Links to film reviews and reaction posts

[Frank]

Bikini Kill (outed)

I always assumed it was you.

Now I feel insulted.

[JOE SOAP]

Soon you'll feel horny again.

[radiator]

Films are entertainment. You like them or you don't, and you don't have to apologise for liking something your film studies lecturer told you is 'lowbrow'.

So if a film attempts to do something more than be simply entertaining, then it has failed as a film?

You're both wrong, of course 

You've also just used the same argument as the person you're disagreeing with. If a film sets out to be an entertaining violent action movie and achieves that, then it's a good film. If a film sets out to show the impermanence and fragility of life as a sheepherder and achieves that, then it's a good film. You may prefer one over the other based on personal preferences but it's not right at all to dismiss the other as being "just a movie" or arty wank because you personally don't prefer a particular type of film.

Also, I don't think academics - literary, film, music or anything else - tend to use the word 'lowbrow' for anything. People use this argument when trying to dismiss a critics' view all the time and it doesn't hold up. The amount of times I've seen people dismiss Mark Kermode or Peter Bradshaw as sniffy critics who could never like Hollywood blockbusters because they've said Transformers is shit... yet they're more than happy to rave about good action films when they come out (I mean, Mark Kermode was one of the only defenders of Mamma Mia!, for chrissakes!) I don't know if academics would use language loaded with that kind of class prejudice in a publically funded institution either but that's beside the point. People who study such subjects tend to treat everything at its base level as, at the very least, culturally and artistically valid (yes, even Transformers).

People on the internet and in the media, not so much. 

Erm, when exactly did I say that if a film makes you think WHILE it's entertaining you that's a bad thing?

I really don't see how I'm using the same argument - I'm making exactly the same point you just did. The sheep herder 'film' should be judged by the same criteria as the action 'movie' - does it achieve it's goals? Is it interesting/entertaining?

I don't understand the purpose of drawing an artificial line between them, as if one is somehow better or more worthy than the other. Snobbery and elitism, plain and simple.

[CraveNoir]

Blogomatic3000
http://www.blogomatic3000.com/2012/09/05/review-dredd/

[PreacherCain]

Erm, when exactly did I say that if a film makes you think WHILE it's entertaining you that's a bad thing?

Well that was more in reference to the initial argument. I think saying "films are entertainment" dismisses quite a lot of films, to be honest and is just as wrongheaded as drawing a distinction by categorising things into films and movies. For example, there's been plenty of films I've been disturbed by or even frustrated by, but I'm still glad I watched them because, for whatever reason, they stayed with me. I mean, entertaining isn't necessarily a word I'd use to describe Shame or Irreversible or that Herzog Death Row film (to use relatively recent examples!)

Maybe I've dragged another argument into this. I guess I've seen the "films are entertainment. Nothing more" in a lot of places and it's generally used to dismiss something that people found disturbing/slow/odd. And I wanted to point out that I didn't think film studies would consider a film like Dredd lowbrow or without value so I thought your final point was unfair. Films need to be compelling, definitely, regardless of genre or independent/Hollywood etc. which I guess was your initial point that I perhaps misinterpeted ( )

[PreacherCain]

Empire podcast interview with Karl Urban, starts around 40 minutes in.

http://soundcloud.com/empiremagazine/26-august-31-2012-karl-urban

[Dudley]

First bad review in a well-known publication.

http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/93465/dredd.html

[radiator]

That's not a bad review. Overall it's positive, and counts as 'fresh' on Rotten Tomatoes.

[Goaty]

First bad review in a well-known publication.

http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/93465/dredd.html

I see jerk on first comment there... why he kept try to ruined Dredd 3D?

[Dudley]

That's not a bad review. Overall it's positive, and counts as 'fresh' on Rotten Tomatoes.

You're right, I just couldn't see past "mediocre," "lazy," "derivative" and "flat."

[CraveNoir]

Contains Moderate Peril
http://www.containsmoderateperil.com/dredd-2012/

[Goaty]

Contains Moderate Peril
http://www.containsmoderateperil.com/dredd-2012/

Like this;

Hollywood take note. This how it is done properly.

[Proudhuff]

Filum of the week in the Hootsman:

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/film-review-dredd-1-2508200

As for Time Out, anyone who thinks source material is 'mediocre' won't get the lack of pithy one liners from Old Stoney Face.

[darnmarr]

Is it just me who finds the Timeout review hilarious?
The first paragraph reads like something from yer man in the comments section*, seriously did Alex Garland rob Tom Huddleston's girlfriend or something? The whole thing reads like: "This is good- but no thanks to Garland... it's all Pete's doing I tell you! Yay for Pete and boo for Alex! it's good but if they'd gotten rid of Garland it would have been WAY better!- I hate him"


*whasshisname... the sad fool chap.

[The Sherman Kid]

Myself and Bat King are currently the top user reviewers of Dredd on the Vue Cinema website