How is it he can applaud Bad Boys II for a "fresh" and exciting take on the freeway chase scene -- in which, mind you, corpses are scattered and dismembered by oncoming traffic -- and, in the same article, complain that he would have liked Chicago if not for its repugnant storyline?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
He's weird? Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Different expectations for different genre movies.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Yeah, I stopped paying much attention to his recommendations since he touted MIB2 as a good movie.
He did like Pirates of the Carribean, though. So he's still got some good taste.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
i hear he writes pretty good too.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I gave up on OSC's taste in movies when he touted Reign of Fire so highly. One male drago to fertilize all the female dragons in the world? Dragons that sleep under ground for 70 million years? Dragons that can't be killed by missiles but which can be killed by a small explosive arrow? Dragons that can dodge missiles but not nets? Need I go on?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Well, to Tom's specific example, I'm sure that if OSC was European he'd have the opposite take on the two movies.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The only time I watched Reign of Fire was because we were in the mood for a mindless action flick. Unfortunately it was so mindless the plot holes were glaringly obvious.
I didn't realize for a while how different our tastes were because he wrote an awesome essay on one of my favorite movies, The Thomas Crown Affair, which I totally agreed with him on.
So his taste in movies proves he's human like the rest of us!
AJ
Posted by qsysue (Member # 5229) on :
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.
I like OSC's take on movies because he's not afraid to part with popular perception.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Oh, come on, Jacare...like you're some big-time dragon expert.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Frisco- Charles Darwin rolled over in his grave when the Reign of Fire plot turned on biology. How long do you think a species which depended on a single male which apparently could not be replaced would last? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> corpses are scattered and dismembered by oncoming traffic <<
You know, it's about time that happened in a chase scene.
Coooooooooooooooooooool.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I gave up on OSC's movie tastes when he called Keanu Reeves a good actor.
The man obviously doesn't have a clue Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
They could've lasted forever if it weren't for the jerk who invented the exploding arrow!
Maybe if the male is killed, one of the females undergoes a spontaneous sex change! But now we'll never know, will we?!
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
After the male was killed, it's not like all the females suddenly dropped dead. Where were all the POed concubines at the end of the flick?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Those damn frog genes...
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
OSC calls Martin Lawrence one of the two most likeable actors in Hollywood.
Um... Uh... Ah... eh.... errr.... ta..... goo.... gah... hm.....
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Shut up, Bob! You don't know what you're talking about!
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Is it wrong for me to have sex with a dragon?
What if it's a half woman half dragon?
What if two male dragons fools around?
What if Matthew Mcognahey makes a movie with Ben Afflucked, is assisted suicide then moral?
EDIT: I know that Matthew Mcognahey and Ben Affleck were in Dazed and Confused together, but Ben played an absolute dolt, and this was before he became Ben Affluckt American Hero.
[ August 05, 2003, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: The Silverblue Sun ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Thor- do you think that you have what it takes to satisfy a dragon?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
For the past year or so, I've been waiting for OSC's film reviews so that I'd know which movies to avoid like the plague. I love the guy, and I think he's brilliant, but he really has the strangest taste in film. I've literally been checking rhinotimes.com almost daily to see how he's going to find a way to rave over Gigli. Perhaps he uses those columns as an exercise in creative writing. I really think that it takes nearly as much talent to write a good review of Charlie's Angels 2 as it did to write several of his novels. He's just that good. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Plus there's his rabid irrational hatred of all things Lucas...
And his loathing of anything that portrays the middle class as less than perfect (he walked out on American Beauty for crying out loud)...
And someone mentioned how much he liked MIB2. Whats weird is that when I do agree with his reviews he seems right on, but at least half of them strike me as being out in left field.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
He is the anti-critic.
Critics see a lot of movies. So does OSC. Rather than getting bored and deciding most of them are crap, he decided most of them were decent.
No, actually, if you read his reviews carefully, notice that he didn't rave about these movies. He hasn't said he would go out and buy them. He simply said they had good points. I remember more specifically the review for Reign of Fire. It wasn't the set up that was good. What he liked was the character story, and I agree. Take away all the silly back drop, and you have some pretty interesting interaction between people. This isn't a movie that will make it into our ever expanding library, but it isn't time I thought was wasted, either.
quote: Plus there's his rabid irrational hatred of all things Lucas...
He is a writer. You have to allow him at least one artsy bias.
[ August 05, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
I lost some faith in OSC when he said Ben Affleck was a good actor.
But I find myself agreeing with him most often, because he judges movies on the audiences they're geared toward.
Also, he hated LXG. I still love you because of that, OSC!!!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Maybe I missed it, but what I find rather sad is that he never reviews independent films. He's got fairly eclectic taste in music, theater, and literature. Why not movies?
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
You don't have to be rabid and irrational to hate Lucas these days. I've got to say, Knights of the Old Republic is the best Star Wars story to come out in twenty-three years.
That said, I'm often confused by Card's taste myself ... but I think Amka has hit it on the head. There are classic, amazing movies, and then there are fun movies. You don't have to think a movie is Gone with the Wind to think it's an evening well-spent. Card's only problem is, he writes good reviews in such mellifluous superlatives, it's hard to tell a rave from mere faint praise Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"He's got fairly eclectic taste in music, theater, and literature. Why not movies?"
Does anyone get "The Short List" on their PBS channel? For us, it is on Sunday night at 11:30, after "Egg: The Art Show"(another great show)
Anyway, "The Short List" is a show of short films from all over the world. I watched a whole life hapen in five minutes in one.
I'd love him to review a couple of those.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Saxon, he lives in North Carolina. They haven't heard of indie films there. When my wife went home and tried to rent Amélie, the video store only had it on DVD. Why? Because North Carolinians won't buy movies that make them read, and only the DVD had an English sound track.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Geoff,
He should try Netflix, if he watches lots of movies.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah, but he's writing his reviews for a North Carolina audience in the Rhinotimes. So reviewing a movie that none of his primary audience sees (I would submit that in this case jatraqueros are secondary) isn't going to do any good for any of his primary readership.
Even when he writes his novels while I know jatraqueros are important to him, he is writing for a wider audience than just us.
AJ
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
BannaOJ
Good point. Duh. He is writing about movies he goes to see at the theatre in his town for people who live there.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
As he points out in this most recent article, though, he *isn't* a movie reviewer. He just happens to write about the movies that he sees. He won't go and see a movie just to review it, and I'll bet that if he were to see a movie that was obscure, and liked it, he wouldn't hesitate to talk about it in his column.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
He did see Bend It Like Beckham, didn't he?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
It was nice to see him give some praise to Oliver! That soundtrack gets stuck in my head probably more often than any other, ever.
UofUlawguy
Posted by thrak (Member # 5499) on :
Geoffrey, not all of North Carolina is adverse to movies with subtitles or Independent films. I live in Raleigh and in the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area we have over a dozen screens devoted to indy and foreign movies. I read somewhere it is one of the highest indy screens per capita in the country. The Greensboro area could be different. I wouldn't know.
I would agree that I wish that OSC would review more independent movies. I have learned which types of movies I trust his opinion and the types that I disagree. I guess I have read his column long enough for that.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I almost never agree with OSC when it comes to movies, but I've always read his reviews since he thought so much of The Hudsucker Proxy, he found my weakness!
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Yeah, but he's writing his reviews for a North Carolina audience in the Rhinotimes. So reviewing a movie that none of his primary audience sees (I would submit that in this case jatraqueros are secondary) isn't going to do any good for any of his primary readership.
I guess I would ask why you think his audience won't see something once he reviews it? He reviews theater and *books*. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic (or is it optimistic?), but in my experience, about the same proportion of the population sees independent films as read for pleasure. I would say a much, much smaller proportion actually see live theater with any regularity. So, I don't see it as him only reviewing things he thinks his audience will see.
I'm not clear, but maybe you're making the same point as Geoff. That is, that there aren't any venues for indie theater in NC. I don't know. I can't picture there at least not being one around Chapel Hill. In any case, while there may not be an art theater around where OSC lives, he can still rent a lot of independent films from the local Blockbuster. So, that option is there.
But your point does raise a good question, should OSC only review, or talk about, stuff that he thinks most North Carolinians will probably see; or should he expose them to things that he thinks they ought to see? Granted, he has limited time and only writes one column a week. However, as I said before, it seems to me that if he's reviewing theater, he's already reviewing things that many of them probably have never experienced. But, let's speak hypothetically as if he weren't already doing it.
Please note that I'm not slamming OSC. I'm just curious/speculating.
[ August 05, 2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Well, he has written reviews about restaurants in California and Utah, so he doesn't limit his reviews purely by locale.
Another thing I wanted to say about him being an anti-critic. Card is a teacher, and a damn good one. Every story I saw him read and critique, he pulled good stuff out of. He understood the story I had been attempting to convey. The other people I actually talked to about it had the same experience. I think I came to be more in awe of his reading and teaching ability than his writing in the short time at Bootcamp.
I think he brings this aptitude into the theater with him.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
I think he's just writing a column about stuff he happens to do. Maybe Geoff can tell us more, but it seems to me he is just giving us a peek into his life, letting us know what he thinks of things he's seen/read recently. Not really trying to shed light on any particular bit of culture, or going out of his way to see obscure movies or read obscure books to educate the 'unwashed masses'.
edit for add'l thoughts
[ August 05, 2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: TheTick ]
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
Why would/should we take his movie reviews seriously anyway? I wouldn't expect a great line cook to be just as able if called on to be a Sommelier in a restaurant so why should I expect Orson Card to be as skilled at critiquing movies as he is in writing novels?
Nope, after reading a couple of reviews just to see his tastes, and checking out some of his best and worst lists I knew to steer clear of his ideas when it comes to movies.
Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
It's weird. People can have all kinds of different tastes in food, and we don't think any different of them. But if someone dares to like a bad movie, they suddenly lose all our respect. We're such snobs!
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
I certainly didn't mean to put it that way. My point is simply that opinions are opinions, Sommelier's know wine and food and wine matching, line cooks know how to handle the pressure cooker reality of working in the kitchen during a dinner rush, a gifted writer like Orson Card knows how to write, and a gifted critic (say, Anthony Lane, or even George Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde) knows their business well.
In the end, critiquing is all about opinions, not necessairly about facts, but I don't think Orson's status as a writer necessairly makes him by nature more qualified to interpret and review films than anyone on this board, or even in one of my class rooms. He has some advantages, people posting here, or in my class room environments would also have other advantages.
That's my view anyway, but I've got an open mind, feel free to show me I'm wrong and I'll listen if I buy the argument .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Actually, Geoff, the fact that you eat (insert your favorite food that I happen to dislike here) has utterly changed my opinion of you. I didn't plan to mention it, but since you brought it up . . . Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
See, I feel the opposite. I think that just because somebody got appointed a critic doesn't neccesarily make them more qualified to critique movies than you, me, or OSC. The only real talent it takes is being able to sit through a movie and then express what was wrong or right with it. Since none of us can knock OSC his ability to express his opinions well, he's as much of a qualified critic as anybody.
Are his tastes mine? No. Thank goodness. The last thing I need is somebody to sit down and tell me what I think of a movie.
But he also lacks the perpetual need to justify his own position as a critic, and proceed to tell all of us why his opinions about movies are better than all of ours.
He's also not afraid to reveal his own biases, which fortunately aren't tied in any way to getting interviews with the people he's reviewing. (If I had a nickel for every "real" critic who's tempered his review with a line like " . . . except for ________, who does his best with what he has to save this dismal failure . . ." even when _______ stunk up the joint, I could get the Simpsons season 2 on DVD.)
Cactus Jack
(Who liked Kung Pow)
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"It's weird. People can have all kinds of different tastes in food, and we don't think any different of them. But if someone dares to like a bad movie, they suddenly lose all our respect."
I don't even tell people about movies I like anymore. I tend to have a sick, weird sense of humor, and I found "Drowning Mona" to be one of the funniest things ever. I got such a "what a boor you are" reaction from that, that I never(well, until this moment to 800 people) said it again.
We used to get the Independent Film Channel. Our favorite movie was called "Joe and Joe," about two idiots on the Cape whose life desire was to own a riding lawn mower.
Honestly, I have nary a clue what makes a good movie. I just like it, or I don't.
Liz
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Yeah, I don't quite agree with his tastes in movies either... So... does this worry anyone else how the Ender's Game movie (if it ever comes out) will be?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It's weird. People can have all kinds of different tastes in food, and we don't think any different of them. But if someone dares to like a bad movie, they suddenly lose all our respect. We're such snobs!
Come on, Geoff, are you are really surprised about that? It's one thing if someone has fashion sense we don't agree with, it's another if they beat their spouse. The latter goes to the core of our morality and our precious humanity.
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
Well, at least you can trust him not to give "horny old men reviews".
*cough* roger ebert *cough*
*cough* wants to hump every female thing that moves *cough*
Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
quote: So... does this worry anyone else how the Ender's Game movie (if it ever comes out) will be?
lol. good point.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Note to Geoff: I don't think even the DVD of Amelie has an english language track. Part of what makes that movie so enjoyable is the flow of the language in the narration (and I don't speak a lick of French, and I loved it, and would refuse to watch an English sub).
That said - don't you have a DVD player, Geoff?
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
I haven't seen Bend it Like Beckham. Is it worth seeing?
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Though....
finally watched Adaptation last night. Thought it was incredible. The Dualism, the playing-out of the neuroses of the writer.
fantastic!
flish
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Bend It Like Beckham was a good movie. That being said, when I saw it, I found it to be a sterling example of a weakness I've always found with Rottentomatoes.
As you may know, the movie got pretty darn close to 90% on the tomatometer. That's an unusually high score. Does that mean that it's better than all the movies that got a lower score? Absolutely not, although one may expect that. What it means is that, although it's not in the top 10% of movies ever made, it is an undeniably good movie. You'll laugh while you watch it. You'll leave the theatre with a smile on your face, and you won't feel cheated at having spent your time and money on it. It's almost impossible to deny that it's a cute, fun little movie, and if you were to review it, I'm sure that you would join the vast majority of other reviewers in giving it a positive review. That being said, there are many movies with a more polarizing effect upon critics and audiences that are obviously much, much better than this movie, but will get a significantly lower rating. For this reason, when I'm checking rottentomatoes, I find it much more useful to use their links to read a few full reviews than just to look at the straight numerical result.
Point is, it's a good movie. Go see it. In the theatres, if you're so inclined. But don't expect to add it to your DVD collection.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Just adding (as a newbie) to the discussion - having read past columns on the site, I have to say that I agree with most of OSC's book reviews, and disagree with most of his movie reviews!
So go figure... Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I agreed completely with his reviews on Pirates (both viewings) but must respectfully disagree with "Sylvester Stallone is never, never, never intentionally funny." Oscar remains one of my favorite movies.
A lot of what disappointed him in Spy Kids #d - which I also agreed with - was, I believe, due to the movie originally not being a Spy Kids movie. From what I understand, it was supposed to be a stand-alone movie that the director was poressured into making another sequel, so the Spy Kids mythos had to be shoehorned in. The horrible tacked-on ending is evidence of this.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: I don't think even the DVD of Amelie has an english language track.
Does too.
I've never watched it, though. Don't plan to.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:having read past columns on the site, I have to say that I agree with most of OSC's book reviews, and disagree with most of his movie reviews!
Yeah, I've noticed the same for me... I think part of this is that OSC used to write book review columns and as a writer himself he shows his understanding for writing, and respect for fellow writers, in his book reviews.
When he's OSC is doing movie reviews, it seems like he's usually reviewing movies he goes to see for fun and doesn't have his professional reviewer's cap on... seems like he also has a tendency to see (moreso than books) a movie as being a commentary on American life, and if he sees a movie as having a shallow commentary on politics/morality/culture/religion he's more likely to give it a hard time. (Maybe this is because movies ARE more likely to be shallow, since it's more challenging to tell a good story in a movie than in a book?... but still OSC does seem to have a tendency to jump on a movie if he thinks it's shallow and doesn't like its message -- Pleasantville, American Beauty -- while pardoning shallow movies if he likes the message -- Sweet Home Alabama, Maid in Manhattan.)
Ah, enough rambling, off to work... anyway, I like OSC's reviews, they're fun to read and usually interesting, but I definitely like his book reviews more than his movie reviews...
Posted by waltdisneysfrozenhead (Member # 2717) on :
I agree, Plaid. I think he is trying to make himself the 'anti-intellectual elite' reviewer.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Perhaps I'm being pessimistic (or is it optimistic?), but in my experience, about the same proportion of the population sees independent films as read for pleasure. I would say a much, much smaller proportion actually see live theater with any regularity. So, I don't see it as him only reviewing things he thinks his audience will see.