Personal Peeves of Film Criticism

[Watashi]

As I stated, this thread can be here to let out your frustrations and peeves of film criticism. Anyone can jump in and post.

I'll start.

Criticizing the film for saying the theme aloud through dialogue

"Theme-spouting" as some may call it. I've never been bothered by it. Nearly every major film does it in some way or the other. I can understand the bluntness of this criticism if a film has to rely on this method as it's only way of expression without backing the theme up through visual development. Personally, I can't stand when the theme is buried under blankets of subtext that it becomes a mind puzzle trying to dissect it. Does theme-spouting play it safe? Sure, but film audiences are not professional critics and don't have the patience in digging deeper. Can we fault the film for putting a Hallmark-Card lesson at the end? Sure, but it can't be applied to everything that follow this rule. Just skimming through 2008 top releases, I have found that nearly every film spouts its reoccurring theme in various fashions.

Milk: "Without hope, life is not worth living".
WALL-E: "I don't want to survive. I want to live".
Synecdoche, New York: "There are millions of people in the world. And none of those people are an extra. They're all leads in their own stories."
Happy-Go-Lucky: "You can't make everyone happy. There's no harm in trying that Zoe, is there?

And the list goes on. Even in Benjamin Button, when Queenie says "You never know what's coming", it doesn't come off as a red flag, but as genuine advice from a Southern housemother. A similar line in 2007's best picture winner No Country for Old Men, "you can't stop what's coming" told the audience of the Coen's intention by laying it out there crystal clear. It's an inescapable film device.

[Watashi]

Speaking of theme-spouting, The Wrestler does it in a very silly way. I actually kinda guffawed at it.

I mean, Tomei quoting The Passion of the Christ and then calling Randy a "sacrificial ram"? Really? Just tell us how it ends while you're at it.

That's one of the few instances of this criticism that I can call fair game.

[eternity]

You can criticize how it is done, there is a certain amount of tact and subtlety that should be expected when it comes to the themes of the film being expressed through dialogue. But the act of doing so isn't really something that should be criticized.

My biggest peeve is people criticizing for what they want a film to be and not what it is. The ending wasn't what I wanted, it wasn't ______ enough. The characters were annoying. There's usually always intent for everything in a film, it doesn't matter if you thought the main character and his friends were annoying, some people are annoying, not every character in a film is supposed to not be likable, and sometimes unlikable characters may play a different part than a clear antagonist who the film sets you up to not like. A film isn't about what a person wants it to be, and it is grating when I read some of the more unanalytical critics talk about what they wanted the film to do and not what it actually did.

[Boner M]

Criticizing the film for saying the theme aloud through dialogue

"Theme-spouting" as some may call it.
You mean as I called it, Wats - just recently. This thread is a thinly veiled attack on my criticism. Admit it.

I'll take you on.

[transmogrifier]

I hate it when reviewers disagree with me. I think they do it on purpose, just to wind me up.

[transmogrifier]

You mean as I called it, Wats - just recently. This thread is a thinly veiled attack on my criticism. Admit it.

I'll take you on.

I'm not sure I want to bear witness to Wats taking on an indignant boner.

[Boner M]

Also, I don't have anything against theme-spouting on principle; I think it works well in films where the characters are supposed to be ciphers, which is why it didn't bother me so much in Ben Button. Fassbinder & Godard, for instance, do it relentlessly, and it's not a problem since it creates a necessary degree of critical distance between us and the drama of the film.

[Watashi]

You mean as I called it, Wats - just recently. This thread is a thinly veiled attack on my criticism. Admit it.

I'll take you on.
Both Slant dudes have used the same expression before.

[Boner M]

Both Slant dudes have used the same expression before.
Where? Google yields nothing.

[Watashi]

I don't know which reviews. That's where I assume you got the phrase from.

[Boner M]

Oh, Wats.

[Watashi]

Oh, Wats.
Boner is people too.

[number8]

I hate it when reviews are opinionated. They should be fair and balanced.

[Boner M]

Yeah, stupid critics letting their biases get in the way of an objective review.

[Kurosawa Fan]

My time on these boards has created in me a hatred for nearly all film criticism, and the discussion of film criticism. I used to enjoy it.

[Ezee E]

My time on these boards has created in me a hatred for nearly all film criticism, and the discussion of film criticism. I used to enjoy it.
Eh?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Eh?

To be honest, I've grown very tired of arguing about film criticism. I don't mind discussing a film, but arguing about what makes good/bad criticism often times drives me away from a conversation now. And when that argument heads in the direction of who's good/bad as a critic, I'm done. I'm not sure there's a more tiresome semi-regular debate that goes on at Match Cut.

People see things in different lights. Why shouldn't someone voice their opinion? If they don't like when a film "theme-spouts", so be it. It bothers them as a viewer. They write about it because that's their job/passion. If you don't mind "theme-spouting", as the reader of said review you can discount that particular complaint and take the rest under consideration. Saying a film didn't have enough ______ is also a legitimate criticism for that particular viewer. If that critic felt the film would have been stronger had that done more ______ or created more _______, so be it. If that wouldn't bother you, again, discount that portion of the review and move on.

I guess I find it a tad silly to complain about one person's view on a film. I know I'm hypocritical, and that everyone is guilty of this, but I'd much rather be content just voicing what I saw in the film, reading what you saw in the film, and understanding that we're both right because film is a personal experience. Just my current opinion.

[Melville]

My time on these boards has created in me a hatred for nearly all film criticism, and the discussion of film criticism. I used to enjoy it.
I wonder how many people on here regularly read reviews. I pretty much just read things on matchcut, the occasional Ebert review, and sometimes the summaries of reviews on RT. The users on here are at least as insightful as most professional critics, and since I have a better sense of their taste, their opinions are a better gauge of what I'll like.

Regarding explicit statements of themes in dialogue, I think it depends largely on the context and execution. I'd say it works if any of the following hold: the movie's primary intent is to be didactic or to present an argument, and its characters and style are appropriate to that intent (e.g. if the film is structured as an essay, or if its plot revolves around a clash of ideas); the dialogue seems natural to the character (e.g. the Happy-Go-Lucky quote); the dialogue points to the importance of a particular theme but doesn't explicitly state the film's stance on that theme (this is true in a lot of Bergman's films); the film is working with layers of irony or self-reference (this could arguably justify Synecdoche's few explicit bits). Obviously there are other cases as well. In some cases (e.g. Synecdoche), explicit dialogue might not try to capture the whole thematic structure of a film, but merely point out key ideas that help orient the viewer's analysis of the whole structure; I think that kind of explicitness is a bit more forgivable. But I generally find the technique irritating and clumsy. Movies have a lot of ways of more subtly and meaningfully exploring their themes, and if a movie's "thesis" can be summarized in a few lines of pithy dialogue, then it's probably a pretty simplistic film.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I wonder how many people on here regularly read reviews. I pretty much just read things on matchcut, the occasional Ebert review, and sometimes the summaries of reviews on RT. The users on here are at least as insightful as most professional critics, and since I have a better sense of their taste, their opinions are a better gauge of what I'll like.


I literally don't read anything other than the posters on this site. I like you guys, so I'm interested in how you felt about the films being released, but some guy who gets paid for his opinion, I don't really care much about what they thought. I generally just go with my gut on what I do or don't see nowadays. Plus you guys inform me enough on the critical consensus in the threads, so that if something is being torn apart, and pretty much everyone on here who has seen it disliked it, I'll either pass or wait for the DVD.

[Ezee E]

Aw okay. At first I thought you were talking about not liking to discuss film in general K-Fan.

Discussing film criticism doesn't necessarily anger me, but it doesn't interest me. What I don't like is if someone can't explain why they like a film. "It entertained me." "It was interesting."

But why?

You push it hard enough and you'll slowly get something out of anyone, even those that make fun of me when I go on for several minutes about the simplicity of Role Models.

On here, I enjoy reading others review movies because they do look at movies differently. Raiders/Spinal pick apart the themes better then most paid critics these days. Is it too deep? Not to them. As for myself? I'm not even sure what draws me to films more often. Visceral excitement? Then what makes me like 4 Months or Rachel Getting Married? I still haven't figured it all out.

[Ivan Drago]

Neither have I, E. I haven't figured it all out either. That may be part of the reason why I struggle with my reviews. Because I know for a fact that my reviews here aren't up to snuff (ex. the shit I pulled in the FDT regarding Rear Window, The Conversation, etc.). Maybe I need to eliminate the word 'boring' from my vocabulary heh.

[Ezee E]

Neither have I, E. I haven't figured it all out either. That may be part of the reason why I struggle with my reviews. Because I know for a fact that my reviews here aren't up to snuff (ex. the shit I pulled in the FDT regarding Rear Window, The Conversation, etc.). Maybe I need to eliminate the word 'boring' from my vocabulary heh.
Again, it goes to what I was saying.

Why is it boring? Explaing that will already improve your reviews. You may be wrong :) But it'll at least spark a reply of something noteworthy instead of just, "You're a moron."

I don't put too much effort into my reviews, as I don't particularly enjoy writing a lengthly review, especially here where a paragraph will do on the FDT. However, I think I can explain it well enough of why I liked or disliked a movie.

[bac0n]

My biggest pet peeve when reading film reviews is when the author uses overly turgid language, as if they spent hours looking in this medieval thesaurus for the most obscure synonym for the word contrived. As if just coming out and saying contrived straight up wasn't enough.

Another pet peeve is when they try to lend their reviews artificial gravitas by throwing in the occasional French colloquialism that maybe two people outside of France know the translation of other than the person who wrote it.

Eg, And then, vis a vis a certain, shall we say, je une carotte dans mon pantalon, the director completely manages to undermine the purpose of the plot.

I find both of these practices completely self-serving on the part of the author, and hence, rather irritating.

[Derek]

My biggest pet peeve when reading film reviews is when the author uses overly turgid language, as if they spent hours looking in this medieval thesaurus for the most obscure synonym for the word contrived. As if just coming out and saying contrived straight up wasn't enough.

Another pet peeve is when they try to lend their reviews artificial gravitas by throwing in the occasional French colloquialism that maybe two people outside of France know the translation of other than the person who wrote it.

Eg, And then, vis a vis a certain, shall we say, je une carotte dans mon pantalon, the director completely manages to undermine the purpose of the plot.

I find both of these practices completely self-serving on the part of the author, and hence, rather irritating.

Ah, so jejune, M. bac0n, so jejune.

BTW, you need a verb in there. J'ai une...

And is that a carrot or are you just happy to see me? ;)

[Derek]

Pet Peeve: Critics who attack those who will disagree with them but have yet to even do so by labeling them fanboys, on the one hand, or "part of the inevitable backlash" on the other. Yes, your review is in first so any critic coming in later with a review is unable to think for themselves and come to a different conclusion.

I won't even get into the one pet peeve bigger than this, since you all know it and we've discussed it death. It has a time and place, but it's still the most overused criticism out there.

[Ezee E]

Pet Peeve: Critics who attack those who will disagree with them but have yet to even do so by labeling them fanboys, on the one hand, or "part of the inevitable backlash" on the other. Yes, your review is in first so any critic coming in later with a review is unable to think for themselves and come to a different conclusion.

I won't even get into the one pet peeve bigger than this, since you all know it and we've discussed it death. It has a time and place, but it's still the most overused criticism out there.
I think we've cut down considerably on the p word.

[Melville]

I think we've cut down considerably on the p word.
I figured he was referring to the "unlikable characters = bad movie" critique.

[Qrazy]

How many pet peeves does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

[Ezee E]

I figured he was referring to the "unlikable characters = bad movie" critique.
Ah, I'm guilty of that, but if you don't like the characters on screen, why would you like the film?

[Derek]

I figured he was referring to the "unlikable characters = bad movie" critique.

Yeah, this. Although the "p" is overused to, but rarely around here as E said.

[Melville]

Ah, I'm guilty of that, but if you don't like the characters on screen, why would you like the film?
:lol:

I can only assume you're trying to vex Derek.

[Derek]

:lol:

I can only assume you're trying to vex Derek.

I know he is. :)

And I wouldn't say it's always an invalid complaint, especially if it's a film geared to get you to identify with the character. But when people complain about it with Antonioni or Fassbinder or Van Sant in art film mode, it only highlights the limitations of approaching a film looking to connect with characters as if cinema = match.com.

[megladon8]

I'll echo bac0n's peeve of overly complex linguistics when a diminutive coloquialism would suffice.

I'm also not a big fan of the "you like what I don't like...you're a fanboy" criticism.

Although this one absolutely takes the cake:

I told someone I didn't like Godard's Contempt, to which they replied "oh well, I guess your tastes just haven't matured yet."

Condecension is never acceptable.


EDIT: Oh! Oh! Oh! I thought of another one.

PERSON 1: I didn't like "___________".

PERSON 2: You just didn't get it.

[balmakboor]

My biggest pet peeve when reading film reviews is when the author uses overly turgid language, as if they spent hours looking in this medieval thesaurus for the most obscure synonym for the word contrived. As if just coming out and saying contrived straight up wasn't enough.

I think you've hit on my biggest pet peeve. Let me re-state it, just to be sure.

Pretty much the only thing I don't like about film criticism (or any other type of writing) is when I have to do an unreasonable amount of work just to figure out what the guy is saying. I don't have patience for writing that reads like a college term paper trying desperately to impress a professor.

I once read somewhere -- can't remember where -- that if a person cannot write about a subject in a way that a casual reader can understand, he doesn't truly understand the subject. Now, I won't quite go that far. Some of these writers may very well know what they're talking about. I just have no way of telling one way or the other based on the baffling noodling they've given me to read.

[Boner M]

Lock this thread, plz.

[Qrazy]

I know he is. :)

And I wouldn't say it's always an invalid complaint, especially if it's a film geared to get you to identify with the character. But when people complain about it with Antonioni or Fassbinder or Van Sant in art film mode, it only highlights the limitations of approaching a film looking to connect with characters as if cinema = match.com.

Just expanding on this a bit, I think it's a valid complaint when the filmmaker doesn't use those unlikeable characteristics to say anything interesting about the shallowness of these characters. Often I see films that seem to simply revel in the shallow narcissism of their leads and this makes for some very ugly cinema. I tend to use Antonioni's explorations of seemingly surface characters as a yardstick for whether or not another film has done something interesting with it's unlikeable characters. I guess what I mean is that if a film focuses on a bunch of characters being ugly to each other most of the time it has to have enough to say about that ugliness to earn the right to perpetuate it. If it doesn't do that then the film may still have value on some level (aesthetic or otherwise), but it's not worth my time.

[Qrazy]

I told someone I didn't like Godard's Contempt, to which they replied "oh well, I guess your tastes just haven't matured yet."

Condecension is never acceptable.


Yeah I hear you there. I told someone I found Autumn Sonata to be an awful film and they told me they I just needed to revisit it when I was older. Even though I appreciate other Bergman's a great deal and had seen more Bergman's than they had... so yeah... no.

[megladon8]

Yeah I hear you there. I told someone I found Autumn Sonata to be an awful film and they told me they I just needed to revisit it when I was older. Even though I appreciate other Bergman's a great deal and had seen more Bergman's than they had... so yeah... no.

Exactly, that's such a condescending thing to say.

I admit that revisiting films often changes my opinion on them (for better or worse), but the way that retort is used is pretty assholish.

[balmakboor]

Yeah I hear you there. I told someone I found Autumn Sonata to be an awful film and they told me they I just needed to revisit it when I was older. Even though I appreciate other Bergman's a great deal and had seen more Bergman's than they had... so yeah... no.

I agree with your being irked by the implication that you are too young to appreciate Autumn Sonata. You're too quick to dismiss the idea though. It's often the case with people that they see movies differently as they grow older. Hell, it's natural that they do. And while a 20-year-old may very well understand a film, there's a good chance that he will understand it under different terms when he is 40 or 50.

I first saw 8 1/2 when I was about 19 or 20 and it meant something to me at the time. It made a huge impact. But I've had a great deal of fun over the years watching it become something else (if not more) entirely at age 30 and 40 and soon to be 50.

I recently watched Scenes from a Marriage for the first time -- and I'm kind of glad I waited so long. It was a profound experience at 46 that I don't think would've meant much at all to me 10 or 20 years ago.

[Ezee E]

Some films do need some maturity though I think. Life experiences certainly make me look at some movies differently. Bergman is actually a pretty good example.

[megladon8]

Some films do need some maturity though I think. Life experiences certainly make me look at some movies differently. Bergman is actually a pretty good example.


Agreed, but it's still a prick-ish thing to say to someone.

[balmakboor]

Agreed, but it's still a prick-ish thing to say to someone.

Not unlike my being told I was too old to appreciate Twilight when I recently panned it.

[Qrazy]

Exactly, that's such a condescending thing to say.

I admit that revisiting films often changes my opinion on them (for better or worse), but the way that retort is used is pretty assholish.

I have never drastically changed my opinion of a film. A rewatch either bumps it up half a point or down a bit because the novelty wore off and it's faults were more transparent.

[Winston*]

Not unlike my being told I was too old to appreciate Twilight when I recently panned it.

It's a movie made specifically for teenage girls, no? Suggesting you are too old and male to appreciate it doesn't seem out of the question.

[megladon8]

I have never drastically changed my opinion of a film. A rewatch either bumps it up half a point or down a bit because the novelty wore off and it's faults were more transparent.


Really? There are no movies you loved as a kid and then watched as an adult and thought "jeez, this really wasn't good"?

[Qrazy]

I agree with your being irked by the implication that you are too young to appreciate Autumn Sonata. You're too quick to dismiss the idea though. It's often the case with people that they see movies differently as they grow older. Hell, it's natural that they do. And while a 20-year-old may very well understand a film, there's a good chance that he will understand it under different terms when he is 40 or 50.

I first saw 8 1/2 when I was about 19 or 20 and it meant something to me at the time. It made a huge impact. But I've had a great deal of fun over the years watching it become something else (if not more) entirely at age 30 and 40 and soon to be 50.

I recently watched Scenes from a Marriage for the first time -- and I'm kind of glad I waited so long. It was a profound experience at 46 that I don't think would've meant much at all to me 10 or 20 years ago.

Certainly possible in general terms of thematic resonance but not in my case and not with this film. My issues weren't with boredom of a lack of connection to the content but disgust with the way the content was handled. I find it to be a very psychologically reductive film with grating execution.

[Qrazy]

Really? There are no movies you loved as a kid and then watched as an adult and thought "jeez, this really wasn't good"?

Nothing springs to mind but I didn't really watch movies that much when I was a kid.

[transmogrifier]

I can't imagine Qrazy ever being a kid. I picture him materializing fully formed in a DVD store, arguing with the clerk.

[balmakboor]

It's a movie made specifically for teenage girls, no? Suggesting you are too old and male to appreciate it doesn't seem out of the question.

You're right. I did get the last laugh of sorts when a girl at her middle school panned it much more savagely in their school paper two weeks later.

[transmogrifier]

You're right. I did get the last laugh of sorts when a girl at her middle school panned it much more savagely in their school paper two weeks later.


The reviewer was probably a nerd with no friends.

[Mysterious Dude]

This is an interesting conversation. I was watching The Seventh Seal recently, for the first time in several years, and I was struck by how immature it seemed, compared to Bergman's later films, what with the characters basically spouting the author's opinions about life and death and all that, not to mention the rather flat cinematography, pre-Sven Nykvist.

I don't re-watch films very often, so I age quite a bit between viewings of the same film. Sometimes, I will watch a movie I haven't seen in a long time, and I'm amazed at what I didn't see before.

[balmakboor]

When I was a young teen, I adored the movie Charly along with the novel Flowers for Algernon. I still enjoy the book. I think it is an interesting concept, fairly well executed. But, I rented the movie about a year ago expecting to re-experience one of my youthful memories and found it dreadfully unwatchable. How did that win an Oscar for Cliff Robertson?

[number8]

I don't think tastes mature, only change.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Really? There are no movies you loved as a kid and then watched as an adult and thought "jeez, this really wasn't good"?

I will say that, upon a recent re-viewing of Ernest Scared Stupid, I realized that it wasn't quite the masterwork of cinema I once thought it to be.

I still kinda like it.

[NickGlass]

Criticizing the film for saying the theme aloud through dialogue

"Theme-spouting" as some may call it.

Well, that's one of my biggest pet peeves in filmmaking. So whaddya saying?

Stating that you're bothered by critics indicting pandering creative shortcuts makes no sense to me.

[DavidSeven]

Seeing a valid criticism about poor characterization as something that amounts to "oh, the philistine didn't like the characters."

I guess that's a pet peeve of film criticism-criticism. Neil Labute wrote good characters. Other directors haven't. The Dark Knight's The Joker is solid. Iron Man's Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger isn't. Likeability has nothing to do with it ever. Like great art everywhere, it's about creating something that can be understood (and not necessarily enjoyed) on a human level. And I understand that different films have varying goals and rules that they adhere to. That's fine, but if they can't establish the rules and expectations within the film itself then that film, as a stand alone piece, has failed.

[Derek]

Seeing a valid criticism about poor characterization as something that amounts to "oh, the philistine didn't like the characters."

I guess that's a pet peeve of film criticism-criticism. Neil Labute wrote good characters. Other directors haven't. The Dark Knight's The Joker is solid. Iron Man's Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger isn't. Likeability has nothing to do with it ever. Like great art everywhere, it's about creating something that can be understood (and not necessarily enjoyed) on a human level. And I understand that different films have varying goals and rules that they adhere to. That's fine, but if they can't establish the rules and expectations within the film itself then that film, as a stand alone piece, has failed.

I've never once complained about someone pointing out poor characterization. There is a huge difference between criticizing the film for failing to develop characters and criticizing it because the characters are unlikeable. And I've even said, many times before, that if a film attempts to present a character as likeable and fails, then it's a valid criticism. My pet peeve is when people watch films where connection to the characters is not the goal of the filmmaker (perhaps even the opposite is) and that sole criticism of unlikeable characters is used to dismiss it.


Likeability has nothing to do with it ever.

With you, maybe not. I commend you and offer you a cookie.

I agree with everything you said in your post except this line because likeability does something to do with it according to the people who bring it up...hence my pet peeve. You're confusing me here, Dave.

[Qrazy]

I can't imagine Qrazy ever being a kid. I picture him materializing fully formed in a DVD store, arguing with the clerk.

This is correct.

[Skitch]

I hate overlove or overhate. "Best movie ever" or "worst movie ever [for anything other than Manos]" reviews are immediately met with the equally rediculous reply, "watch more movies".

[Fezzik]

I am tired of critics who have a certain disdain/dislike for a certain genre, and even admit that their dislike stems from nothing more than a personal bias, going on to review a movie in said genre and expect the readers to take their opinion as objective.

There was a film critic at the Miami Herald for years who flat out admitted he didn't feel that animated films were true film and therefore could never be objective about their quality, but then would go on to review them anyway only to pan them all.

Dude, the paper has other critics, let THEM review the genre you have a personal bias against, ok?

[Amnesiac]

Melville already stated the ways in which "theme-spouting" can work. I guess it can still sometimes feel a little too obtrusive (The Joker and Dent in the hospital).

In terms of criticism that annoys me, the only thing that is coming to my mind is Ebert's disapproval at the lack of women in There Will Be Blood. But I like Ebert a lot, I just disagree with that particular criticism.

I don't know if there's one consistent critic quirk that irritates me though. Just isolated examples. For instance, I'm sure there are a lot of people who weren't fond of Rosenbaum's diatribe against Bergman (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/opinion/04jrosenbaum.html).

[megladon8]

Here's one that's come up a few times in the last couple of days on other forums...

"You don't like ____________? You're just trying to be cool."

Or

"You don't like ____________? You're just being a hater."


This accusation of group-think is so ridiculous, and basically implies that anyone with a different opinion than the accuser just doesn't think for themselves.

This has come up in discussion of Quentin Tarantino and the trailer for his latest. A poster will say I don't like QT just because "that's the cool thing to do right now".

You're right. My opinion is not really my opinion, but my lame attempt at trying to seem jaded and cool.

[monolith94]

I literally don't read anything other than the posters on this site. I like you guys, so I'm interested in how you felt about the films being released, but some guy who gets paid for his opinion, I don't really care much about what they thought. I generally just go with my gut on what I do or don't see nowadays. Plus you guys inform me enough on the critical consensus in the threads, so that if something is being torn apart, and pretty much everyone on here who has seen it disliked it, I'll either pass or wait for the DVD.
Same here.

[BuffaloWilder]

Bumping this thread back up to the first page, because it needs to be opened back up again.

[BuffaloWilder]

To add to this, the one that really gets at me the most is - "this film just didn't seem to know what it wanted to be! It couldn't seem to decide if it was a (insert genre here), or a (insert genre here), or a (insert genre here)."

[transmogrifier]

To add to this, the one that really gets at me the most is - "this film just didn't seem to know what it wanted to be! It couldn't seem to decide if it was a (insert genre here), or a (insert genre here), or a (insert genre here)."

You're going to hear this a lot when Park Chan-Wook's Thirst starts being seen around here. :)

[Sven]

You're going to hear this a lot when Park Chan-Wook's Thirst starts being seen around here. :)

I have learned that tonal consistency is not something you value particularly. This is key to my understanding our disagreements.

[Mysterious Dude]

"If you haven't seen ____, I envy you. I wish I could see ____ for the first time."

[transmogrifier]

I have learned that tonal consistency is not something you value particularly. This is key to my understanding our disagreements.

Yeah, probably right, though it depends on the content of the film to a degree. However, I do value the following things more than a film sticking to one tone or genre:

- momentum in the story
- accumulation of emotion throughout the film
- intellectual energy (either there is a strong thematic aspect requiring active engagement from me, or the story itself is intelligent in the way it unfolds, or the director exhibits a clear thought process in terms of the balance between form and content)

That's it. A good film ideally has at least one, hopefully two, magically all three of these things...to me, disparate tones (or genres) within a single movie can either be the sign of a director not really being able to keep things together, or an example of my third condition listed above (and the level I think Thirst is operating on).

[Skitch]

"You just have to overlook some of the dumb stuff. Harry Potter is awesome."

"Why don't you give Transformers that pass?"

"..."

[BuffaloWilder]

I would also like to add that where Ebert really shines is in his 'Great Movies' entries, and the journals. That's Ebert the 'critic,' as opposed to Ebert the 'movie reviewer.'

[trotchky]

"Young white males like Director X, therefore anyone who considers Director X a master is of dubious intellect."

[trotchky]

"This movie is socially irresponsible!"

[trotchky]

"Magnolia? Histrionic mope fest." "Dancer In the Dark? Histrionic mope fest." "Ironman? Robert Downey Jr. career resurrection vehicle."

[trotchky]

"It's fun to watch, so it can't be saying anything!"