The true patrician has spoken.
>The hearty sentiment and the breathlessly clever plotting of “The Force Awakens” are delights, but narrowly limited delights. There’s pleasure within measure, but no uninhibited joy or terror, no ecstasy, no unmanaged passion. The secrets of the movie are the secrets of its plot; the mysteries are purely narrative, not at all visual, symbolic, metaphorical, or experiential. Nothing of the true force of the cinema.
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-pre-fab-star-wars-the-force-awakens
>Even the mightiest of catastrophes and most clamorous of battles never reach the actual thrill of experience; they stand outside themselves and await the feedback of admiration, like the cinematic equivalent of a flashing applause sign.
>The movie is fast-moving—featuring rapid action within the frame, rapid camera movements, and rapid cutting from shot to shot—yet it feels sluggish throughout, because the speed of thought is slow.
>The result is a movie that’s awestruck, warmhearted, good-humored—and conspicuously prefabricated, without a jolt of spontaneity or reckless impulse anywhere in its sealed-up universe.
>>63720055
>>63720183
>>63720246
>>63720320
I want to suck Brody's beautiful Roman nose.
Sounds like we need to reign in the nerds. They are, alone, incapable of creating art.
>>63720055
I enjoyed the read, thanks for posting op
so, I take it it's pretty glib
>>63720055
>secret plot
>its the same fucking plot seen 40 years ago
Why are all critics such incredible hacks and their only skill is turning up billions and billions of lines of utter bullshit?
>>63720568nerd alert
>>63720055
>There’s pleasure within measure, but no uninhibited joy or terror, no ecstasy, no unmanaged passion.
Star Wars has never had any of this. Actually, the same could be same for most movies.
>>63720655
You must not like the films of Wes Anderson.
Ah, the ever out of touch Brody.
>>63720655
exactly.
this is a guy who thinks Godard is a profound artist...
>>63720818
So you mean every person knowledgeable about film?
>>63720886
pfft. Formalistic innovation does not make good art, it is the reason why most modern art is hated. Good art says something about life, unless you buy into retarded pomo philosophy Godard has nothing to say about life.
>>63721067
>I never watched 80's Godard
This guy is pretty hardcore. One of the few critics that'll give pixar the shit it deserves.
>>63720055
Star Wars has (ESB slightly excepted) always been a trifling piffle for critics to review, but I'll just remind everyone that this senile bag of bones spends his days exalting the glories of Ishtar, Cleopatra, Marnie, and tons of truly shitshows. 50 Shades is on his best of list this year. Not the most reliable guy out there, to be sure.
>>63722608
>I am the sound of a nerd failing.
>>63722608
>I am a firm believer in Rotten Tomatoes, why do you like these movies when they clearly have a rotten score?!?!
>>63722657
Come on even if you ignore everything else having anything good to say about 50 Shades is pretty damning
Oh look, another shit eating hack critic.
good review. JewJew is all about spectacle, no substance. This guy summed it up nicely
>>63722608
>Implying you can be wrong with a beard like that
try again
>>63722657
>>63722695
lol, I don't give a fuck about SW, only ESB has actual craft, ANH's best scenes are all pilfered from elsewhere. Nothing would make me happier than TFA crashing and ending this pathetic era of sequels and franchises.
Just pointing out that in this case, the critic really is wildly unreliable at times.
>>63722296
shit and shit
>>63722700
>Nerds can't into irony, only srs bizns.
>>63720055
>Godard groupie
>patrician
lmao
>>63720055
So this is rotten review, right?
>>63722803
>the critic really is wildly unreliable at times.
And just how do you measure this unreliability?
>>63722939
Only if he agrees with my superior logical abilities, obv.
>>63722843
It's a lukewarm "no."
>>63722939
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/accurate-erotics-fifty-shades-grey
>>63723064
So basically if he goes against the mainstream he's unreliable? I guess that's easier than actually reading what he has to say.
>>63723064
>I read the bottom of his top 30 list, searched for the review and posted it here!
This thread is for literates, son.
Go back to pewdiepie or whatever.
>"At the last, when Civilization sets in, true ornament and, with it, great art as a whole is extinguished."
HE KNEW.
>>63723108
>>63723120
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-new-avengers-is-really-about-the-n-s-a
>That’s why I’m bewildered by references to “dumb” action films. The effective depiction of action—even naïvely spectacular action—requires a great deal of intelligence, and the depiction of characters who aren’t intellectuals doesn’t make a movie dumb. “Avengers: Age of Ultron” and, for that matter, most superhero movies are prodigious feats of intelligence, made with extraordinary attention to detail. Much more work and thought appear to go into the creation of each image of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” than go into the images of the general run of realistic dramas, independent films, and TV series.
He's one of the best writers about films, not reviewing them. He's got a large vocabulary and ample skill to bullshit with it. Once you start chipping away at his adjectives, his actual intellectual thrusts become very threadbare. Sure, he's among the best right now, because the field is truly shit. It has nothing to do with whether he follows the mainstream or not. He is his own man, I never said he wasn't. He just isn't much of one.
>>63723323
damn..
>most superhero movies are prodigious feats of intelligence, made with extraordinary attention to detail
kek
ok, I can see how that would raise alarm bells, hadn't seen that before
>>63723428
>Once you start chipping away at his adjectives, his actual intellectual thrusts become very threadbare.
You can say that about anything.
>He just isn't much of one.
What does that even mean?
>>63723605
He's being unintentionally ironic, actually demonstrating what he's trying to make up as a negative description.
>and its overlords are trying to find and kill Luke, who is the last of the Jedi.
shit, that was fast.
Brody's pretty solid, where I can get the disconnect is he tends to misread incredibly flawed films from known talents as hugely unappreciated artistic ambitions. For people that only read a couple of his reviews, this rarely shows up, but for those that read them all, it gets bewildering trying to make sense of what the hell he sees in stuff like Ishtar or Marnie, or The Immigrant last year, or even occasionally capeshit. He goes off the rails with enough regularity that I can understand the impulse to question him even when he isn't.
Still the best out there with Armond White though.
>>63720055
ill be waiting for the real review thanks
>>63723941
It's hard enough for most people to get through his reviews. Probably don't have to worry about casual readers. Rotten tomato one sentence blurbs are probably preferable.
>>63724011
kek, but at times he does seem to abandon the muse for a thesaurus.
>>63724069
I like an adventure to climb. Armond is more like wading into a cesspool.
>a sort of cyborg cinema, a prefabricated simulacrum of experience and emotion that feels like the nexus of pornography and propaganda.
>>63724112
That's a good description of what nerds do to films when they're given creative control.
>>63723982
Anyone ever read White's review of ANH? It has to be found!!!
>>63723941
You think The Immigrant was on par with Ishtar?
>>63724286
Let him grasp at straws.
>>63724242
How can any man be so based?
I also anxiously await Debbie Schussel's review. I expect 3 out of 4 Marxes.
>>63722608
Why should a critic be reliable? Good criticism is about expressing opinions and exploring art, not telling you what's good or not
>>63724286
Of course not, but it was pretty uninspired dreck, with multiple moments that came close to the hilarity of the TDKR death scene. That's one time when he pretty much did follow the bandwagon.
>>63724303
Did I insult your waifu?
>>63724455
I'm just waiting for an argument.
>>63724242
>White depicted Star Wars (George Lucas, 1977) as prosaic trash for "illiterate, insensitive, and unintelligent . . . suckers, dummies, ass-holes, morons, perverts"
HOW THE FUCK COULD HE KNOW???
>>63724610
but then you'll go back there too
>>63721067
pomo abandoned formalism tho, they're all about conceptualism and subject matter.
>>63724474
Meh, all critics have their peculiarities. MZS is another one that's usually fine, but then you read his slobbering review of After Earth...for some readers, that's the equivalent of finding out somebody's a goatfucker when they're so enamored with a movie that's obviously garbage.
>>63724715
>there's never going to be someone that i completely 100% agree with
What a revelation.
fuck off with your negativity
who cares lol
>>63721067
>godard has nothing to say about life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlTF8_obWq8
dumbfuck
>>63720320
>conspicuously prefabricated
Life after 2000. At least fool me elegantly.
>>63726235
That clip says nothing, absolutely nothing about Sarajevo or of the nature of war. It is just Godard wanking off some bullshit about how art is the exception and everything else is the 'rule'. Mindless and idiotic Continental philosophy at its worst. Pretentious art like this has no merit and can not stand up to the most basic analysis.
>>63726543
>That clip says nothing, absolutely nothing about Sarajevo
holy shit how fucking stupid do you have to be?
>>63726700
Enough to blow my poker face, it seems like.
>>63726700
Then tell me what profound things it is saying. All I see is Godard climbing up on a moral high horse so that he can indite all of civilization outside of art. This is the type of moralist scolding is a cliche for 'artistes' and pseudos. The reality is that science, technology, economics, medicine, engineering, and law have all contributed far more to moral progress than art has. Critical theory is shit mate.
>>63726878
>indite
stopped reading right there.
>>63726878
When was art ever about moral progress?
>>63727118
it is implied in the clip
>>63727088
your unwillingness to engage shows how empty Godard's posturing is.
this guy is like english 101 pseudointellectual
