Click here for Done Deal Pro home page

Done Deal Pro Home Page

Loading

Go Back   Done Deal Pro Forums > Movies & Television > Films
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-04-2011, 08:22 PM   #41
Gwai Lo
Member
 
Gwai Lo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,590
Default Re: Primer

Armond White loathes Pixar.

Biohazard is more in the tradition of Pauline Kael, where everything sucks save a few unimpeachable masterpieces. Armond White's approach is just to go off his meds, write a review that reverses whatever RottenTomatoes' fresh meter has decided, and then replace every word in that review with an alternate from the thesaurus.
Gwai Lo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 08:25 PM   #42
Biohazard
Member
 
Biohazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold
Posts: 7,329
Default Re: Primer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwai Lo View Post
Armond White loathes Pixar.

Biohazard is more in the tradition of Pauline Kael, where everything sucks save a few unimpeachable masterpieces. Armond White's approach is just to go off his meds, write a review that reverses whatever RottenTomatoes' fresh meter has decided, and then replace every word in that review with an alternate from the thesaurus.
Anyone who hates Pixar is either a liar or insane.

For my tastes, read my sig.
Biohazard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 08:27 PM   #43
Gwai Lo
Member
 
Gwai Lo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,590
Default Re: Primer

The guy is so out of touch it's ridiculous

Quote:
Pixar has now made three movies explicitly about toys, yet the best movie depiction of how toys express human experience remains Whit Stillmanís 1990 Metropolitan. As class-conscious Tom Townsend (Edward Clements) tries fitting in with East Side debutantes, he discovers his toy cowboy pistol in his estranged fatherís trash. Without specifying the model, Stillman evokes past childhood, lost innocence and Townsendís longing for even imagined potency. But Toy Story 3 is so besotted with brand names and product-placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of imaginationóthe usefulness of toysóand strictly celebrates consumerism.


I feel like a 6-year-old having to report how in Toy Story 3 two dollsóSheriff Woody (Tom Hanks) and Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen)ótry to save a toy box of childhood playthings from either disuse or imprisonment as donations to a daycare center because their human owner, 17-year-old Andy, packs them up as he heads off to college. The toys wage battle with the daycare centerís cynical veteran cast-offs: Hamm the Piggy Bank pig, Lotsa Hugs and Big Baby. But none of these digital-cartoon characters reflect human experience; itís essentially a bored game that only the brainwashed will buy into. Besides, Transformers 2 already explored the same plot to greater thrill and opulence.


While Toy Story 3ís various hazards and cliffhangers evidence more creativity than typical Pixar product (an inferno scene was promising, Lotsa Hugsí cannily evokes mundane insensitivity), I admit to simply not digging the toys-come-to-life fantasy (I donít babysit children, so I donít have to) nor their inevitable repetition of narrative formula: the gang of animated, talking objects journey from one place to another and backóagain and again. It recalls how Tim Burtonís atrocious Alice in Wonderland repeated narrative stasis without exercising the famous line: ďIt takes all the running you can do just to stay in the same place.Ē Burtonís omission of that legendary, therapeutic slogan parallels how Toy Story 3 suckers fans to think they can accept this drivel without paying for it politically, aesthetically or spiritually.



Look at the Barbie and Ken sequence where the sexually dubious male doll struts a chick-flick fashion show. Since it serves the same time-keeping purpose as a chick-flick digression, itís not satirical. Weíre meant to enjoy our susceptibility, not question it, as in Joe Danteís more challenging Small Soldiers. Have shill-critics forgotten that movie? Do they mistake Toy Story 3ís opening day for 4th of July patriotism?




When Toy Story 3 emulates the suspense of prison break and horror films, it becomes fitfully amusing (more than can be said for Wall-E or Up) but this humor depends on the recognition of worn-out toys which is no different from those lousy Shrek gags. Only Big Baby, with one Keane eye and one lazy eye, and Mr. Potato Headís deconstruction into Daliís slip-sliding ďPersistence of MemoryĒ are worthy of mature delectation. But these references donít meaningfully expand even when the story gets weepy. The Toy Story franchise isnít for children and adults, itís for non-thinking children and adults. When a movie is this formulaic, itís no longer a toy because it does all the work for you. Itís a sapís story.
Gwai Lo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 08:30 PM   #44
Biohazard
Member
 
Biohazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold
Posts: 7,329
Default Re: Primer

That is precisely why I don't listen to film critics. Hardly any of them know jack about film.
Biohazard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 08:32 PM   #45
Fortean
Member
 
Fortean's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,140
Default Primer

Quote:
Originally Posted by ihavebiglips View Post
Vote... which is more boring: PRIMER or Bio?
How many times can we vote on this, and can we go back and change our vote?
__________________
JEKYLL & CANADA (free .mp4 download @ Vimeo.com)
Fortean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 08:32 PM   #46
Gwai Lo
Member
 
Gwai Lo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,590
Default Re: Primer

Oh, Armond doesn't listen to film critics either...

Quote:
I do think it is fair to say that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism. Because of the wide and far reach of television, he became an example of what a film critic does for too many people. And what he did simply was not criticism. It was simply blather. And it was a kind of purposefully dishonest enthusiasm for product, not real criticism at allÖI think he does NOT have the training. I think he simply had the position. I think he does NOT have the training. IíVE got the training. And frankly, I donít care how that sounds, but the fact is, Iíve got the training. Iím a pedigreed film critic. Iíve studied it. I know it. And I know many other people whoíve studied it as well, studied it seriously. Ebert just simply happened to have the job. And heís had the job for a long time. He does not have the foundation. He simply got the job. And if youíve ever seen any of his shows, and ever watched his shows on at least a two-week basis, then you surely saw how he would review, letís say, eight movies a week and every week liked probably six of them. And that is just simply inherently dishonest. Thatís whatís called being a shill. And itís a tragic thing that that became the example of what a film critic does for too many people. Often he wasnít practicing criticism at all. Often he would point out gaffes or mistakes in continuity. Thatís not criticism. Thatís really a pea-brained kind of fan gibberish.
Gwai Lo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 08:38 PM   #47
Biohazard
Member
 
Biohazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold
Posts: 7,329
Default Re: Primer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwai Lo View Post
Iím a pedigreed film critic. Iíve studied it. I know it.


If that loser ever got off his high horse, he'd die from the fall.
Biohazard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 09:23 PM   #48
SuperScribe
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,976
Default Re: Primer

It's amazing how Bio and I can hold diametrically opposed views on so many film- and industry-related issues (film theory/criticism gives me quite the hard-on*) and still be friends.


* But what doesn't, really?
SuperScribe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 09:25 PM   #49
Biohazard
Member
 
Biohazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold
Posts: 7,329
Default Re: Primer

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperScribe View Post
It's amazing how Bio and I can hold diametrically opposed views on so many film- and industry-related issues (film theory/criticism gives me quite the hard-on*) and still be friends.
I put my hard fully on when discussing film.

Biohazard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 01:49 AM   #50
12916studios
Member
 
12916studios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,399
Default Re: Primer

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperScribe View Post
It's amazing how Bio and I can hold diametrically opposed views on so many film- and industry-related issues (film theory/criticism gives me quite the hard-on*) and still be friends.


* But what doesn't, really?
Same here. I think I have disagreed with him on almost every film we have both seen, accept in saying that Toy Story 3 was fantastic. That being said, he's A LOT farther up that movie's ass than I am.
__________________

INT. PINEAPPLE - DAY


12916studios is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro

eXTReMe Tracker