Hatrack River Forum: OSC Reviews Everything

This is topic OSC Reviews Everything in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005247

Posted by OSCReader2001 (Member # 12117) on :

With the amount of media we are now blasted by in a massive attack, I have come to realize how important OSC's reviews have meant to me.

He wades through the swamp for us and tries to point out the few gems. So far, when he gives a glowing recommendation of a book, or a film -- I try to read it or see it -- and have never been disappointed.

Posted by Clumpy (Member # 8122) on :

Seconded. His reviews have a quality that most critics lack - the feeling that your friendly neighbor or respected uncle is sharing interests and favorites with you.

I guess that's the benefit of being able to selectively review things based on having something interesting to say or a strong recommendation rather than having to slog through EVERYthing released like professional critics (meaning critics who make a career of it).

Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :

Clumpy, can I recommend "Adam Cadre" as a reviewer to you?

Time and again he says things about a movie or book that make me really think things I hadn't considered. See for example one of his latest reviews, about "Eyes Wide Shut":
http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/12925.html

Or the brilliant gender-related commentary on WALL-E at http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/12813.html
(I hadn't even noticed the gender subversion of the movie)

Or other times he's just brief and hilarious. See http://adamcadre.ac/calendar/12913.html

One of Adam's advantages is that he doesn't limit himself to *recent* films, as OSC mostly does. So he's less one to read to determine what to see, and more one to read to make you reconsider what you've seen, one way or another.

You can track updates via http://adamcadre.livejournal.com/

Posted by Clumpy (Member # 8122) on :

I read the Wall-E one. I like.

I've always written movie reviews like that, designed not for advocacy of the film but to point out things that people who have seen the film might enjoy:

quote:
I found it fantastic that when we actually meet the humans, they aren't petty, selfish, apathetic, uncaring or anything else that you'd expect them to be in a film like this. Quite the contrary - lethargic and pampered as these doughy blobs may be, they're unfailingly kind and understanding, even resourceful and industrious when given the chance. Again - not the obvious, cynical path for the movie to tread, but something far more significant.

Usually these are things that people did notice but not consciously, and quantifying them can be fun. I think the first thing that my friends and I discussed about Finding Nemo was the way Pixar seemed to be taking their stories more seriously by discontinuing the use of parody gag reels during the credits [Smile]

.

And coming out of The Dark Knight: "You know, for a remake of No Country For Old Men, that was pretty good."

EDIT: But I should note that I don't feel that either OSC or Adam Cadre are "real" critics, in the sense that they don't do the job of giving me a good idea of whether I'd like a movie. Now, they might do a different job, but they don't do that one.

Essentially what they do is pick apart a movie, add context where none might exist and write intensely personal, analytical, and sometimes grossly unfair copy. That's fine - human intelligence is built around making connections - but it won't click with some people.

[ July 11, 2009, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Clumpy ]

Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :

Yeah, Adam is pretty funny, though his "reviews" are closer to essays inspired by what he's reviewing. But he pans so many of the things he writes about that, if his essays are an indication of his general disposition, I think he'd be a pill to be around in real life.

This essay of his is not expressly funny, but the combination of its length and subject makes its mere existence funny:

"Fifteen apples and what I thought about them"

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :

I do not think I will ever take OSC's reviews seriously again...

Posted by oscfan (Member # 12170) on :

I love OSC's reviews. I respect him so much that sometimes I just want to know how he feels about a movie or book or other form of entertainment that I enjoyed. A month ago or so, he wrote about his visit to Tokyo, the city I live in. I was so happy when he practically sang praises about it!

It probably sounds like I value his opinion more than mine but I don't. [Wink]

I just like it when his taste and my taste match.

Posted by Clumpy (Member # 8122) on :

I think that's it. I know he's always going to say something interesting, whether I agree or disagree, and he's almost always with me on the stuff I really like. There are critics who are terrible writers, or are contrarian for the sake of pissing people off, so I tend to give his reviews credence.

He appreciates family friendly fare too (even stuff that gets trashed critically) as long as it has a good heart, so I can sometimes appreciate things (if not love them) after reading his review.

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :

I can't really take his reviews seriously anymore because there's no way-
The 4th and 5th Harry Potter movies are better than the books. I love those books. They don't feel bloated to me at all, but very imaginative and entertaining.
And there's no way the 4th and 5th Harry potter movies are better than Lord of the Rings.
Sure it's his opinion, but I just don't agree with it at all.

Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :

Whew, I was starting to think I was the only one who finds his reviews quite often quite ridiculous. Surely he must know that it's the exact thing he criticizes (Rowling's manner of storytelling) which made the Harry Potter book series the most successful in history?

My "favourite" of his reviews is the "Dark Knight" one. He states early on that the sound was particularly bad and that he often was unable to fully understand the dialog because of that. However, he doesn't let that stop him from describing some of the scenes he evidently didn't understand in detail, filling in bits and pieces from his own imagination. The result is that the movie he describes hasn't all that much in common with the movie the rest of the world saw. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :

Uh... Yeah...

Plus both Harvey and (i forgot that chick's name)
were important to the investigation. It wasn't just Harvey doing all the work, she was an assistant DA. She knew those briefs too!
Urg. ><

Plus he seemed to like his version of the movie that didn't exist better than the real version. -_-

Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :

quote:
Plus he seemed to like his version of the movie that didn't exist better than the real version.

Yesss, very true. Strange, isn't it - the protagonist of his version had far fewer human weaknesses than the "real" Batman, which makes him rather dull, in comparison, IMO.

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :

Yeah, the real Batman is a lot cooler and more interesting. Man, that was an awesome movie.