I agree more with NYT review. I was entertained on many levels, including the camp, and the me,too.
Enjoyed immensely. Cohered where it was meant to, and when it didn’t ,the willing suspension was so in play, I bought the ticket and I was riding. The wild manical uninhibited of bacchae was fun, too. Christian Bale drew me in immediately.
"Can Det. Jake Wiles (Peter Sarsgaard) atone for his sins, about which we care nothing at all since they seem to have been invented halfway through the production of the film and parachuted in like a care package floating onto a crater-filled battlefield? Who can say."
Sonny, this is completely irrelevant to this review, but how the hell do you have Man of Steel rated over the newest Superman movie on letterboxed? Insane take.
Because THE MAN OF STEEL is great and SUPERMAN is fine. This isn’t even close to my hottest Superman take though. Which is this: MAN OF STEEL is also better than any of Reeve’s Superman movies.
I especially agree with the point of interesting =\= good. Have a buddy who’s a real pretentious film lover that’s always on about defending movies that are bad because they’re interesting.
I do agree in that I’d rather watch an interesting bad movie vs a boring bad movie, but being interesting only gets you so far. You have to, like, be a good movie.
It's a trap that critics fall into sometimes because we see A LOT of movies, particularly critics working at daily papers who have to see everything. I definitely felt that burnout and I only worked as a daily critic for about 20 months. And I still, honestly, prefer a wild, messy failure to boring competence. But that's just because big swings are easier to write about than a movie that boils down to "eh, it was fine," haha.
I am a big Jesse fan and will watch her in everything she does. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian loved this movie. I look forward to watching with both your review and The Guardian's in mind. Thanks Sonny!
First, let me note that there were a couple laugh out loud funny lines. This was a fun read.
My kid will make me watch this when it streams, so eventually I will have to confront this "interesting" movie. More and more, it seems, movies are "interesting" and the ambiguous place they leave me is disappointing. Intellectually, I've never known quite what to do with "interesting" movies. Now, I think I do.
Thank you for the kind words. I honestly hate writing pans, I'm always trying to find why a movie works. But I think even on its own terms this is a tragic mess.
I agree more with NYT review. I was entertained on many levels, including the camp, and the me,too.
Enjoyed immensely. Cohered where it was meant to, and when it didn’t ,the willing suspension was so in play, I bought the ticket and I was riding. The wild manical uninhibited of bacchae was fun, too. Christian Bale drew me in immediately.
Aw. Shame it didn't work. It looked like a neat idea, and the plain ol' craft of the filmmaking on screen looked pretty well done. Oh well.
So, this doesn't explain why I had to watch Maggie Gyllenhall dancing last week. Or does it?
"Can Det. Jake Wiles (Peter Sarsgaard) atone for his sins, about which we care nothing at all since they seem to have been invented halfway through the production of the film and parachuted in like a care package floating onto a crater-filled battlefield? Who can say."
Boffo, 10/10, no notes.
I live for sentences like these.
Sonny, this is completely irrelevant to this review, but how the hell do you have Man of Steel rated over the newest Superman movie on letterboxed? Insane take.
(You still rock tho)
Because THE MAN OF STEEL is great and SUPERMAN is fine. This isn’t even close to my hottest Superman take though. Which is this: MAN OF STEEL is also better than any of Reeve’s Superman movies.
lol. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that.
Still, love the reviews. 🍻
I especially agree with the point of interesting =\= good. Have a buddy who’s a real pretentious film lover that’s always on about defending movies that are bad because they’re interesting.
I do agree in that I’d rather watch an interesting bad movie vs a boring bad movie, but being interesting only gets you so far. You have to, like, be a good movie.
It's a trap that critics fall into sometimes because we see A LOT of movies, particularly critics working at daily papers who have to see everything. I definitely felt that burnout and I only worked as a daily critic for about 20 months. And I still, honestly, prefer a wild, messy failure to boring competence. But that's just because big swings are easier to write about than a movie that boils down to "eh, it was fine," haha.
I am a big Jesse fan and will watch her in everything she does. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian loved this movie. I look forward to watching with both your review and The Guardian's in mind. Thanks Sonny!
First, let me note that there were a couple laugh out loud funny lines. This was a fun read.
My kid will make me watch this when it streams, so eventually I will have to confront this "interesting" movie. More and more, it seems, movies are "interesting" and the ambiguous place they leave me is disappointing. Intellectually, I've never known quite what to do with "interesting" movies. Now, I think I do.
Thank you for the kind words. I honestly hate writing pans, I'm always trying to find why a movie works. But I think even on its own terms this is a tragic mess.
Some movies don't work, though, despite the talrnt of actors, writers and directors.
Well I will wait till it streams. Jessie Buckley is from Killarney and her native accent is always under the surface.
That's a good thing, normally. Maybe not in a Chicagoan!
I suspect there are still a number of Chicagoans who find the touch of Irish just fine.
Ah, good point.