Jump to content


Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About harrisonisdead

  • Rank
    Cult Classic

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. They are straight up just trolling Ehrlich at this point. They have a multitude of other, much more positive, reviews and quotes to choose from but they keep including IndieWire lmao
  2. Hmmmm... TIFF People's Choice Awards has been nominated for Best Picture 9 out of the last 10 years (and the one that wasn't was a foreign film).
  3. To an extent. It'd been essentially decided that Vice was in the awards race from the moment it was announced (given The Big Short's Oscar success and the stacked cast involved), so even when the somewhat muted critical response came along, it was too late and it was already in the conversation, and when what is perceived as a powerhouse performance is attached to even a critically meh film, the movie is in the Oscar conversation for more than just actor. That'd likely by the case for Joker anyways. It has the Golden Lion, it has its fair share of rave, 10/10 reviews already even if it dips lower on RT, it certainly exists in the conversation, which will only be amplified by its inevitable box office success, and of course it has Joaquin Phoenix's performance which is praised as an Oscar contender even by the more negative responses to the film. The initial raves and hype won't be forgotten come awards season even if the RT were to drop significantly lower (which I don't think it will when all is said and done).
  4. I mean at this point this movie certainly has the acclaim and recognition necessary to get where it needs to go awards-wise and box-office-wise, it certainly won't hurt it much to be in the 70s on RT. At this point it's just a (somewhat pointless) game of watching the score bounce back and forth.
  5. I have made my fair share of jokes about reviews of this film, but I feel like criticism being thrown against this movie for purely political reasons is a very small minority. I know the EW review just seems lazy, dismissive even, as the furthest it goes in really evaluating the film is saying that Phoenix gives a good performance and it outright refuses to grade the film (though one could say that the refusal to grade the film is noble as the reviewer KNOWS she wouldn't be able to evaluate the film from a technical or truly critical standpoint given political stance, however publishing the review at all, especially listing in on RT, kind of ruins that nobleness). And of course Ehrlich's review and the subsequent "incel-friendly" article header probably falls into that category of shallow criticism as well. HOWEVER, I don't believe that saying that a film's message or themes are muddled, unclear, or lack necessary complexity is invalid criticism, and that's honestly what I've heard a lot of. Analysis of a movie's themes and the way the movie conveys those themes is a major part of film criticism. I've seen criticism that the film that the screenplay isn't sophisticated enough to handle its weighty themes or fully say what it wishes to say. Even many positive reviews of the film criticize the screenplay from a macro standpoint (I haven't heard anything about dialogue really). For example, Chris Evangelista's 8/10 review says this: BBC's 3/5 (counted ultimately as rotten) review similarly says that the film's screenplay is too "superficial" to truly be taken as the social commentary it likely wishes to be (and the review in general is about as apolitical as a movie review of this nature can be, and of course not an American review). For some critics, screenplay holds more weight on how they view a film than others. And that's not necessarily political, just personal preference. It's not like there exists an objective weighing of aspects of film. I'm only saying that to dismiss every negative review and every piece of criticism along with it, assuming their distaste for the film to be purely political, is not the right mindset and it's easy for it to become that way. It feels like certain (select few) reviews ruined it for others that wish to criticize the film, simply by taking an overly shallow approach to their criticism or refusing to look deeper into analyzing a movie they've deemed not worth their time. Especially because about nobody here has seen the film, being overly defensive of it is a bit silly. I personally feel I'll like it based on both the criticisms (which I don't feel would become too overbearing for me) and praise, but I'm not about to dismiss all criticism as almost a political counter-effort. Sorry that I wrote an essay.
  6. You should see Twitter... there are people who are mad at the movie for featuring fascists "even if it is a satire" and others being mad at it romanticizing Hitler as if Watiti has accidentally created a pro-Hitler movie or something.
  7. He didn't get p.g.a certification, which is required (may or may not be required, but AMPAS uses the certification in their decision making process) to be included in the nominations (p.g.a in the credit means the producer's guild certified that the person had a significant role in producing the film rather than just had their name slapped on the movie)
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.