View Single Post
Old 04-24-2013, 12:43 PM   #124
SoNicRaDiATioN
warming the ocean cold
 
SoNicRaDiATioN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,720
Default Re: Iron Man 3 vs Man Of Steel

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post

Also... I'm not quite sure TDKR wasn't the best film of the summer. Certainly it didn't win the box office, and it wasn't *even remotely* as much fun as Avengers. But as a film... it had a few foibles like Bruce's magical recovery, and it slowed down way too much at one point... but it mostly just failed to be as good as TDK. Avengers, while I certainly liked it more, and looked forward to it more, has some pretty sizeable plot holes and inconsistencies, and without a love for the characters, everyone's story thread but Iron Man and Hulk's fell a little flat. I think when people say "X was best because I liked it more" I don't think that's actually dealing with the quality of a film. I think there are objective standards of storytelling and visualization that can be applied... and this is what good critics do... that go beyond that subjectivity. In fact, a really good critic can say 'you know what, this was a horrible movie, but if you like this sort of thing, it's a lot of fun, so go see it.' That's how you know they understand the difference between a subjective and an objective film review.
Rather simplistic, but if you believe that, then hey, more power to you. It's never that black and white imo. A well written review is enough to allow the reader to make up his or her own mind. Having to tell someone to go see a film is just pandering. Let the studios and actors do that in the ads and press junkets. But a lot of critics are shills for the studios anyway.

I'm not sure one can really detatch themselves from their own personal bias, whether it be race, gender, politics, class, education, religon (or lack thereof) etc. I don't think that is the job of the critic (unless he wants to be liked or not hated). I would actually prefer more subjective reviews to the carbon copy, robotic, cut-out reviews that are becoming more prevalent. It's fast-food, all about the ABC's and film mechanics. A good reviewer should have a personal stake in the film. Essentially it's a dialogue. I'm not even sure there's really a point to being a critic of the arts if said person isn't going to engage his own personal experience and beliefs when reviewing a film. He may as well be into mathematics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
But as a film... it had a few foibles like Bruce's magical recovery, and it slowed down way too much at one point...
And "slowing down way too much.." is completely subjective, so I appreciate that.... What would the objective analysis for that be?

__________________
I N H U M A N

Last edited by SoNicRaDiATioN; 04-24-2013 at 12:52 PM.
SoNicRaDiATioN is offline   Reply With Quote