trailers make it look exactly like what Ebert says. And in general these types of movies follow the Transformers template of being as loud and frenetic as possible. If the Ebe is using this as a vehicle to slam this trend, I'm all for it. If the trailer gave me headache I'm guessing the two hour version won't make me feel any better.
His point about these types of films make no sense in their editing of these scenes rings totally true to me as does his criticism of the aliens which looked derivative and amateurish.
There is so much original sci fi out there to be mined and all we keep getting is this movie being made over and over in some form or another.
my only point is to make up our own minds as fans of sci fi. If you don't want to see the movie then that's your decision. Personally, I enjoy going to an action flick with some unknown alien enemy, indulge in popcorn, guzzle some soda, and watch a gang of explosions. For me, it's fun. Ebert, like many other critics, likes to hate on things and it often seems rather arbitrary. After seeing the movie, I definitely don't think the aliens were low budget and agree that the writing was full of flaws. But, I didn't go for the dialogue; I went for the guns and alien meanie-faces. So, I would kindly request that critics let me have my good time without shitting all over everything that isn't directed by Darren Aronofsky.
My point is that I appreciate The Ebe being there to warn me off since I share his sentiments. Obviously anyone uses their discretion and preferences to guide them in ignoring or heeding the advice. I'm not suggesting people don't see it because of Ebert. But I'm glad he's there to help affirm the impression I had that this movie would give me headaches. His wasn't the only review to paint this picture. He just took it to higher level with the combo of his writing skill, name rec, and extra mile with the half star rating. The last is what brought most of the attention as opposed to the hundreds of other bad reviews the movie got.
So the critique is necessary imo. Certainly not necessary that everyone read or agree. Now that probably is a part of him trying to shame hollywood into making more thoughtful movies. He will fail for they have no shame. But I for one appreciate the effort.
I see your point and completely respect your opinion; but, that's exactly why I made my initial argument. I want YOUR opinion, first hand. Ebert makes good points in his critique; but, he's one voice. There is no single measure with which to critique a movie and not every movie has to be a high-minded film that revolutionizes the medium. I guess I was left wondering why Ebert even watched this movie in the first place since he seemed to dislike the action genre no-matter what. Comparatively, Battle:Los Angeles was much more fun than Avatar and, dare I say, more original in concept. It differed from Independence Day more than Avatar differed from Disney's Pocahontas.
I've always appreciated Ebert's input and tend to agree with him. I have also had an issue with movie critics ever since I started reading about literary criticism and know how real critics try to uncover their own biases and explore them with equal fervor as they explore the coherence of a creative work. Ultimately, a critic has no say in the success of a work of art and I refuse to let a film critic ruin my good time at the movies.
Sometimes, a movie is just entertainment and that's okay. Who in their right-mind would even bother critiquing a movie like Battle: Los Angeles? It's not striving to meet any standard, only to break the record for number of bullets unloaded per action-packed minute. It seems SOOOooOOOooo ridiculous to me that an intelligent film critic would even waste their time on something they're destined to hate. Ebert should stick to art flicks and let entertainment entertain. Call it low brow, call it base, call it whatever you want; I just want some explosions and a rush of endorphines to mix with my damn sugar water and butterish topping!
So that's what a critic thinks, but what do we fans think?
ReplyDeleteFine question. I actually have a problem with his review. You can see enough of the effects in the trailer to see that there look good. This review smells like he is casting pajoritives for the sake of casting the. I feel like he just did not want to like this movie. Get some objectivity Ebert.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. No I haven't seen the movie but the trailers make it look exactly like what Ebert says. And in general these types of movies follow the Transformers template of being as loud and frenetic as possible. If the Ebe is using this as a vehicle to slam this trend, I'm all for it. If the trailer gave me headache I'm guessing the two hour version won't make me feel any better.
ReplyDeleteHis point about these types of films make no sense in their editing of these scenes rings totally true to me as does his criticism of the aliens which looked derivative and amateurish.
There is so much original sci fi out there to be mined and all we keep getting is this movie being made over and over in some form or another.
my only point is to make up our own minds as fans of sci fi. If you don't want to see the movie then that's your decision. Personally, I enjoy going to an action flick with some unknown alien enemy, indulge in popcorn, guzzle some soda, and watch a gang of explosions. For me, it's fun. Ebert, like many other critics, likes to hate on things and it often seems rather arbitrary. After seeing the movie, I definitely don't think the aliens were low budget and agree that the writing was full of flaws. But, I didn't go for the dialogue; I went for the guns and alien meanie-faces. So, I would kindly request that critics let me have my good time without shitting all over everything that isn't directed by Darren Aronofsky.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that I appreciate The Ebe being there to warn me off since I share his sentiments. Obviously anyone uses their discretion and preferences to guide them in ignoring or heeding the advice. I'm not suggesting people don't see it because of Ebert. But I'm glad he's there to help affirm the impression I had that this movie would give me headaches. His wasn't the only review to paint this picture. He just took it to higher level with the combo of his writing skill, name rec, and extra mile with the half star rating. The last is what brought most of the attention as opposed to the hundreds of other bad reviews the movie got.
ReplyDeleteSo the critique is necessary imo. Certainly not necessary that everyone read or agree. Now that probably is a part of him trying to shame hollywood into making more thoughtful movies. He will fail for they have no shame. But I for one appreciate the effort.
I see your point and completely respect your opinion; but, that's exactly why I made my initial argument. I want YOUR opinion, first hand. Ebert makes good points in his critique; but, he's one voice. There is no single measure with which to critique a movie and not every movie has to be a high-minded film that revolutionizes the medium. I guess I was left wondering why Ebert even watched this movie in the first place since he seemed to dislike the action genre no-matter what. Comparatively, Battle:Los Angeles was much more fun than Avatar and, dare I say, more original in concept. It differed from Independence Day more than Avatar differed from Disney's Pocahontas.
ReplyDeleteI've always appreciated Ebert's input and tend to agree with him. I have also had an issue with movie critics ever since I started reading about literary criticism and know how real critics try to uncover their own biases and explore them with equal fervor as they explore the coherence of a creative work. Ultimately, a critic has no say in the success of a work of art and I refuse to let a film critic ruin my good time at the movies.
Sometimes, a movie is just entertainment and that's okay. Who in their right-mind would even bother critiquing a movie like Battle: Los Angeles? It's not striving to meet any standard, only to break the record for number of bullets unloaded per action-packed minute. It seems SOOOooOOOooo ridiculous to me that an intelligent film critic would even waste their time on something they're destined to hate. Ebert should stick to art flicks and let entertainment entertain. Call it low brow, call it base, call it whatever you want; I just want some explosions and a rush of endorphines to mix with my damn sugar water and butterish topping!