Saturday, June 30, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
yippe kay critic
It's a popcorn-flick, so why does Claudia Pulg spew cheap spins like these:
Live Free or Die Hard (* * out of four) is diverting enough if you want to see plenty of fast-paced action sequences, some heart-stopping chase scenes and plenty of things blow up.
If you're looking for a plausible doomsday scenario or sharp dialogue, this is not your movie. But who goes to see a Die Hard sequel for pithy wordplay?
USA Today, Claudia Pulg
My frustration doesn't stem from a blind allegiance to the Die Hard films (though I enjoy them), but from a writer, Pulg, misunderstanding her audience. Die Hard is an action franchise, and has an action franchise audience. People watch these movies to see "plenty of fast-paced action sequences, some heart-stopping chase scenes and plenty of things blow up." Yet, Pulg has the snobbishness of a film student, building her argument that a couple cheap thrills has its audience, they're just not people with taste.
I won't even get into the pompasity of the "pithy wordplay" comment. Rather, I have a question for everyone: is it better to have real, graphic violence in the case of films like Saving Private Ryan or Irreversible, or to portray the violence in a cartoonish way, like Die Hard, where the narrative strides far from reality? Or, does quality aesthetic qualify graphic brutality?
What if the 'deep messages' of the former is misunderstood, leaving the viewer confused, trying to interpret brutal muck? For example, the suicidal grenade scene in "Letters From Iwo Jima" went on long enough for me to feel confused, check my watch, look at other people's disgust, and still catch another two bloody deaths. Is that any better than John McClain stabbing a man with an icicle?
Really?
Live Free or Die Hard (* * out of four) is diverting enough if you want to see plenty of fast-paced action sequences, some heart-stopping chase scenes and plenty of things blow up.
If you're looking for a plausible doomsday scenario or sharp dialogue, this is not your movie. But who goes to see a Die Hard sequel for pithy wordplay?
USA Today, Claudia Pulg
My frustration doesn't stem from a blind allegiance to the Die Hard films (though I enjoy them), but from a writer, Pulg, misunderstanding her audience. Die Hard is an action franchise, and has an action franchise audience. People watch these movies to see "plenty of fast-paced action sequences, some heart-stopping chase scenes and plenty of things blow up." Yet, Pulg has the snobbishness of a film student, building her argument that a couple cheap thrills has its audience, they're just not people with taste.
I won't even get into the pompasity of the "pithy wordplay" comment. Rather, I have a question for everyone: is it better to have real, graphic violence in the case of films like Saving Private Ryan or Irreversible, or to portray the violence in a cartoonish way, like Die Hard, where the narrative strides far from reality? Or, does quality aesthetic qualify graphic brutality?
What if the 'deep messages' of the former is misunderstood, leaving the viewer confused, trying to interpret brutal muck? For example, the suicidal grenade scene in "Letters From Iwo Jima" went on long enough for me to feel confused, check my watch, look at other people's disgust, and still catch another two bloody deaths. Is that any better than John McClain stabbing a man with an icicle?
Really?
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Barkley '08: Another look
On Rasheed Wallace:
"If you're a grunt for CNN, those people are exploited. The guy behind the camera I talk to, he's exploited. This guy is making $17 million, and he's exploited? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. "
God, I love this guy.
(More at: http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin06052004.html )
"If you're a grunt for CNN, those people are exploited. The guy behind the camera I talk to, he's exploited. This guy is making $17 million, and he's exploited? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. "
God, I love this guy.
(More at: http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin06052004.html )
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)