Sentences with phrase «what film criticism»

Two comments intrigued me — MA's remark that there's a lot of misunderstanding regarding what film criticism is about, and 2cents insisting that MA is a critic, and not a reviewer.

I do see a lot of namecalling, lack of understanding of what I wrote, and a general lack of understanding of what film criticism is about.

Not exact matches

But I don't mention my expectations to give criticism along those lines; consider them more notes on how this is a Tarantino film, but unlike what I've come to expect from the master filmmaker.

Slant should figure out exactly what it's doing: reviews, or something more akin to film criticism?

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.

What is film criticism?

It just goes to prove Roger Ebert's old saying — and one of my favorite quotes about film criticism — «It's not what the movie is about, it's how it's about it.»

But first you have to accept their limitations (they're mostly old white guys), accept the limitations of Hollywood overall (mostly run by white guys), accept the limitations of film criticism in 2015 (mostly white guys), accept the limitations of ticket buyers and the you can start to imagine what's possible.

Perhaps due to the choices to cover older works, they're more able than ever to produce intelligent, thoughtful, and informative criticism — while this article maligns their production value as no better than «the average Youtube video,» editing a video review to provide context via clips of the film is a step beyond what the vast majority of populist or even academic film criticism has done in the past, let alone other related films in the genre and in the director's oeuvre for context.

But I don't think that the traditional mode of what we collectively recognize as «film criticism» is satisfying for me anymore, and that's informed my movie - going habits accordingly.

One of the criticisms of the second and third films was that everyone so busy saving Katniss, it took away from what made her so cool in the original Hunger Games.

If you ask most people (a.k.a. the white male majority that covers film criticism now and holds most of the power that drives the US film industry to churn out the kind of crap it does every summer) what they think of Lincoln they will tell you probably something similar to what this anonymous dude wandering out of a screening just transmitted to the NY Post's Lou Lumenick, who then posted it as credible:

There's a funny moment in an interview where LaVona asks what happened to her story, which is a bit self - criticism of the film's looseness.

On top of what reads as an almost encyclopaedic account of English - language writing on and debates around mise en scène, Martin offers appropriate engagement with French film scholarship — both in translation and in the original — plus the thriving world of trans - national Spanish - language film criticism.

What do you believe is the importance of film criticism today and how would you compare it to what was being written decades What do you believe is the importance of film criticism today and how would you compare it to what was being written decades what was being written decades ago?

An informative new film criticism video essay attempts to get to the bottom of just what criticism is, and why it's important.

We might circle back to these films later to conduct some genuine criticism, by which every art form thrives, and analyze why a film is doing what it's doing, and how it's doing it.

I don't see the point in discussing criticism, which is entirely subjective, and then couching a subjective statement like «Little Fockers isn't a better film than Killing Them Softly» in an objective manner to support what is essentially a subjective argument masquerading as an objective argument.

She wasn't necessarily all that big on what he calls «subtextual film criticism,» but she knew how to write in a readable, engaging and idiosyncratic style.

Willems dives into the current state of online film criticism — what people expect from it, how people are consuming it, and what its true potential really is.

As the movie opened to rave reviews across the country today, Amitabh Bachchan, the veteran Bollywood actor who led criticism of the film, said he had apologised to Boyle following what he said was media misinterpretation of apparently critical comments he made on his blog.

This insightful documentary examines the oft - misunderstood world of film criticism and explores what the future holds for it in the Internet era.

Anyone who writes film criticism (at least the «serious» kind), or reads it on a semi-regular basis, probably knows exactly what I'm talking about here.

** The most detailed film criticism I've seen on American TV was The Men Who Made the Movies, the Richard Schickel PBS series where he led great directors through discussions of their themes and styles, then showed what they were talking about.

What strikes me as slightly disingenuous is his lament for serious film criticism.

What is substantive about the film can not be attempted by film criticism, anymore than deconstructing a poem according to its word choice, its grammar, its novelty.

But what if «Three Billboards» isn't about the redemption of Dixon, as I, and others, have suggested in our criticisms of the film?

One may as well ask what is the function of film criticism: to guide the prospective viewer into places they might not go on their own, or to confirm for them what they already believe?

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

-LSB-...] interior meaning, a term that gave me a great deal of trouble at the time, but one that has since come to define what all serious film criticism seeks to discover.

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.

So how do you review what is, in essence, a piece of film criticism?

A dear professor named Bill Mackie taught film production, veteran director Edward Dmytryk an editing workshop and I took film criticism courses with Tom Schatz, and did a lot of what would now be called interdisciplinary study, mixing courses in folklore and anthropology and psychology with courses in Communications and film studies.

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.

But to go back to what I wrote in the Frances McDormand post and the criticism of Three Billboards, and a lot of that criticism is about his character in particular, can you separate the performance from the story, can and should Sam Rockwell be celebrated for his work in a film that might be the Crash of 2017/18?

If you feel I'm overthinking and analyzing what is only meant to be a cute talking animal movie for children, welcome to film criticism and please hang up your kid gloves.

Instead, he's fighting against what he considers to be a dumbing down of film criticism.

The third enemy is what we laughingly call «the American film criticism establishment.»

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.

Ben Lyons showed exactly what's wrong with populist film criticism and is indirectly responsible for the cancellation of one of my favourite film review shows.

What ensues is not perfect; yes, Kirsten Dunst «s unrealistically idyllic flight attendant Claire is occasionally grating as hell (but can we please eliminate «manic pixie dream girl» from our film criticism vocabulary?)

What's most exciting about film criticism in the internet age is that it is truly democratic: the best criticism can come from the most unexpected quarters, from personalities without any history or credentials in film criticism or studies.

Jordon's 1992 film, «The Crying Game» came under similar criticism for what some saw as a sympathetic portrayal of the IRA.

And so, perhaps the larger question we should be asking is what US film criticism is missing out on with its lack of a large enough Latino contingent.

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.

Great write up Guy, seriously a great way to end what I think was a fantastic year in terms of the level of excellent film criticism you produced.