MC Yearly Consensus - 1947

[SirNewt]

Originally Posted by Qrazy

Yeah true, please don't take my comments as in anyway reflecting negatively on your posting of the review. I like old reviews that one just reminded me of a pet peeve I have about film reviews in general.

Convolution can be a genuine problem with a story of any kind. Why should a reviewer not point that out?

[Qrazy]

Originally Posted by SirNewt

Convolution can be a genuine problem with a story of any kind. Why should a reviewer not point that out?

Because there's a difference between saying in a sentence or two things get a little convoluted or saying as your major critique that in the end the film doesn't make sense (because you paid attention and the plot twists don't add up) and what he and others have done which is to spend the majority of the review waxing poetic about his own lack of understanding of the work.

He's a freaking critic and this isn't like late period Godard here.

[Sven]

Hmmm... I don't recall any difficulty with Out of the Past...

[soitgoes...]

Originally Posted by SirNewt

I need to see all of these. How did you find the Ozu film?

Its on KG. Or you can buy the Panorama DVD from Yesasia or similar online retailer.

[SirNewt]

Originally Posted by Qrazy

He's a freaking critic and this isn't like late period Godard here.

When you say it like that, it kind of puts the whole thing in perspective.

[Qrazy]

Originally Posted by SirNewt

When you say it like that, it kind of puts the whole thing in perspective.

Your right critics should spend all their time going on about what they did not understand in any given film. Yes, it shall be known as New I Don't Understand What I'm Watching Wave Criticism.

[monolith94]

Out of the Past holds a special place in my heart, as an ex-girlfriend of mine has a face that kind of reminds me of Jane Greer.

[Isaac]

My review of Out of the Past would be entirely about what I don't remember about it.

[Grouchy]

I actually respect it when reviewers talk in the first person. He's not saying the film was impossible to follow properly, for example, he's just saying he was lost by it. And that's completely honest and valuable.

[koji]

Originally Posted by Grouchy

I actually respect it when reviewers talk in the first person. He's not saying the film was impossible to follow properly, for example, he's just saying he was lost by it. And that's completely honest and valuable.

I think you hit on an historical aspect in terms of reviews. Bosley Crowther often wrote his reviews in the first person and was willing to admit that he did not get all the double- triple crosses. But, at that time, not many others saw the films and even fewer had any ability to share their views. I think its hard to write something like that today when others are also reviewing at the same time.

[Isaac]

I don't find an objective analysis of a film's qualities to be as interesting as a personal reaction.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Antoine

I don't find an objective analysis of a film's qualities to be as interesting as a personal reaction.

I think the best reviews have some of both.

*sits on fence*

[Qrazy]

Originally Posted by Grouchy

I actually respect it when reviewers talk in the first person. He's not saying the film was impossible to follow properly, for example, he's just saying he was lost by it. And that's completely honest and valuable.

It's honest but I fail to see how it's valuable to spend an entire review talking about that when you could talk about the elements you did understand and thought worked and didn't work.

[SirNewt]

Originally Posted by Qrazy

Your right critics should spend all their time going on about what they did not understand in any given film. Yes, it shall be known as New I Don't Understand What I'm Watching Wave Criticism.

I was being sincere.

[Qrazy]

Originally Posted by SirNewt

I was being sincere.

I guess we're certainly in a pickle.