Sentences with phrase «criticisms of a film like»

Hey George, before you waste your time to spout un-educated criticisms of a film like «Swingers», please take the time to know that «Joe» is actually JON FAVREAU, a very talented actor, the screenwriter of the movie, and also the co-producer behind it.

Not exact matches

Like the J.G. Ballard novel that inspired it, David Cronenberg's study of the sexual dimension of man's relationship to technology was a magnet for controversy, drawing a NC - 17 rating and criticism from several sources, including studio owner Ted Turner, who attempted to prevent the film's American release.

One of my rules of criticism is to never recommend a movie that has an element of time in the title if it feels like it takes that amount of time to watch the film.

I liked the film and unlike much of the criticism, didn't find it boring or confusing.

Criticisms like this all point to an underlying question: would it have been better to just give us The Hobbit, on its own with none of the appendices, and let it be a lesser film?

One of the things I've learned is that film criticism is whatever a particular reader likes, and is not what that reader does not like.

Noel: As much as it pains me to say it — in part because it sounds like sour grapes, and in part because it's almost too big a topic to tack onto this discussion — I think the rise of the OPs corresponds with the rapid decline of film criticism in the mainstream media.

Like I was telling you, in most film criticism, certainly before the invention of VHS, everybody would get everything wrong all the time because they couldn't go back to check it before publication, and one of the real whoppers is Raymond Durgnat describing «Under Capricorn» in his writing, and then Francois Truffaut taking Raymond Durgnat's description in the «Hitchcock / Truffaut» book and getting everything all wrong.

Wendy's decided to share its favorite films of 2017, and its assessment of flicks like Logan is some damn - fine film criticism.

It's much more likely the safe and predictable likes of Argo (much more worthy of ideological criticism than ZDK, incidentally, but that's another argument) or Lincoln will emerge triumphant — solid films in their own right, but par for the course when it comes to award hyperbole.

This is in part because when arts journalism is the topic of discussion today, it's often being discussed in terms of who is doing it (too many cis white knuckle - draggers like yours truly), or if indeed criticism — for our purposes, film criticism — matters anymore at all.

But this doesn't read like film criticism so much as an account of whatever mood you were in when you last saw it.

These criticisms may not be entirely fair, but ignoring them makes the film feel something like a Hallmark channel movie, meant to make the viewers feel good, even at the risk of over-sensationalizing a topic.

The heyday for American film criticism was the»70s because I think the people that got into it at that point were really inspired by the likes of Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael, both of whom became famous and established the importance of film critics as a cultural force.

It's films like this that make the job of film criticism such a joy; the possibility that every week you may encounter something that reminds you of the magical potential of cinema.

It received criticism from the likes of Jane Fonda and John Wayne — who in his last public appearance had to present it with it's Best Picture award even though he wasn't fond of the film.

We're increasingly in a world of film criticism that often feels like it's built around consensus, in which everyone has to agree that something is fantastic or awful, but Roger never cared about that.

All of these criticisms were entirely speculative however, as director Paul Feig and the hilarious female cast deliver a comical and unique spin on a beloved franchise, yet still manage to pay the appropriate respect to the original films without it feeling like a copy.

I'd also call him a film critic and a screenwriter, though his criticism, like much of Godard's and Rivette's, is made up of sounds and images rather than words and his screenwriting is always built on the writing of others.

Trumbo: Because Trumbo was directed by Jay Roach, whose top credits as of late have been HBO films like Recount and Game Change, a lot of the criticisms leveled against the film have slighted it as a glorified TV movie.

The sort of problem Sontag has with Jameson is, of course, the very argument Bordwell has with anyone from Slavoj Žižek to Jacques Lacan, evident in a comment he makes on his blog (but not in the book) that echoes directly Sontag's: «Most of FRT [Zizek's The Fright of Real Tears] offers standard film criticism, providing impressionistic readings of various [Krzysztof] Kieslowski films in regard to recurring themes, visual motifs, dramatic structures, borrowed philosophical concepts, and the like.»

Indeed some of the more recent MCU origin films like «Doctor Strange» and «Ant - Man» scored criticism for their overfamiliarity, which is why Moore tells Cinema Blend that they have every intention to avoid the issue:

And as film criticism written by passionately engaged people with actual knowledge of film history has gradually faded from the scene, it seems like there are more and more voices out there engaged in pure judgmentalism, people who seem to take pleasure in seeing films and filmmakers rejected, dismissed and in some cases ripped to shreds.

I actually really like Ebert's reviews as a rule and I have a lot of respect for him and what he has done for film criticism.

That he once had the uncanny experience of discovering his own writing repurposed (without citation) in a sheet of UCLA screening notes is not that surprising — next to his small - scale but refreshingly original insights, the majority of film criticism looks like a rhetorically polished thesaurus - job.

Then Neil talks about what it's like as a filmmaker to listen and read criticism of his films, and what influences that has on his work.

That might sound like contrarian posturing in light of the many, many essays that have recently eulogized the «death of film criticism.»

Every act of film criticism is like a surgery — always haunted by the risk of failure, always at the risk of discovering something ineffable.

And like me, he's a bit perturbed by some of the hostile criticism that has been lobbed at the film, and its protagonist Poppy in particular — such as Jeff Wells» wildly off - base (to my mind) accusation that the film is guilty of «emotional -LSB-...]

On top of that, this film also keeps banging you over the head with the message that the royal family are just like you and I, despite the extravagant wealth, fame etc., and to that end the screenplay, easily the film's biggest weakness, keeps contriving things for Jack and Elizabeth to have in common in an attempt to have a «star - crossed lovers» element to the story — which brings me to my biggest criticism of this film, the script.

The slightness of a film like «An» will let it slip through the cracks unscathed, escaping the more volatile criticism surely to de dumped on, say, Gaspar Noe's «Love» and other more audacious entries in the official selection.

Let's talk about the struggles of criticism, like that recent Atlantic essay about the lack of female film critics.

Lazy nonsense like this gives film criticism its (avoidable) reputation of contributing nothing to the world.

Cinephilia, like film studies and film criticism, has tended to be torn between two opposing goals: breaking down the barriers between disciplines and traditional conceptions of art, and shoring up its own legitimacy by appealing to those very categories it sought to undermine.

And despite the criticism over being the Ghostbuster who was black and not a scientist — like Ernie Hudson in the original — Jones is the film's biggest breath of fresh air as the street-wise transit worker who joins the team after encountering a nasty ghost in a subway tunnel.

Boom writers like Gabriel García Márquez (who briefly attended the Centro Sperimentale di Cinematografia in Rome and oversaw the creation of the Fundación del Nuevo Cine Latinoamericano in Cuba) were having these conversations abroad — but did that mean they needn't have taken place within Anglophone film criticism circles from those Latino writers who were finding their own bilingual voices?

After fierce criticism of the shortlists and the criteria for the award in previous years, when candidates like the film maker Derek Jarman (for his movie Caravaggio) were put forward, this year the Tate is refusing to publish the short list.