This is a terrible review and you are a terrible reviewer. The fact that you looked at the dancing scene so superficially and were only able to compare it to a car commercial shows you completely missed most of what was happening in the movie. Charlie clearly uses that suggestion to help bond with Max and explain how the boxing industry works, how Max's personality can be celebrated in "show" portion of boxing. This directly helps to bridge the divide between them and bring them closer together. This was clearly completely lost on you.
I dont know who hired you to review movies, but they should seriously reconsider their decision after a review like this. Learn how to watch movies before you write about them.
My thoughts are that you're a moron; and rotten tomatoes has gone downhill with most movie ratings being opposite. Real Steel hd great believable characters with realistic portrayals if what and how robots could be integrated into the world, a solid plot development with a feel good good guys win bad guys lose ending really just made this the best movie in theaters right now.
most of these type killers seem to have a fascination with becomming news reporters, or policers, they get off 0n thinking the whole darn whole dont know who it is already? ha, I mean if u put all the candys, dons, franks, frans, and carry them through to every bobdicknharry, you might understand why no one doenst go to thier churches nemore. Gees!
Silly character? really? I thought Ehle's performance was the best of the film.
Thank you . . . now where do I send the cookies?
You are obviously unaware of the film Soderberg was making. If you are paying attention to the CHARACTERS instead of the actors, you, number one, wouldn't have even felt the need to mention Jude Law's tooth (do shiny objects distract you, too?). Number two, you would realize the parallels Soderberg was making by including Jude's character, in that the fear and misinformation that can be spread, now more prolific than ever thanks to the internet (too close to home, maybe?), can be just as dangerous as the disease itself. It's just as relevant as the other societal breakdowns that played out, the looting, home invasions, etc. This was an excellent film. I liked the fact that it followed an unfamiliar path yet still managed to inspire both fear and sorrow for the characters without resorting to cheesy, melodramatic, and overdone emoting from the cast. I think it's a very smart film.
IM A 300 lb 6'7 redneck BOY and I aint watchin no girly twilight crap.
You had me at bikini. Thanks for the recommendation!
My girlfriend and I suffered through about 30 minutes before leaving. The photography was amazingly good, but couldn't make up for a bewildering plot.
I still think Menace to Society was a much better movie than Boyz in the Hood. Saw both again recently, and I stand by that. I don't think Boyz has aged well at all. To each his own I guess.
Whoever wrote this segment is a complete and total idiot the story line is based of the comics books with a few minor changes to the story and Reynolds was the perfect character because of his attitude and cocky confidence. the only reason he doesn't hook up with carrol is because she is going to become a pink lantern in the new one they foreshadowed it in the movie. His powers come from will, will is what fuels the rings powers along with the will inside you. Good over evil bro. Last Hector was potrayed just as he was in the comic exect on the comic he doesn't die. The only reason you thought this movie sucked is because your a cold hearted critic
Green Lantern is too cool of a character to be played by Van Wilder guy.
James! Once again you rocked this review! I am hopping this means you are back at the weekly for good!!!?
The geriatric gentleman "OLD GUY" who wrote a critique on your review has to be the oldest most moth-balliest smelling old guy alive! What a drag that guy is! I can only imagine that he sounds like Thurston Howell III when he talks! I mean for pete's sake I work in Hollywood! I live in Los Angeles! I depend on the movie industry being here to make my living and I applaud James for all of his critiques he has ever written!
The actors he writes about are arrogant, not worth the money they are paid and could easily get away with murder, and some do. Hollywood continually produces horrible horrible movies with budgets that are larger then the GDP of hundreds of countries on this planet! So when Mr. DiGiovanna writes a review he has to make comment on Hollywood and rip on the actors because movies are no longer about the craft of acting, paying 5 bucks for a ticket and some popcorn and escaping to a fantasy world for a few hours. Now movies are about talentless actors who are "DRENCHED IN CGI", bloated budgets and releasing the movie to DVD 3 months after it has been in the theaters so profits can be maximized before the next quarter arrives. I think some rapper somewhere said it best.."Dolla Dolla Bills Ya'll" and now that movies are all about that all you can do is laugh at the industry as a whole and that is what James does best. Can anyone tell me the last time a movie came out with writing and acting like the 1976 classic NETWORK? Those films do not exist any more so why critique films like they are some priceless piece of art that took time and money. I have been on these sets and believe me no cares not even the actors. Everyone is so far removed form the "craft" of film making it is sad. So please James, PLEASE continue to make us laugh! We need that from you! And "Old Guy" in about in about 7 months I hear medical marijuana will be legal in AZ do yourself a favor and get a prescription it may help with your smugness. Hell it sure will help with that generational gap or code that you are griping about!
As I like to tell my college students, if there is a word or expression in your readings that you don't understand, go to a dictionary or, if its too new, google it and see what comes up. You are likely to find the definition or meaning on the internet, and it is quick!
I am also quite sure to be younger than James, so not knowing what CGI means is not necessarily correlated with differences in age. I had to look it up.
Finally, James' work is by now an institution, so people who read his reviews are prepared for its singular approach, which among other things, invites laughter and criticism at once. There are so many other run of the mill movie reviews that one can always find an alternative, toned down, approach - if so desired.
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.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation