Critic Review Thread (79% fresh - 7.1 average rating)

[SpeedyMaxx]

Ask around, I'm one of the last to still be excited to see the damn thing!   It's absolutely crazy, and I've readjusted my hopes a bit, but I think to assume that people won't be able to fairly judge the film isn't really giving them any credit.

I agree.  But that's not what I said.

I mean, to me, not being able to control your emotions enough to overlook the hype of a film, and to judge it based on what you see, is frankly pretty immature.

I'm sorry, have I struck you as desperately emotional about this?  I'm really, really not, in the slightest.  I'm just very much keeping an open mind, and I'm not going to be told I shouldn't.  By anyone, on any film.  It's not personal, it's just who I am. 

And they coincidentally, for the most part, say the same thing.  The ones that really love the film aren't very elaborate.  They basically just say that they loved the film.

If I like it, that won't be my problem.

Edit - I'm not saying it's not an 'almost there,' or that it may even be a great film, maybe a cult classic, but I think in some may most of us expect some disappointment by now.  It just sucks, because you don't have to do that with some films.  They just work, for almost everybody, and do their job without taking you out of the experience.

I find that more and more in this day and age, there are very few films that still do that for everyone.  Some love it, some hate it, some like it with qualifications.  I do not, for example, worship at the church of Christopher Nolan; I find many of his films quite good, and own several, but I still find him overrated and at times very bloodless.  Others think he is a genius.  I find that many of the unimpeachable classics are often films of the past, from before we were born or from childhood, lost beyond most critical faculty.

[Cvalda]

Dragon, abandon ship. This forum is completely toxic and is now only good for drive-by lolz.

Come back to where it's safe

[SpeedyMaxx]

Now that's maturity.

[RagingDragon]

From Slant, I like this guy.

It's not only that the licensed, canonized Alien film sequels paled in comparison to Scott's original, it's that the alien itself has been sold off like a breakfast-cereal mascot, diluting the taut perfection of that 1979 film with each subsequent relicensing.

Of course it's subjective, but that subjectivity rests on a basis of quality.  There is no subjectivity without an object to center it around.  I'm really not in the camp that labeling something as 'art' renders it free from all form of criticism.  Films aren't art, they are formulaic tellings of a story, with a goal that can be given a noun and put on a shelf.  They can become art, if they're constructed very well, but anything can become art if it's executed exceptionally well.

That's why they call art films "art films," and they have their own complete category.  They're films deliberately made to express artistic liberties and ideas.  Most films are there to tell you a story, and evoke a particular response.

I mean if this is true, how do I just change my opinion and make the film good?  I really want it to be good, so are you saying I'm just making it bad in my own head?

I mean, to me, not being able to control your emotions enough to overlook the hype of a film, and to judge it based on what you see, is frankly pretty immature.

I'm sorry, have I struck you as desperately emotional about this?  I'm really, really not, in the slightest.  I'm just very much keeping an open mind, and I'm not going to be told I shouldn't.  By anyone, on any film.  It's not personal, it's just who I am. 

No, and please don't take my words out of context to make it look like I insulted you.  That sentence was clearly directed at the one before it, as a general statement about being effected by the hype of a film.  It was a blanket statement.

[SpeedyMaxx]

Of course it's subjective, but that subjectivity rests on a basis of quality.  There is no subjectivity without an object to center it around.  I'm really not in the camp that labeling something as 'art' renders it free from all form of criticism.

Nor I.  But I don't agree that films are not art.  Some absolutely are.  Some are shit.  But all can be criticized.  It's just that there's not necessarily a uniform, catch-all formula for all of that criticism.

That's why they call art films "art films," and they have their own complete category.  They're films deliberately made to express artistic liberties and ideas.

I've worked in and around arthouse films for too long, and I can tell you that while a great many of them are beautiful, wonderful films, at least as many are just, to my eyes, pretentious crap trying too hard.

To some people, Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo or Michael Powell's The Red Shoes or whatever else are just great examples of classic films.  But to a lot of people out there, they are absolutely, positively art.  They would not qualify as "art films," but there is not a separate category for films that are allowed to be "art."  The term "art film" is a huge problem and a misnomer.  A lot of the big Hollywood directors of the '70s had lots of room to explore artistic liberties and their ideas, but no one would call, say, Apocalypse Now, Nashville, or The Last Picture Show art films.  They were major, commercial studio releases.  They are also, however, to many people, art.  Just not "art films."  But this is another discussion entirely.

I mean if this is true, how do I just change my opinion and make the film good?  I really want it to be good, so are you saying I'm just making it bad in my own head?

Of course I'm not.  I'm just saying we might disagree about a film, and that's okay.

No, and please don't take my words out of context to make it look like I insulted you.  That sentence was clearly directed at the one before it, as a general statement about being effected by the hype of a film.  It was a blanket statement.

Honestly, I didn't notice.

[RagingDragon]

Okay, just checking.

*faints*

[Cvalda]

Score on Metacritic is now down to 57%
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/prometheus

Alien Resurrection, by contrast, is at 63%

[ThisBethesdaSea]

Whatever...it's based off TEN critics.


You must be overjoyed Cvalda

[Cvalda]

I just enjoy watching you all justify and excuse everything

[SpeedyMaxx]

It would be presumptuous of any of us to justify or excuse anything before having seen the movie.  One can't be condemned for waiting and seeing.  Well, perhaps they could, but I couldn't be f**ked to care.

[ThisBethesdaSea]

Says the person who posts how low the films score is on meta critic....umm,.....ok?

[Cvalda]

I'm just posting what the critics are saying in the relevant thread

[KiramidHead]

I'm just posting what the critics are saying in the relevant thread

It's what ten critics are saying. The current RT rating is based on sixty critics and it's at 77%. But the suggests you get that. 

[OpenMaw]

Is that a negative review? I can't tell. Certainly the reviewer said he wasn't scared once, but I dunno...seemed mixed...he even contrasted the negative reviews that ALIEN reviews....hmmmm

When the director says "I aim to scare the crap out of you" and a reviewer comes out saying "I wasn't scared even once." That kinda tells you it's inherently negative. 

Not necessarily. I mean, there are horror movies that didn't particular scare me, but i still enjoy immensely. Of course, i suppose i do enjoy them more when i actually am scared...

When we're talking from the objective stand point of the goals of a film and whether they met those goals or not, yes, it is necessarily that cut and dry. Enjoying it, that's great, and there's nothing in what I was saying that counters that point.

[Salt The Fries]

Films aren't art, they are formulaic tellings of a story, with a goal that can be given a noun and put on a shelf.

I strongly - or even violently - beg to differ. Though I'm not sure if you wanted to differentiate two kinds of films and referred only to those conventional, mainstream ones as just "films" and then proceeded to talk about "art films".
Please kindly clarify.