A Critic's Influence

It amazes every time it happens, how much influence a well written and supported review can change my mind about going to see a movie. Usually once I have seen it, I have my own opinion and a review will have little effect on me. For instance, I was really excited to see "The Raven" and thought it was going to be such a fun movie to see. Come on! Edgar Allen Poe is cool and I don't care what anyone says. But after reading Eric D. Snider's review on Film.com I am extremely deflated. (Also it has a 21% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is just sad.) Despite his killing my buzz about seeing this movie, which I am already committed to see, I think his review is extremely well crafted and supported.

http://www.film.com/movies/review-the-raven-fails-to-take-flight#fbid=IOJ-CHziGu-

Comic Based Movies: What's not to Love?

I admit, I am a comic book movie fan, the Spiderman's, the Batman's, the Iron Man's, and so on. I think they are fantastic, entertaining and dramatic without having to be taken too seriously. (I have to say though, the Hulk's kind of blew.) And now I am super excited to see "The Avengers" because it has a mega mosh pit of super heros. It has also gotten a spectacular rating on Rotten Tomatoes, 96% fresh.

Here is a link to a review that I think does something kind of cool. It uses a word that people do not hear everyday and most people, are probably not even aware that it exists.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/

Hey, this guy is really good!

I figured I would take a look at the reviews for "Cabin in the Woods" even though I am still on the fence about seeing it. (I just know I will get nightmares so I tend to only watch horror movies once every couple  of months.) After reading the reviews and seeing the rating it got on Rotten Tomatoes (a whopping 92% out of 162 reviews, impressive right?) I am thinking that I should probably make this one the one I see as my bi-monthly dose of horror. The tipping block for me though is this review by Christopher Orr on The Atlantic. A critic that I previously have never read, but one that I intend to follow closely now, because of the way he writes. I think this review is fantastic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/04/the-cabin-in-the-woods-disembowels-the-slasher-film/255810/

Okay, I had to...

I know, I know, its "Twilight" and it so overdone, and overplayed by this point, but once it crossed my mind I had to go look at some reviews since I didn't even think of looking at any before I watched my mom's copy of the most recent "Twilight" movie, "Breaking Dawn: Part 1."I don't know if I was shocked per say by the rating it got on Rotten Tomatoes (a lowly 25%), but I also can't say that I expected that. As far as my thinking on the movie goes, and that's not very far, it was certainly the best "Twilight" movie they have made so far. (I'm sorry, but the cinematography at the end with Bella's body morphing into that of a vampire and her shockingly red eyes as they opened suckered me in. I really did think that was pretty good.) My thoughts on this movie are rather in sync with Bruce Diones from The New Yorker who was one of the few on Rotten Tomatoes to rate this movie as fresh.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/reviews/film/the_twilight_saga_breaking_dawnpart_1_condon

"The Secret World of Arrietty"

I watched a movie when I was a child, I don't remember the name of it, I am inclined to think that it was titled simply, "The Borrowers", but I cannot find it online or at least none of the movies strike me the way I remember the movie. My memory could just be faulty and my imagination may have added images that aren't correct but the movie I remember involved mice. Perhaps it was just too long ago, but I do remember the basic storyline from the movie was about little people living in a house and borrowing what they needed to survive from the normal size human inhabitants, so I was very intrigued when I learned "The Secret World of Arrietty" was based upon this idea originally crafted in Mary Norton's novel "The Borrowers." Despite my foggy memory I still feel it is a fond one. This is the only thing that really intrigued me about this Japanese animation film, since it is not my favorite thing to watch.
This review by Roger Moore on The State makes me want to watch the movie and not want to watch the movie at the same time.

http://www.thestate.com/2012/02/17/2156268/movie-review-the-secret-world.html

A Very Original Approach

"Lockout" has accrued a 31% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, indicating its a really, really rotten movie, but this one critic out of the few that did give this movie a fresh tomato briefly mentions a really interesting idea, whether or not the amount of money the movie makes is the best determinate of whether or not it is good. Nick Rogers's ending line in his review is this, "In the end, this is pass-fail territory — no more, no less. Consider “Lockout” a success by way of social promotion." Typically critics unanimously will say that this is bull. Things that are truly god awful can still make money, and have tons of views for one reason. Promotion. But the masses cannot be denied from having a say either, and this movie did not get black listed enough to go straight to dvd.
I wanted and maybe still even do want to go see "Lockout" just because it looks like a good time. Sure it hasn't swept the box office off its feet, but it has made a modest (if that's what you can call it) $6.2  million which isn't even a third of what "The Hunger Games." Here is the review on "Lockout" from Nick Rogers on The Film Yap website.

http://www.thefilmyap.com/2012/04/14/lockout/

Time Stands Still Reviews

I just went to" Time Stands Still" last night at the Guthrie Theater and was for the most part, engaged and entertained. This lasted throughout most of the first act, but as soon as Richard (the main focus of the play's editor) and Mandy (Richard's much younger girlfriend) left the stage I was less and less interested. I couldn't connect with Sarah, a war correspondent photographer who has returned injured by a road side bomb from the Middle East. I thought that her character was a little too unbelievable. This review from the Pioneer Press I think is pretty much dead on for how I felt about the play.

http://www.twincities.com/entertainment/ci_20402924/review-guthrie-theaters-time-stands-still-reveals-itself

The Old Ways Re-emerge

I have mentioned Peter Travers many times now especially considering how few posts I have written, but I always keep coming back to him because of the way he writes and also because I usually agree with what he has to say. His writing is captivating to me in the way it changes and morphs depending on the way he is reviewing. In this review he did on "Titanic 3D" he encompasses some ways of criticism that are all but dead in critiques today, especially in movie reviews. His review is long. It's not nearly as long as what it could be or what it would have been fifty, thirty, or even ten years ago, before, as the media and everything else keeps telling us, our attentions spans were reduced by the Internet. I don't know exactly how I feel about this review, I will have to see the movie first, so I can fully understand what he is talking about in some parts, but I do believe that he did a wonderful job in keeping my attention.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/titanic-3d-20120405

This next review is also uncharacteristically long for a movie review and breaks the rule of keeping "I" out of your reviews (or at least that is a rule in my opinion and my professors), but it also is captivating. I do like the way Dana Stevens writes. It flows very well and reads more as a story then a review while still giving the reader good fodder as they go along to base their decision of whether or not to go see the movie on (which is the whole reason I think most people read reviews today).

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2012/04/james_cameron_s_titanic_starring_leonardo_dicaprio_and_kate_winslet_now_in_3d_reviewed.html

I must admit that I am partial to these longer reviews, I think they have a deeper and longer lasting effect on the reader by having that extra time with that reader. The extra space inside the reader's head as they substantiate their views or opinions in a more concrete manner is crucial for the critic. Quick and dirty reviews have their advantage as well, but they are mainly only advantageous to a viewer who is making a fly-by-the-seat of their pants decision as they stand in line waiting to buy a ticket to a movie. They really haven't had enough commercials of any of the movies up on the board thrown at them to make them remember any as worth seeing, so they turn to their IPhone and start clicking through Rotten Tomatoes to make a quick decision. If they came across a review as long as either Travers's or Stevens's they would have double backed and tried to find one that was shorter. This is a shame I think because they would not understand nearly as much as they would by reading these if they had found a review that was 250 words and just got to the punch of whether or not that reviewer liked the movie.

Mirror Mirror: The Idiocy

I saw Mirror Mirror this weekend and literally the only thing that kept my brother, his wife, and I in our seats was the popcorn. It really was that bad. Here is a review from Peter Travers, one of my favorite reviewers and a long time critc for Rolling Stone. He hits this movie right where it counts and highlights just exactly what was wrong with it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/mirror-mirror-20120330