The best film reviews ever

Just browsing through the local paper, which is one of the most read in Ireland and I came across their cinema reviews and thought I might share them. These are jsut two examples of the 11 on offer this week, the fact that they were published has me seriously concerned about this countries journalists.


Note that all reviews were copied exactly as they were printed.

Step Up 2: The Street
In this sequel to Step Up (2006) which brought the cinema screens to life with a mix of teenage drama and some fantastic dance routines our heroine 16 year old Andie has never found life easy and after her mother died she was taken in by her mothers best friend Sarah, but she is always getting into trouble and always cutting school but Sarah has had enough and decides to send her to live with her aunt in Texas, one of Andie's friends intervenes and persuades Sarah to send her to the Maryland school for the Arts so that she can continue to live in Baltimore and dance with her troupe 410. But when she gets into MSA and her schoolwork takes up too much time and her friends put her out of 410 for missing to many practice sessions. Andie decides to put her own troupe together from her classmates at MSA and takes on 410 in Baltimore's underground dance battle "The Streets".


The Accidental Husband
The Accidental Husband is a rom-com about a fireman who marries a radio show host to spite her for thelling his ex-girlfriend to break up with him except she did'nt know he did it until she tried to get married for real.

Das Kitty

They're not really reviews just summaries.

I reckon they're slightly re-worked press releases.

The Galway Advertiser has incredibly bad "critics". They often miss the entire point of a film and their reviews have little or no structure. A lot of the time they'll be describing the film in glowing terms and then the final paragraph will say something like "Overall, I thought this film was a boring waste of time."

There are also a lot of howlers. One of them did a review of Before Sunrise and started with the line. "Ethan Hawke plays a character that is in stark contrast to the role of Frodo in Lord of the Rings which made him a star." There is so much wrong with that sentence.

ixoy

It's not just that those "reviews" are summaries though, it's that they're very poorly written. The first one is nearly one long sentence (often a sign of poor writing) and is reminescent of a kid going "and then this happend and then we id this but then this and then that"...

Karl Hungus

Das Kitty wrote: »

They're not really reviews just summaries.

I reckon they're slightly re-worked press releases.

The Galway Advertiser has incredibly bad "critics". They often miss the entire point of a film and their reviews have little or no structure. A lot of the time they'll be describing the film in glowing terms and then the final paragraph will say something like "Overall, I thought this film was a boring waste of time."

There are also a lot of howlers. One of them did a review of Before Sunrise and started with the line. "Ethan Hawke plays a character that is in stark contrast to the role of Frodo in Lord of the Rings which made him a star." There is so much wrong with that sentence.

Good god, those Galway Advertiser critics are just appallingly bad, and it's shocking to see that the dross they write gets published at all. That Ethan Hawke comment is just one example of a regular occurance, and it seems incredibly clear they don't bother to do any research about a given film. You think someone would proof-read that crap?

Karl Hungus

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Good god, those Galway Advertiser critics are just appallingly bad, and it's shocking to see that the dross they write gets published at all. That Ethan Hawke comment is just one example of a regular occurance, and it seems incredibly clear they don't bother to do any research about a given film. You think someone would proof-read that crap?

Is it the Galway Advertiser or Galway First that is more or less just publicity for the Eye Cinema?

I tend to steer clear of any of those reviews, they just can't be bothered half the time.

Das Kitty

In today's one the critic complains the "The Other Boleyn Girl" is monotonous in one paragraph, in the next paragraph she complains that it's too condensed and gallops along too much.

Which is it woman?!

http://www.galwayadvertiser.ie/content/index.php?aid=11124

:pac:

Das Kitty

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it the Galway Advertiser or Galway First that is more or less just publicity for the Eye Cinema?

I tend to steer clear of any of those reviews, they just can't be bothered half the time.

The Galway Indo's ones are a Eye Cinema press releases. I think they state that on the page though. They're alright to give people a gist of what a film is about.

Kess73

The Limerick Leader can have the funniest at times in terms of gaffs. Their music and film reviews are a joke at the best of times. Before they used to just lift the film reviews from the previous month's Empire magazine, word for word, until they were caught and made stop.


Now they have a tiny review section that seems to bypass any form of spellcheck, and gives the most generic of reviews, all the while giving the impression that the person has not even heard of what they are reviewing, let alone having listened to it or having watched it.

biko

"This movie was actually so bad it forced me to register to IMDb so I could rant about it so at least it achieved something good. The only time I could recommend spending time with this movie is ... well lets face it: never. "

Vic Vinegar

Deleted User wrote: »

Step Up 2: The Street
In this sequel to Step Up (2006) which brought the cinema screens to life with a mix of teenage drama and some fantastic dance routines our heroine 16 year old Andie has never found life easy and after her mother died she was taken in by her mothers best friend Sarah, but she is always getting into trouble and always cutting school but Sarah has had enough and decides to send her to live with her aunt in Texas, one of Andie's friends intervenes and persuades Sarah to send her to the Maryland school for the Arts so that she can continue to live in Baltimore and dance with her troupe 410. But when she gets into MSA and her schoolwork takes up too much time and her friends put her out of 410 for missing to many practice sessions. Andie decides to put her own troupe together from her classmates at MSA and takes on 410 in Baltimore's underground dance battle "The Streets".

That's so bad it hurts my brain reading it! if there was some kind of anti-Pulitzer prize going, i'd nominate those numpties

big_show

Deleted User wrote: »

Step Up 2: The Street
In this sequel to Step Up (2006) which brought the cinema screens to life with a mix of teenage drama and some fantastic dance routines our heroine 16 year old Andie has never found life easy and after her mother died she was taken in by her mothers best friend Sarah, but she is always getting into trouble and always cutting school but Sarah has had enough and decides to send her to live with her aunt in Texas, one of Andie's friends intervenes and persuades Sarah to send her to the Maryland school for the Arts so that she can continue to live in Baltimore and dance with her troupe 410. But when she gets into MSA and her schoolwork takes up too much time and her friends put her out of 410 for missing to many practice sessions. Andie decides to put her own troupe together from her classmates at MSA and takes on 410 in Baltimore's underground dance battle "The Streets".

full stop prices must be going through the roof these days...

Eirebear

I've always been baffled by local newspapers attitude towards films, music, games and the arts in general.

More often than not their reviews are lifted from press releases...and im other cases are just glorified adverts for local cinemas (music stores or game shops) where you never see a bad review!

These publications often struggle to fill their paper every week, why dont they see the benefits of having a 2 or 3 page section which they know is reliable each and every week, and will also attract a younger audience if its good?

Vic Vinegar

big_show wrote: »

full stop prices must be going through the roof these days...

Just checked Ebay, they're €12,000 for a sheet of 20!

briantwin

Everything about Battlefield Earth sucks. Everything. The over-the-top music, the unbelievable sets, the terrible dialogue, the hammy acting, the lousy special effects, the beginning, the middle and especially the end. God above, it's bad. Sweet baby Jesus, it's bad. By all that is holy and sacred on the Earth, this is a bad, bad, bad film
Johnathan Ross "Being Generous"

Pigman II

Deleted User wrote: »

The Accidental Husband
The Accidental Husband is a rom-com about a fireman who marries a radio show host to spite her for thelling his ex-girlfriend to break up with him except she did'nt know he did it until she tried to get married for real.

I don't think particular film suits my tastes.

Useful information nonetheless!

Just after ringing the paper and asked who exactly is responsible for their reviews. I was told it was one of Irelands foremost critics, though they couldn't give me his name. I asked was he 6 years old and just after learning to write and they hung up.

In all seriousness now something like the Step Up 2 review could by pass a grammer check I don't know. A friend of mine sub edits for a major paper, and if something like that got past him he would lose his job.

Edit: Got a call back from the paper to ask who I was.

Pigman II

Deleted User wrote: »

grammer check

None of us is perfect.

Pigman II

Pigman II wrote: »

None of us is perfect.

I'm going to blame sleep derivation, as I haven't slept in over 24 hours.

Vic Vinegar

Deleted User wrote: »

Just after ringing the paper and asked who exactly is responsible for their reviews. I was told it was one of Irelands foremost critics, though they couldn't give me his name. I asked was he 6 years old and just after learning to write and they hung up.

Edit: Got a call back from the paper to ask who I was.

That's class!

What did you tell them when they asked who you were?

one of Irelands foremost critics? that is quite obviously one of the biggest lies ever told! knobs!

mountain lips

mountain lips wrote: »

That's class!

What did you tell them when they asked who you were?

one of Irelands foremost critics? that is quite obviously one of the biggest lies ever told! knobs!

I told them if their critic was one of Ireland's foremost critics then I was one of the worlds foremost. I don't think they saw the humour, and seemed to take offence.

Vic Vinegar

Deleted User wrote: »

I told them if their critic was one of Ireland's foremost critics then I was one of the worlds foremost

Ha, if he is, I guess we all are!

Well done for that anyway, you sure told them!

Dont be at yourself

It's amazing how shockingly bad the standard of film critics is on this island. That guy on entertainment.ie writes the most banal reviews.

What critics do you guys read?

I just plump for Mark Kermode's podcast every Friday myself. I frequently disagree with him, but at least his arguments are well put forward. His rants are quite entertaining too. Check out his Norbit and Pirates of the Caribbean reviews.

NekkidBibleMan

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

It's amazing how shockingly bad the standard of film critics is on this island. That guy on entertainment.ie writes the most banal reviews.

What critics do you guys read?

I just plump for Mark Kermode's podcast every Friday myself. I frequently disagree with him, but at least his arguments are well put forward. His rants are quite entertaining too. Check out his Norbit and Pirates of the Caribbean reviews.

Kermode is an excellent critic. I know a lot of people like Jonathan Ross, but I cannot stand him. His reviews are generally look at me pieces where he just seems to regurgitate the plot, followed by his usual inept examination. His review of Clerks 2 was a disgraceful piece of journalism. While the film is far from Oscar worthy, Ross seems to venomously dislike Smith and appears to have decided to hate the film before even stepping foot inside the cinema.

I'm one of those people who will literally watch anything. I love films as diverse as Mullholland Drive and Wimbledon. My main problem with most critics is their snobbery. Take a look at the Sunday Times reviews. They generally involve the critic turning his nose up at anything which isn't a 3 hour period drama or a stark political drama.

Das Kitty

Oh God yeah. The Sunday Times reviewers just decide they're going to go against the grain. They'll like something that's universally hated and vice versa. Then they'll work their review around to justify the stance. I'd love to meet Cosmo Landesman just to give him a kick.

Pigman II

Deleted User wrote: »

Kermode is an excellent critic. I know a lot of people like Jonathan Ross, but I cannot stand him. His reviews are generally look at me pieces where he just seems to regurgitate the plot, followed by his usual inept examination. His review of Clerks 2 was a disgraceful piece of journalism. While the film is far from Oscar worthy, Ross seems to venomously dislike Smith and appears to have decided to hate the film before even stepping foot inside the cinema.

I'm one of those people who will literally watch anything. I love films as diverse as Mullholland Drive and Wimbledon. My main problem with most critics is their snobbery. Take a look at the Sunday Times reviews. They generally involve the critic turning his nose up at anything which isn't a 3 hour period drama or a stark political drama.

Jonathan Ross is terrible. Never mind that his reviews are pathetic in themselves but worse still he appears to praise movies proportionally to how much access he is given to the movies principle cast. He's fallen into the Pauline Kael trap.

Kermode is a legend tho. I especially liked some of his comments on There Will Be Blood such as "the only way to see this movie is at 11am in the morning and make sure you also buy the seats to your left, right, front and behind" or "After I rewatched the film for the 3rd time I finally felt I knew what was going on."

stereoroid

Das Kitty wrote: »

Oh God yeah. The Sunday Times reviewers just decide they're going to go against the grain. They'll like something that's universally hated and vice versa. Then they'll work their review around to justify the stance. I'd love to meet Cosmo Landesman just to give him a kick.

Oh, I hate that. Being automatically contrarian is just as bad as being automatically for a movie, based on factors other than the movie itself, Kermode is happy to acknowledge when he's surprised by someone e.g. Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love.

Another great reviewer IMHO is Roger Ebert: he reviews the movie, not the hype, and explains himself well. You can search for his reviews online by rating, so when he gives 0 or 1/2 a star to a movie, it's something to see. He's even brought out a book of those, titled Your Movie Sucks. :cool:

e.g. Battlefield Earth got mentioned in the "walking out" thread, so here's a quote:

Some movies run off the rails. This one is like the train crash in "The Fugitive." I watched it in mounting gloom, realizing I was witnessing something historic, a film that for decades to come will be the punch line of jokes about bad movies.

Das Kitty

Much as I like the old sods Ebert and Roeper, I rarely agree with their thumbs.

Maybe some of the films they like or dislike are different from a US viewpoint.

They thought Jarhead was totally without merit for example. It may not have been a meisterwork but it had a lot going for it as a film.

Pigman II

Das Kitty wrote: »

Much as I like the old sods Ebert and Roeper, I rarely agree with their thumbs.

Maybe some of the films they like or dislike are different from a US viewpoint.

They thought Jarhead was totally without merit for example. It may not have been a meisterwork but it had a lot going for it as a film.

I like Eberts method when it comes to reviewing movies. He's very genre specific. If he was reviewing Hellboy he wouldn't say "how good is this compared to Citizen Kane?" he'd say "How good is this compared to Superman 2?". If you look at the movies that get full marks from him they usually represent a very wide range of genre's and target audiences.

Madou

Speaking of reviewers, critics of the arts, etc. Anyone else think 'The Ticket' is only a shade of its former self? I reckon CLayton-Lea, Boyd et al have started believing their own bull****. Still beats Hotpress mind!

johnny_ultimate

Das Kitty wrote: »

Oh God yeah. The Sunday Times reviewers just decide they're going to go against the grain. They'll like something that's universally hated and vice versa. Then they'll work their review around to justify the stance. I'd love to meet Cosmo Landesman just to give him a kick.

Tell me about it. Was just ranting about that gobsheen Lansaden (I couldn't be arsed spelling his name properly) to some college friends today, concerning his embarrasment of a Lars and The Real Girl review. He was giving out about it not being Lynchian enough. **** off. Its a feel good comedy, and he thinks its a piece of **** for not being dark enough. He completely missed the point of that film. Honestly, the man is a jackass of the highest order: a snob who just criticises films for seemingly random and meaningless reasons just to differentiate himself from the norm. The man deserves a royal hiding, as you so rightly point out.

As for good critics, I usually just think rottentomatoes gives a decent variety of opinions. I read Ebert's reviews now and again: sometimes great, but recently has a habit of awarding films bizarre plaudits: four stars for the Golden Compass is one particularly bizarre and out of character example. Otherwise, I just guage other people's opinions on the interweb or elsewhere. No critic I would really go out of my way to check out. Kermode is good, but I never get around to checking out his stuff.

stereoroid

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

As for good critics, I usually just think rottentomatoes gives a decent variety of opinions. I read Ebert's reviews now and again: sometimes great, but recently has a habit of awarding films bizarre plaudits: four stars for the Golden Compass is one particularly bizarre and out of character example.

A note about Ebert - he's been away a lot in the last year, due to illness. He nearly died after surgery to remove cancer, couldn't speak for a good while, and is off again recovering from more surgery. So some recent reviews may not be Ebert himself, but a sub, usually Jim Emerson. (He did do the Golden Compass, though.)

Earthhorse

ixoy wrote: »

It's not just that those "reviews" are summaries though, it's that they're very poorly written. The first one is nearly one long sentence (often a sign of poor writing) and is reminescent of a kid going "and then this happend and then we id this but then this and then that"...

Wow! This sounds great. Then what happened?

Deleted User wrote: »

My main problem with most critics is their snobbery. Take a look at the Sunday Times reviews. They generally involve the critic turning his nose up at anything which isn't a 3 hour period drama or a stark political drama.

Cosmo Landesman has stoked the ire of this board before. He's awful. I do enjoy the rest of The Sunday Times though.

Roger Ebert has some written some really great reviews at times; seriously, check out some of those zero star reviews as someone else said, it's funny stuff.

ixoy

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Tell me about it. Was just ranting about that gobsheen Lansaden (I couldn't be arsed spelling his name properly) to some college friends today, concerning his embarrasment of a Lars and The Real Girl review. He was giving out about it not being Lynchian enough. **** off. Its a feel good comedy, and he thinks its a piece of **** for not being dark enough. He completely missed the point of that film. Honestly, the man is a jackass of the highest order: a snob who just criticises films for seemingly random and meaningless reasons just to differentiate himself from the norm. The man deserves a royal hiding, as you so rightly point out.

I gave out about that exact review on another forum - the guy really knows how to piss me off as well. I mean he even had the nerve to criticize the movie for not having the doll used for its original function - did he even notice the type of character Lars was?!
His reviews seem to consist of a preformed notion of what the movie should be. If it fails to match up to that criteria, he'll then blast the movie down. Grrr...

The one review I generally enjoy, and find consensus with, is Donald Clarke in 'The Ticket'. Admittedly a huge amount of it is hoping that he'll hate a movie, because he's quite amusing when savaging a flick. Like many reviewers, he can let his own opinions colour a review a bit too much at times but on the balance he just about matches my tastes.

Das Kitty

I remember reading Donald Clarke's review of the Cat in the Hat. It was brilliant, he tore strips out of it completely in Suess-esque rhyme.

He's a legend.

Slutmonkey57b

Deleted User wrote: »

Kermode is an excellent critic. I know a lot of people like Jonathan Ross, but I cannot stand him. His reviews are generally look at me pieces where he just seems to regurgitate the plot, followed by his usual inept examination. His review of Clerks 2 was a disgraceful piece of journalism. While the film is far from Oscar worthy, Ross seems to venomously dislike Smith and appears to have decided to hate the film before even stepping foot inside the cinema.

I'm a big Kevin Smith fan, own all his movies and audience with DVD's, and while Ross is stuck up his own arse, he's absolutely dead right about Clerks 2. It's badly made, lazily put together, and worst of all, lazily scripted. A pointless and unfunny sequel that did the original no favours at all. Smith really did just slap together a film so he could put O'Halloran and Anderson back together. Recycling the LOTR rant in his audience sessions just shows how lazy (or desperate) it got.

As t oreviews, personally I always liked Mr Cranky.

stereoroid

Das Kitty wrote: »

I remember reading Donald Clarke's review of the Cat in the Hat. It was brilliant, he tore strips out of it completely in Suess-esque rhyme.

Manohla Dargis did that too, in the LA Times:

Critics are paid to suffer bad art,
no matter how icky it is from the start.

"So all we could do was to
"Sit!
"Sit!
"Sit!
"Sit!

"And we did not like it.
"Not one little bit."

:cool:

Miguel_Sanchez

The Galway Advertiser once said Blade 2 was the sequel to Bladerunner!!!!

Anthony Lane's book 'Nobody's Perfect' has some great reviews in it. His review of Dazed and Confused is excellent.

PullMyFinger!

I used to look out for Ian Nathan's reviews in Empire till I read this

Why Ian, why?

Das Kitty

A little on the kind side I agree.

Empire do tend to favour sci-fi a bit though. Things seem to get an extra star if they're sci-fi / fantasy.

Did you write an angry letter to the editor, demanding revision when you read it?

PullMyFinger!

Das Kitty wrote: »

Did you write an angry letter to the editor, demanding revision when you read it?

Twice