Sentences with phrase «much film criticism»

So much film criticism focuses on directors that we sometimes forget what draws most people to the screen: the prospect of seeing an actor connect with a role and really live it.

While concentrating on a relatively small number of individual films, the author of Flesh and Excess steers clear of any auteurist snobbery, and brings to the subject a joyfully amorphous critical stance, deftly avoiding the canonising practices of much film criticism.

Not exact matches

My critique of Disney is not so much concerned with the content of its films and other media, though the content is certainly open to criticism.

Much of the (unwarranted) criticism of The Two Towers focussed on the idea that the film couldn't be taken on its own, with critics (wrongly) claiming that it didn't have a meaningful beginning and end.

Nonetheless, that's a fairly minor criticism as far as this film is concerned, and I still enjoyed PANDA 2 about as much as I enjoyed it predecessor.

Often reviled in his native United States but worshipped as a genius throughout much of Europe and especially France, Lewis took slapstick comedy to new realms of absurdity and outrageousness, his anarchic vision dividing audiences who found him infantile and witless from those who applauded the ambitions of his sight gags, his subversions of standard comedic patterns, and his films» acute criticisms of American values.

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

When he's not watching movies or writing and editing film criticism, he's trying to absorb as much music, art and literature as possible.

It is interesting that visual artists have drawn on the richness of film titles, exploring the relationship between text and image in this context, but this is not a subject that has generated much interest in the area of film criticism.

Alone among his critical colleagues who became filmmakers, he insisted from the beginning that his writing and filmmaking were essentially alternate vehicles for the same discourse; his early movies functioned as film criticism the same way his reviews anticipated much of his filmmaking.

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.

When it comes to film criticism... well, most people know as much about it as they do about the self - defrost mechanisms in their freezers.

While he does not offer much criticism of these films, Cowie at least recognises their limitations — something Kurosawa transcended with Ikiru, the second film (the first being Rashomon [1950]-RRB- in which he truly articulated his genius as a director.

When he's not watching movies and writing and editing film criticism, he's trying to absorb as much music, art, and literature as possible.

Give an Oscar to every old - guard critic who was able to successfully pretend that they'd EVER looked at Entertainment Weekly outside of a dentist's office in the last decade); but I'm really perplexed to see the first one to really take off come from Movie Mezzanine — which I'm a fan of for much the same reason I became a fan of much of the TGWTG crew (and their other affiliates): fresh voices in film criticism coming in from outside the old guard print - media stronghold.

The particular nature of Sargeant's film writing has much to do with insisting on the material as less the object of film criticism (criticism, too, must undergo a thorough expurgation if one is to think through underground film and write about it), and more an attempt to situate it within a wider context of describing its performance upon the audience.

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.

Agee's words have an indignant tone, calling for a reverence that is out of fashion in much academic film criticism, and which Naremore clearly champions.

Where much talk of film culture necessarily targets the social conditions enabled (and disabled) by government, institutions, big business, etc, an older tradition in film criticism takes a step away from this «materialist» fray, to revel in the visions of special auteurs.

In addition, and unlike much English - language film scholarship even today (and certainly television studies), the book is far from Anglophone - or even Francophone - centric in its account of both cinema and criticism / theory's history, being at pains to emphasise the reality of new - century scholarly discourse as truly global in scope.

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

In the whole history of film criticism and analysis there almost certainly hasn't been a film so heavily written about in the vein of how much better it could have been had the studio left it in its author's hands.

Unsurprisingly, much of «Life Itself» is given over to Ebert's democratizing and popularizing impact on the world of film criticism, with judiciously chosen clips («Bonnie and Clyde,» «Cries and Whispers,» «Raging Bull») and excerpts from those same films» respective reviews used to show how Ebert combined his encyclopedic knowledge of cinema with an accessible, plainspoken writing style that could be understood by anybody.

That much larger festival whisked us in different directions shortly into our first meeting, but we spoke on the phone later in the week, and she shared three decades» worth of insight on the world of film criticism with me.

As I said before, I have not seen very many of your television shows or films before «Shaun of the Dead,» much of this criticism will be based on your works after 2004.

For all the criticism surrounding Ghost in the Shell — and there is plenty — the film pretty much accomplishes what it sets out to do.

The parallels between the two are strong enough for claims that this was as much a remake as a sequel to emerge as one of the biggest of the few criticisms leveled against the film.

Of course, no one seems to take much of what Armond White says seriously (he also claims that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism), but I think he makes an interesting point here.

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.

It didn't affect the Oscar nominations, since voting closed prior to its publication — but it is a potent piece of writing that went beyond criticism, calling into judgment the voting bodies that have heaped so much praise on the film already.

It might feel personal, but at times it feels as if cinema isn't worth it, that it doesn't matter how much time I spend developing projects, reading criticism, writing it, making some experiments shooting, seeing films... I won't ever be «good» at it.

Dog Day Afternoon A much stranger film than I expected, but the most concrete criticism I have is that it feels tame.

At the risk of antagonizing readers from academic background, I venture to suggest that film criticism has as much obligation to learn from film academia as experimental filmmaking has to learn from genre cinema.

While most scholarship treats films as fodder for validating and perpetuating sacred theoretical frameworks, much like Thomas Kuhn's scientific paradigms, film criticism takes each film primarily as an autonomous art object and derives from the object the analytical tools necessary for discussing it, which may or may not be found in film theory toolkit.

Given the allegorical method of Darren Aronofsky's storytelling the film is open to much interpretation and criticism.

We also dig much deeper into the Siskel & Ebert show than he does in the memoir, because I think it's such an important, key part of how we came to know Roger, how he was defined, and how he made an impact on film criticism.

His contemporary efforts bear little resemblance to his earlier films... and that's not a criticism of either category, merely an observation of how much he's changed as an artist.