'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[MichaelB]

I guess the term has changed/expanded its definition recently since "film bro" was a term that was used exclusively for people who worshipped directors like Nolan, Fincher, Kubrick, etc, but refused to watch films that was older than them.

I'm going to see Barbie with the same people I saw (and loved) Bridesmaids with - my wife and her best friend - and we have reasonably high hopes for it.

But are you watching it before or after Oppenheimer?

Well before, as it's playing at our local, whereas seeing Oppenheimer in IMAX requires a trip to London.

[MV88]

Yes, I also think the general definition of “film bro” has changed in recent years from referring specifically to people whose taste aligned with that sort of overtly masculine, more craftsmanlike, technically oriented style (Nolan, Fincher, etc.) to just referring to anyone who could reasonably be called a serious cinephile as opposed to someone who takes a more casual approach to watching movies. Not that there’s anything wrong with being a casual moviegoer, of course, and obviously there are a lot of cinephiles who are indeed obnoxious in how they convey their opinions, but there is a difference between being anti-elitist and simply being anti-intellectual, and blanket statements dismissing people for liking old, black-and-white, foreign films falls firmly into the latter category in my view.

[ntnon]

..Gerwig gave Letterboxd a big ol' list of films (including ones black and white and foreign and more than 50 years old) she considered influences on her Barbie..

Well, my expectations are now unreasonably raised...

[domino harvey]

Way too long to quote, but allow me to introduce you to a reader who did not enjoy a book of French cultural studies and wishes to share their response novella, Jurassic Marx

[MichaelB]

He's being very subtle about it, but I'm gleaning between the lines that he's not very keen on Marxism.

[jazzo]

Mr J. James, current resident of the UK, added the following take to Amazon’s review page for Enzo Castellari’s Kill Them All and Come Back Alone, helping two fellow customers:

“It's a film”

[Zot!]

Mr J. James, current resident of the UK, added the following take to Amazon’s review page for Enzo Castellari’s Kill Them All and Come Back Alone, helping two fellow customers:

“It's a film”

[furbicide]

I don't really watch much TikTok, so not sure if my assumption is fair ... but if this article is anything to go on, it seems like there must be a fair few "Rediculous" reviews being posted on there:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/15/movi ... itics.html

Unlike film departments at major metropolitan newspapers or national magazines, individuals on MovieTok generally don’t aspire to review every noteworthy film. And while most expressed admiration for traditional critics’ grasp of film history, they tended to associate the profession as a whole with false or unearned authority.

“A lot of us don’t trust critics,” said Lucious, 31. He was one of many who pointed to the review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes, where the scores of “Top Critics” often differ widely from those of casual users, as evidence that the critical establishment is out of touch. “They watch movies and are just looking for something to critique,” he said. “Fans watch movies looking for entertainment.” [...]

Cruz, 34, echoed other MovieTok reviewers who said they dislike doing sharply negative posts and would be unlikely to slam a movie whether they were in business with the studio or not. She said she generally prefers to deliver negative opinions in the form of a “compliment sandwich,” preceded and followed by more positive remarks.

[MichaelB]

They watch movies and are just looking for something to critique

Mind duly blown.

[Never Cursed]

Guess the book, from Wikipedia

[domino harvey]

It’s even better in context, with the criticism of George Eliot following it

[colinr0380]

If it wasn't too new to be applicable, I would have suggested The Fountainhead!

[domino harvey]

Behold, the worst thing you’ll ever read

Scorsese is 80 years old, and it galls him to know that the Marvel films through Avengers: Endgame represent a signature cultural event in the cinema of our time. When Marty is gone, and an entire body of work steeped in the belief that toxic masculinity is the organizing principle of the cosmos is reassessed, it will be interesting to see if his highly personal oeuvre can stake the same claim.

[TechnicolorAcid]

Behold, the worst thing you’ll ever read

Scorsese is 80 years old, and it galls him to know that the Marvel films through Avengers: Endgame represent a signature cultural event in the cinema of our time. When Marty is gone, and an entire body of work steeped in the belief that toxic masculinity is the organizing principle of the cosmos is reassessed, it will be interesting to see if his highly personal oeuvre can stake the same claim.

I was having a good day before reading this. Holy fucking shit. Like wasn't the point of his argument that while they are definitely cultural moments, they're not high art at the same time, like honest to god name me one standout scene from any Marvel film after Endgame (besides Werewolf by Night which is definitely a gem and technically isn't even a Marvel film in the typical sense) that's stuck with you. Scorsese is right to call these films theme park attractions because they are, they're something you get one and off of and forgot about it as you head towards the next one. You do not have the right to call him Marty because it shows at the very least you have some juvenile respect for the man but it's clear you don't. Also isn't it odd that they don't mention the Film Foundation, you know the thing that is actively saving and preserving well loved and obscure classics of cinema, isn't that something of a signature cultural event in a way. Almost like they care about proving their bias with statistics and graph BULLSHIT instead of actually caring about the work itself. Here let me just get a quote real quick:

Raging Bull is hailed today as a signature masterpiece, but it only earned $24 million at the box office on an $18 million budget.

This right here is the problem, he's trying to say that Marvel is on the same level of Scorsese by framing it as, oh if box office bad, that don't mean film bad. I mean yeah that's true to an extent, box office doesn't equal quality, but the fact you bring up Scorsese's constant "flops" from his pre-Goodfellas era and even during his later run as bad. You say Marty's the lucky one right, out of all the Altmans and all the Coppolas, he's the richest man of them all. Well good on you then for realizing that but at the same time, maybe it's because of the fact that Marvel has pushed a grander focus on blockbusters leading others to do so as well. Like you said his name holds a prestige but at the same time, so does Coppola (and to a slightly lesser extent, Altman), like why do you think they re-ran The Godfather for it's 50th anniversary or gave Coppola his greatest budget yet for Megapolis despite it still being in production hell. There's still a place for those people even if you don't realize it or think so, independent studios still exist and give small creators, large budgets. Also what about his starting career if I may ask. Do you remember Boxcar Bertha, how that was a flop and is largely forgotten, under your lens then with Damien Chazelle, that should have been it for him, right? It's a blatantly pessimistic viewpoint that not only 1.) isn't true and 2.) is Marvel's fault in a way for making studios realize that only style still sells.
Excuse my rating, I'm getting tired of it too but I'd last like to mention your idea on Scorsese's toxic masculinity. The idea that you think that Scorsese believes that the world is centered around toxic masculinity is just stupid. It's like saying Cassavetes only thinks everything is about married people or that Louis Feudillaux only cares about masked people going on adventures, either serving or getting served justice. It's an incredibly close minded viewpoint and it's so wrong for so many reasons. I have more but I fear this will just come off as incessant rambling so I'll leave it at that but Domino is right, it's the worst thing I've laid my eyes on in quite a while.

[Randall Maysin Again]

I find it pretty hard to believe that there is true conviction rather than shameless opinion-mongering for its own sake, behind most if not all of the takes in this article. Maybe that's naive, or something, of me. It might as well have been written by a bot. Maybe it was? What's the point of scolding Scorsese? Also...the article seems to be equating MCU movies with films like Star Wars, E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws etc. I think this is inaccurate, that's just my opinion, but for me, the article doesn't even really honestly address the question of whether MCU films are just cyclical, or are something New And Bad.

[furbicide]

Marvel fans can't seem to resist shooting the messenger. In theory I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't really like Scorsese's work much myself, but in reality that's entirely beside the point: when Scorsese is asked during film press tours what he thinks of current cinema and Marvel in particular – because every reporter wants to ask him about that – and he gives an honest and truthful answer, these people can't resist throwing their toys out of the cot in response. The thing is, Scorsese is not saying cinema should just be the films he personally makes; as an extremely film-literate person who obviously cares greatly about the artform (as Technicolor Acid mentions above, the Film Foundation alone is a huge gift to cinema that will long outlive him), he is expressing concern that this lazy blockbuster filmmaking has become so absolutely dominant, and that it is crowding out the funding pool for bolder, more artistically engaged filmmaking. He himself could be the worst and/or most commercially unsuccessful filmmaker in the world, but he'd still be entitled to have an opinion on that; and, most importantly, he'd still have diagnosed the problem precisely.

Responding to that entirely valid observation with "well they make money and you don't, so ner", as this author is doing, is idiotic. Congrats for reminding us that we live in a capitalist world and that if franchises make money, they will attract more investment, which is why McDonald's is on every major city street corner around the world and the burger shop in Montevideo that someone's granddad owned went out of business. And you know what? You're within your rights to think McDonald's burgers are better. But it's not enough for the McDonald's fans in this analogy to merely enjoy their favourite company's success; they have a desperate need to have that preference validated by everyone else, and for all the heretics who thinks McDonald's food kind of sucks – and that even if it's fine for what it is, it shouldn't be allowed to capture the market to the extent it does – to be put in their place.

We've been hearing annoying arguments like this from Thatcherite conservatives and libertarians for decades, of course (zombie voice: "the market knows best"). What's cool is that we now get to hear the exact same stuff from the kind of people who denounce entire oeuvres with phrases like "toxic masculinity". Truly, we are living in the best timeline.

[TechnicolorAcid]

Marvel fans can't seem to resist shooting the messenger. In theory I don't have a dog in this fight because I don't really like Scorsese's work much myself, but in reality that's entirely beside the point: when Scorsese is asked during film press tours what he thinks of current cinema and Marvel in particular – because every reporter wants to ask him about that – and he gives an honest and truthful answer, these people can't resist throwing their toys out of the cot in response. The thing is, Scorsese is not saying cinema should just be the films he personally makes; as an extremely film-literate person who obviously cares greatly about cinema (as Technicolor Acid mentions above, the Film Foundation alone is a huge gift to cinema that will long outlive him), he is expressing concern that this lazy blockbuster filmmaking has become so absolutely dominant, and that it is crowding out the funding pool for bolder filmmaking. And he's right, of course.

Responding to that entirely valid observation with "well they make money, so ner", as this author is doing, is idiotic. Congrats on reminding us that we live in a capitalist world and that if franchises make money, they will attract more funding, which is why McDonald's is on every major city street corner around the world and the burger shop your granddad owned went out of business. And you know what? You're within your rights to think McDonald's burgers are better. But it's not enough for the McDonald's fans in this analogy to merely enjoy their favourite company's success; they have a desperate need to have that preference validated by everyone else, and for all the heretics to be put in their place.

We've been hearing annoying arguments like this from conservatives and libertarians for decades, of course (zombie voice: "the market knows best"). What's cool is that we now get to hear the exact same stuff, except now from people who like using phrases like "toxic masculinity". Truly, we are living in the best timeline.

I mean to be fair his point was not only that they're good because they make money, no, he's also saying that even though some of them are flopping, that one day they're be international cultural classics and touchstones of the industry by comparing that with the initial financial failures (technically) of Scorsese's films and then saying what masterpieces they later became to the public (ignoring the fact that Scorsese's films were all largely critical hits leading to their eventual reassessments and reruns leading to the films eventually getting their money back). Which is actually a simple point for the sheep reading them to go "Oh yeah I guess everyone (except Mr. Greene and me) is incorrect and that these are actually masterpieces.", which I'm not saying opinion of the public has to be exactly the same as your opinion but expressing it in an article to change others' mind is just plain shitty. As you can tell I am very passionate about this article.

[knives]

They’ll be as beloved as the Blondie series of films.

[Big Ben]

Who the hell watches Scorsese films and thinks toxic masculinity is being portrayed positively?

[soundchaser]

Who the hell watches Scorsese films and thinks toxic masculinity is being portrayed positively?

You can always tell when someone hasn’t seen The Last Temptation of Christ, at a minimum.

[TechnicolorAcid]

Wait a minute, I just realized something, if a man is pushing making fun of another man for not liking what the first man views as okay to like and not okay to dislike, isn't that just toxic masculinity. This guy is a fucking hypocrite.

[cdnchris]

Behold, the worst thing you’ll ever read

Was positive this was just hyperbole, but nope! That is one of the most unbelievably stupid things I've ever read. But considering how it's making the rounds on social media, that was probably by design.

I remember when I actually made an effort to read AV Club articles.

[hearthesilence]

Who the hell watches Scorsese films and thinks toxic masculinity is being portrayed positively?

If the limit of complexity and ambiguity one can mentally digest is The Infinity War, it's not surprising.

[tenia]

Behold, the worst thing you’ll ever read

Was positive this was just hyperbole, but nope! That is one of the most unbelievably stupid things I've ever read. But considering how it's making the rounds on social media, that was probably by design.

I remember when I actually made an effort to read AV Club articles.

I also remember when I did, but that was they also made efforts writing those.
Plus, who knows, maybe this has been written by AI !

[MV88]

We've been hearing annoying arguments like this from Thatcherite conservatives and libertarians for decades, of course (zombie voice: "the market knows best"). What's cool is that we now get to hear the exact same stuff from the kind of people who denounce entire oeuvres with phrases like "toxic masculinity". Truly, we are living in the best timeline.

This is spot-on. Reductive labeling based on uninformed extrapolation has become the go-to method of dismissing any art that isn’t firmly within someone’s narrow comfort zone, and ultimately such behavior only serves to reveal that many people who are so eager to denounce what they’ve misconstrued as “toxic” elements in art are actually just corporate apologists unwittingly defending the very things they claim to stand against. People just don’t want to engage with art anymore, at least not in a way that goes deeper than what they can fit into a hashtag. And it’s all the worse that they harp on box office numbers to make their points as though they can’t even distinguish between engagement with art and assessment of commerce. This is a really sad new form of populism in that it’s self-righteous populism that doesn’t realize what it’s actually endorsing.