Post by mortsahlfan on Oct 16, 2020 20:29:44 GMT
The score is important for me, so much that I use a 1-10 scale.. If a movie is solid but reminiscent of many other movies, I write very little, sometimes nothing.. It's usually the first thing I ask if a person recommends me a movie, or if I realize they've seen a movie I enjoyed.
If I see a movie that was similar to another, I usually point that out. If I know of certain stories about a movie, conditions of the filming, I like to point it out instead of assuming everyone will go research it on their own.
I've always enjoyed user critics over professional critics, who seem to be spending more time with a thesaurus instead of just talking to the people, since that's what they say they're trying to do. So communicate! I even got Chomsky to admit that there are academics who are speaking to each other, despite saying (in his case, political discussion) how the working-class needs to be involved.
I rarely comment on cinematography/photography.. I'm more interested in the script and the acting. I also distinguish when I know about certain actors personal lives, maybe also in relation to the director and others vs. a movie I watch out of the blue where I don't know anyone, which has an element of surprise... If I find a great movie, I'll try to retrace the director's steps, and review them chronologically, to see if they get better (not always the case, Pasolini in my opinion), and mention the financial and critical success and to see if a director (or a producer, actor, writer, etc) becomes formulaic and tries to cash in on his current trendiness, or if they instead go a different direction and make an entirely different kind of movie. Sometimes after a director makes a lot of money, he/she knows they'll have more freedom and most likely a greater budget and access to better actors and crew, and sometimes they make a personal non-commercial movie because they know it might be their only chance. Or if a director is struggling after having great success, do they do something radical, or try and revert to original success (Scorsese).
If I write a review about a movie, I use the same language I would use if I were talking to a friend. I usually add personal things about myself so you can see it from my angle.. I might describe the circumstances. How, when, and why I saw a movie.. If I've seen it before, I like to contrast, but also try and remember the details of the previous viewing. I'll even mention if I was tired while watching a certain movie, or in a bad mood, or having a similar story. Sometimes I'll mention the latest movies I've seen. I like to write-up a primal reaction and not worry much about editing, just as long as the spelling/grammar are good enough. I focus a lot on when the movie was made, to compare it to real life major (or minor) events in the country the movie was made, or the language/s the dialogue.
If I'm watching a Swedish movie from 1967 about a time during the late 1920s, I keep in mind of the interpretation. "Oh, that's how this Swedish director thought of the 1920s from a 1967 perspective". Speaking of 1967, I like to stratify within and beyond. For example, if I'm curious in a particular's country counter-culture demonstrated on film, I'll check out an assortment of movies (let's say Sweden just for the sake of example/consistency) by different directors, but at the same year. I won't seek out something like "Easy Rider", which I won't avoid, but I also like to see how prevalent that supposed counter-culture is from a traditional middle-class, and their take on things. I compare to what is being shown to see what they stress, and maybe things they leave out.. As an aside, if I'm reading about a band where multiple members write an autobiography. I'll read them side by side, reading one, and then reading the other during a certain time/event to see any possible bias, to read what the author feels is essential, and what (and why) is being omitted.....
Then I'll watch all sorts of movie (from 1967) from countries within close proximity geographically, but I'll also add the political landscape of a country. I would watch a movie from Cuba and Russia from the early-to-mid 1960s; both traditional, and possibly social/political.... Same thing with war movies. It's nice to compare movies that were made at the time of a certain war (WWII especially) and then a modern movie, sometimes just to find historical revisionism (or other kinds that are in or out of style.. political correctness).
It's not very common, but I love comparing an actor (or even a director) who was a star in the 1940s, and then to see them in the 1970s, like Robert Mitchum, who made the transition well. Completely different kinds of movies, and acting. My one criticism of the 1930/40s was the acting. Overacting, too much movement, more aggressive, but also understanding movies were a new art; and knowing the habits and tradition of the theater, where an actor had to project to the entire audience, even those in the back. I think Marlon Brando acted like a human, instead of an actor, which is a big reason I think he is our best.
An with each movie, I don't break it down to three acts, but praise and criticize the decisions made. It's great to find the script (like Taxi Driver, which is so descriptive) and to see how it's transposed from text to video.
The one thing I haven't done is read a book and THEN watch the movie, and try to compare my initial imagination to what is on the screen.
If I see a movie that was similar to another, I usually point that out. If I know of certain stories about a movie, conditions of the filming, I like to point it out instead of assuming everyone will go research it on their own.
I've always enjoyed user critics over professional critics, who seem to be spending more time with a thesaurus instead of just talking to the people, since that's what they say they're trying to do. So communicate! I even got Chomsky to admit that there are academics who are speaking to each other, despite saying (in his case, political discussion) how the working-class needs to be involved.
I rarely comment on cinematography/photography.. I'm more interested in the script and the acting. I also distinguish when I know about certain actors personal lives, maybe also in relation to the director and others vs. a movie I watch out of the blue where I don't know anyone, which has an element of surprise... If I find a great movie, I'll try to retrace the director's steps, and review them chronologically, to see if they get better (not always the case, Pasolini in my opinion), and mention the financial and critical success and to see if a director (or a producer, actor, writer, etc) becomes formulaic and tries to cash in on his current trendiness, or if they instead go a different direction and make an entirely different kind of movie. Sometimes after a director makes a lot of money, he/she knows they'll have more freedom and most likely a greater budget and access to better actors and crew, and sometimes they make a personal non-commercial movie because they know it might be their only chance. Or if a director is struggling after having great success, do they do something radical, or try and revert to original success (Scorsese).
If I write a review about a movie, I use the same language I would use if I were talking to a friend. I usually add personal things about myself so you can see it from my angle.. I might describe the circumstances. How, when, and why I saw a movie.. If I've seen it before, I like to contrast, but also try and remember the details of the previous viewing. I'll even mention if I was tired while watching a certain movie, or in a bad mood, or having a similar story. Sometimes I'll mention the latest movies I've seen. I like to write-up a primal reaction and not worry much about editing, just as long as the spelling/grammar are good enough. I focus a lot on when the movie was made, to compare it to real life major (or minor) events in the country the movie was made, or the language/s the dialogue.
If I'm watching a Swedish movie from 1967 about a time during the late 1920s, I keep in mind of the interpretation. "Oh, that's how this Swedish director thought of the 1920s from a 1967 perspective". Speaking of 1967, I like to stratify within and beyond. For example, if I'm curious in a particular's country counter-culture demonstrated on film, I'll check out an assortment of movies (let's say Sweden just for the sake of example/consistency) by different directors, but at the same year. I won't seek out something like "Easy Rider", which I won't avoid, but I also like to see how prevalent that supposed counter-culture is from a traditional middle-class, and their take on things. I compare to what is being shown to see what they stress, and maybe things they leave out.. As an aside, if I'm reading about a band where multiple members write an autobiography. I'll read them side by side, reading one, and then reading the other during a certain time/event to see any possible bias, to read what the author feels is essential, and what (and why) is being omitted.....
Then I'll watch all sorts of movie (from 1967) from countries within close proximity geographically, but I'll also add the political landscape of a country. I would watch a movie from Cuba and Russia from the early-to-mid 1960s; both traditional, and possibly social/political.... Same thing with war movies. It's nice to compare movies that were made at the time of a certain war (WWII especially) and then a modern movie, sometimes just to find historical revisionism (or other kinds that are in or out of style.. political correctness).
It's not very common, but I love comparing an actor (or even a director) who was a star in the 1940s, and then to see them in the 1970s, like Robert Mitchum, who made the transition well. Completely different kinds of movies, and acting. My one criticism of the 1930/40s was the acting. Overacting, too much movement, more aggressive, but also understanding movies were a new art; and knowing the habits and tradition of the theater, where an actor had to project to the entire audience, even those in the back. I think Marlon Brando acted like a human, instead of an actor, which is a big reason I think he is our best.
An with each movie, I don't break it down to three acts, but praise and criticize the decisions made. It's great to find the script (like Taxi Driver, which is so descriptive) and to see how it's transposed from text to video.
The one thing I haven't done is read a book and THEN watch the movie, and try to compare my initial imagination to what is on the screen.
