|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Jun 20, 2006 15:57:43 GMT -5
We don't have a thread that I can find dedicated to critical reviews, so I thought I'd start one with this: www.locusmag.com/2003/Reviews/Person04_Darko.html... and intriguing look at the beauty and warts of DD. Good questions raised and at least one insight I'd complete missed (Donnie's handiness with a gun). What are your reactions? |
|
|
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Jun 22, 2006 19:25:26 GMT -5
Wait...I'm not that smart, but doesn't critical mean harsh or questioning? This article is overwhelmingly positive. I'll handle each of the criticisms I can handle seperately:
1. The world not ending lessens the impact: I disagree, what it does is make it feel more human and less science fiction.
2. The humor overshadows the plot: This is part of what makes DD so fun, you have to look out for what it's trying to show you, it isn't just thrown in your face.
3. This is some wacky shit: Yes, yes it is. Not everything going on behind the scenes or what could be behind the scenes is stated, but I don't think that's neccesary for the film to succeed.
I just think the an wanted Sci-Fi, and he didn't really get it.
I honestly can't bare to read any more of this.
What I did find strange though was he says this: "But it is one of the most original, complex, and interesting SF films to come out of Hollywood in a long time, and it may very well be the most overlooked SF film of the last decade. " but then he says it isn't a great film. If this is the case the last decade for Sci-Fi must've been a mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Jun 23, 2006 4:31:13 GMT -5
that guy is all over the place with his review, its rediculous
|
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Jun 23, 2006 14:31:20 GMT -5
What the fuck?
The power of exploring others' perspectives is that it deepens our own -- maybe helps us further realize what we love about something, or to understand it more than we did before. So why are people so negative? I put this up just for consideration. I assumed we on the board were to the point where we could see something that wasn't entirely glowing about the movie and engage it as possible for the exercise.
Anybody can dismiss. Not just anybody can engage and experience another perspective. I expected the latter, and I'm pissed that the responses to this were "it's ridiculous" and "if he says 'x', how can this not be a great movie?"
Sorry for the flame. And I'm sorry if you really did take time and brainpower to think about things from this other person's point of view, and what came from that reflecting were these posts. If that's what happened, I misread. If not, I'm just disappointed. It's so shortsighted and boring to wave one's hand at something and sneer. What the fuck are we on this board for if not to discuss and dialogue?
Re: "critic" -- Twitch, sometimes people assume criticism has negative connotations, but its definition is: the practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works. (See also the quote in my mini-profile on the left.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Jun 24, 2006 5:28:43 GMT -5
its not the fact that its a bad or good review or whatever, its jsut how contradictory it is.
its obvious that there will will be bad reviews of dd because like you said its all personal preference, its jsut the writter of that particular piece has made a mess up of his review and doesnt seem to be able to decide whether dd is one of the best or worst films he's seen
|
|
|
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Jun 26, 2006 2:29:29 GMT -5
Honestly I don't see the harm in criticizing his critique. It's fine if it's negative, or positive, but if there is something I feel is worth disputing I'll probably be doing that. Otherwise this thread would just be made up of a bunch of links, and that's really quite boring.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProvidencePortal on Jun 26, 2006 8:03:04 GMT -5
Honestly I don't see the harm in criticizing his critique. Nor do I. But this doesn't read like criticism. It reads like detraction or dismissal. Criticism requires sitting in the other's place and opening oneself to be influenced. Dismissal is sitting firmly in your own original position and throwing stones. I thought your numbered points started toward critique, but then it became obvious that you were simply defending the movie. And I hoped for more. Naturally, no one here is contrained by what I hope for. But since you took your tact, I thought I'd share mine ... which is, if we have a glance and dismiss, it's shallow and we miss things. |
|
|
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Jun 26, 2006 21:02:05 GMT -5
When I said I couldn't bare to read any more of it, it simply was because the critique was far too long, not that I was bothered or angered by it and I simply found it strange that he called it great once and then seemed to retract that statment later on.
My statement about him looking for a Sci-Fi movie was based on how he often times seemed to be judging the movie based on how it succeeded in reference to the genre rather than in reference to simply being a good film.
|
|
Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane
Guest
|
Post by Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane on Nov 6, 2006 20:40:30 GMT -5
PP you are right on with this one. that site has one of best reviews, well-thought and even-handed, good points.
need more open eyes and open minds, less knee-jerk defensiveness.
criticism does NOT equal condemnation.
listen! think! respond!
are opinions set in cement?
worst flaw of DD: threatens to become tangent universe unto itself and all the hardcores what can't take a step back.
|
|
|
|
Post by Omnipotent on Mar 16, 2007 0:36:27 GMT -5
at least one insight I'd complete missed (Donnie's handiness with a gun). You know another thing I noticed today that I've never paid much attention to, was the keg beer comment. Donnie tells Ronald there's a keg at his Halloween party and he replies "Keg beer is for pussy's", and then it cuts to him handing Donnie a cup to pour him some. Made me laugh... But if you want to read a bad Donnie Darko review I'll show you one. "Plain and simple, Donnie Darko is an extremely well-intentioned independent film hindered by the narrowness of its vision, the muddiness and indecisiveness of its ideas, and the dopiness of its presentation. For an offbeat independent it’s sadly predictable"... www.apolloguide.com/mov_fullrev.asp?CID=3703 |
|
|
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Mar 16, 2007 1:12:04 GMT -5
You know another thing I noticed today that I've never paid much attention to, was the keg beer comment. Donnie tells Ronald there's a keg at his Halloween party and he replies "Keg beer is for pussy's", and then it cuts to him handing Donnie a cup to pour him some. Made me laugh... What's your point? The Ron is simply so hardcore that he can go through all of his dad's beers over the course of a scene transition. See, no logical inconsistency there. |
|
