All I know is: James DiGiovanna is a treasure. The Weekly is danged lucky to have him. Can we have some more, please?
To critic The Old Guy of critic James: While this may........Nah, I wont go into the deep soul searching of what you motives may or may not be. Lighten up, top priorty for a film critic is to be entertaining, James DiGiovanna is pretty good at that. Besides, there is one in every crowd, you don't have to read his reviews.
There is nothing wrong with being caustic, particularly when it is an opinion. It is can be difficult to convey a review of some of the suckage that is disgorged by Hollywood this summer without being a little ugly. You wan't to do more research on 'X-Men: First Class' go to IMDB.COM.
This is a comment section, you want to get published, write to the editor.
James~So glad to see your reviews once again. In a summer devoid of adult movies, at least we have an adult to review the detritus that is being foisted upon us. As another "old guy" I truly appreciate your witty and on target analysis of films. You have saved us from many a poor choice at the multiplex and for that I can't thank you enough. Enjoy the summer and keep it coming!
To film critic James: While this may sounds like a personal attack, my point is your writing perspective offends older readers. It conveys two subliminal messages. I suggest you have someone over sixty-five read your review before you push the "send" key. You cannot help it because you are young. Get this: we old fogies are not done yet; we had some incredible experiences. We seek movies that have the depth, pathos and possible joy of life portrayed within them. You speak another language. An example in your recent review..."but he'll spend most of the movie drenched in CGI," reflects some evolved code that only "texting" capable youth can parse. Actually, the more powerful age gap offense is that you fail to observe the dumb down present in most films released—we will not see these because they are trite, dispassionate and ugly. They are commodities, and we can smell them by reading astute critical reviews and not recommending them within our considerable networks--phone, mail and email.
The second sin James? Get over yourself. Remove what you would do from all your writing. Use another column for cultural review, comedy and sarcasm. Take your indictment of Steve Jobs. Please. For example, my family lives within one mile of Pixar in Oakland. My best friend from college, his son art directs massive computer graphics work for Pixar. So? My opinion, just one voice, is that company's work deserves recognition for work that resonates with all ages. It does not deserve your fear mongering about the company's founder who also has a history with another company's founder about who stole what from whom. By the way it was yet another company's intellectual property, but that is more than seven years now.
If you do not publish this, I can understand. If you do not read it, you lack courage to reflect on your own craft. My suggestions come from a lifetime of being a critic. It took me decades to learn the following: by removing the vanity, the easy personal remarks and caustic voice you will conduct your real job. Apply your analysis to studying the film's intent and a wide range of audience types. Your personhood will not disappear; just get out of the way. Instead, you become a bridge. Some will want to cross to see the film. Others will thank you for helping them avoid the toll.
James, one of your best....laugh out loud funny!
But you should know you are not the only person who has never seen Lost. Maybe we could start a club.
Once again, great job!
There are a number of very old pop culture references that not only would no kid under 20 get, but will take quite a bit of explanation from an adult in order for the kid to understand what is going on. That is to say, major plot points rely on knowing those old pop culture references. My kids squirmed throughout it, making it a long 80 minutes. A lot of the humor depended on the large number of quirky characters, who seem to have been added under the premise that quirky = funny.
It looked good, but clearly Snyder should stick to directing and not writing. However, the part which really killed the movie was the extraordinarily bad acting during the many female bonding scenes. It doesn't build audience tension over a potential character's demise, if the audience is secretly hoping she will die in order to avoid having to hear her speak again.
its a very nice film............i would like to see it again and again... A very different concept...:)
To me, the director cherry picked dynamic visual scenes from other movies (X-Men, Kill Bill, Hell Boy,I Robot, etc) renacted by P-Cat Doll clones and made it into a movie. The plot is introduced in the first ten minutes, strangle with its umbilical cord, then resussitated for the final ten minutes of the movie. The attempt of a story within a story within a story was bold (and also pinched from a recent movie), but was full of holes.Visually stuning though especially on an IMAX screen when I saw it.
I saw the movie last night and kept half a thought toward the above review and was sorry I expended any energy at all on Grimm's opinion. I have to ask, were you really paying attention to the film?
The movie was filmed in Louisiana (vs. LA) for two reasons: more favorable tax breaks & the necessity of closing a portion of a freeway for many days of filming...a task that would've been impossible in CA. Even knowing that going in, I was swept up and "believed" it was indeed LA.
The woman vet did assist at the impromptu alien autopsy and there was some joking & squimishness, but what was the point of your above comment? Did you misunderstand and take that seriously? After discovering their weakness was to the "right of where the heart would be", as many aliens went down by the Marines' M-16s (which fire in 3-bullet bursts or in full automatic mode) as by being "blown Up". I guess you saw that realism as unrealistic?
Finally, you incorrectly comment that, "...these things are indestructible". What movie WERE you watching? The aliens, although technologically advanced, were going down by our weaponry. Compare that to what was truly indestructible in the movie "Independence Day" (that is, until the computer virus was delivered).
Mindless entertainment? Yes, and one movie I thoroughly enjoyed and had fun with. It's edge-of-your-seat intensity along the lines of "Blackhawk Down". I take movie reviews with the same seriousness I do with horoscopes...momentarily amusing but just as quickly discarded.
Battle: LA is shallow, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun to watch. Yes they took a lot of action scenes from many different war pictures and tried to put into a sci-setting. I am not sure about destroying Disneyland, I am sure there would be 'Mothers Against Destroying Mickey Mouse' wanting to boycott the movie or some crap like that. I had fun watching it. Here are the rest of my thoughts - http://tinyurl.com/4sn7osq
The re branding of a legend, Ridley Scott style.
Two words that do not go together in the same sentence are Ridley Scott, and history. However, any viewer, who wishes to see Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe, as the legendary, man of the people, may not get what they traditionally expect. What you will get is Ridley Scott, making no apologies as he and Brian Helgeland weave a new tale is full of action, adventure, romance, and a just a touch of history. Sounds like any other Ridley Scott, historical perspective film, like Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, or Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, you still see a Lady Marion, played by Cate Blanchet (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), but not the damsel in distress Maid Marian, but a more warrior goddess Marion. more... http://tinyurl.com/4npajtu
I have a different take on this film. Make no mistake, The Adjustment Bureau, starring Matt Damon, and Emily Blunt, is a love story. That being said, the Science Fiction element adds an interesting layer of fantasy to this tragic romance between two lovers, who, while fated to be together, destiny interferes to keep them apart. Mad Men's John Slattery and Terrence Stamp also star in this twisted tale of love, humor, fate, destiny, and freewill. A pleasant surprise is the portrayal of Adjustment Bureau Team member 'Harry' as portrayed by Anthony Mackie (Notorious). Mackie gives a human feeling to the film and acts not only as a guide for David Norris in navigating this world, but also acts as a conscience for this familiar but altered world. The Adjustment Bureau is a fast paced, but thoughtful film, and full of plot holes if you think about them too hard, so don't. more...http://tinyurl.com/46bmffb
Don't listen to this guy. Even other reviewers who didn't like the movie agreed Damon and Blunt had chemistry - some even said that was the only thing the movie got right. I liked it - I won't insist it's a great flick, but it held my attention better than almost anything I've seen in a year. I was just thinking today that I'd like to see it again.
One of the reasons it seems to feel incomplete is that a number of characters and plot elements are introduced that go absolutely nowhere. The movie starts off with Imelda Staunton playing a insomniac, and I kept wondering when and if she was going to show up again and how she would interplay with the other characters. But she never reappears again and she added nothing to the storyline, making me think that it would have been a good section to cut from the movie. There were a lot of little moments like that.
I know everyone is baggin on Tron...but I think that it had the best score with the work from Daft Punk. They could have gone all Matrix-like with Nine Inch Nails and Rage Against the Machine-esque music, but instead they went with music that perfectly fit the visuals of the movie.
While I have often disagreed with Bob Grimm's Movie and DVD recommendations, I have never actually been pissed off by one. Until now. I rented Louis C.K.'s "Hilarious," thinking, "Wow, there's a comedian like George Carlin and Bill Hicks? And I don't know about him?!" Did not laugh once. Not even a chuckle. Smirked a couple times, that's it. To compare this barely B-list comedian with giants like Carlin and Hicks (whom I love) and even Cosby (whom I don't) is just flat-out wrong. And nothing is unfunnier than mining (exploiting) your children for cheap comedy (non)laughs. Pony bit my kid. Ha Ha. Poop. Ha Ha. Boring. Carlin and Hicks were inspired loonies who actually made you think about things while you were laughing your ass off. Louis C.K.'s main insights seem to be into how stupid he is. I actually got tired of the line, "Here's how stupid I am..." And while I have nothing against stupid comedy, you should at least bring the funny.
A far funnier stand-up movie is Patton Oswalt's "My Weakness Is Strong." (And no, I'm not comparing him to the greats. But it IS funny).
Watched the Robin Hood 1938 movie? Thought not.
Goes to show you, cinema died the minute 3-D glasses became the lure for theatres everywhere. I'd rather watch a genuine classic on TCM.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation