henke on 21/3/2007 at 06:29
TITANIC ROX
POTC SUX
ok, not really, they were both alright
Thirith on 21/3/2007 at 07:32
Quote Posted by Ko0K
It's cheesier than the first one, for sure, but it's a good ride if you just watch it without critiquing it.
For me, that simply isn't true, because a ride isn't boring half of the time. The first POTC had pacing problems, but they were minor compared to the all-over-the-place (lack of) pacing of DMC. If I wouldn't mind going to the loo in the middle of a movie, that movie is doing something wrong.
Matthew on 21/3/2007 at 09:47
Quote Posted by Avego
If he wants to describe a fun little series like POTC like that, then I wonder what the reviewer thinks a good film is?
IIRC his favourite film of all time might just be 'The Exorcist'. He was a big fan of 'Aliens' too, mind you.
Generally, I like Kermode - I may not always agree with him, but I generally respect what he has to say.
SD on 21/3/2007 at 10:01
Quite. Far from hating pop culture, he's a confirmed fan of it. It's real pop culture fans who tend to get the most worked up when the studios try to sell warmed-up shit as pop culture; and they get incandescent with rage when so many people are dumb enough to buy it.
SubJeff on 21/3/2007 at 10:18
I haven't seen POTC2 and I thought the first one was ok - I certainly don't like it as much as the small hard core TTLG love group. I just posted to say that those people who don't know who MK is should really find out before they start on the lashout. You don't have to agree with him (I found the Exorcist v dull) to realise that that his opinions are pretty much on the money most of the time, that he's a film buff like you all wish you were.
KingAl on 21/3/2007 at 10:35
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
You don't have to agree with him (I found the Exorcist v dull) to realise that that his opinions are pretty much on the money most of the time, that he's a film buff like you all wish you were.
See, that's exactly the thing. His opinion regarding the technical quality of the film is right on the money, but his vainglorious declarations that it marks the end of civilisation are just bloody stupid. His dislike of the original particularly suggests to me that he was looking for something enlightening from a bit of light entertainment - a class which it more than fulfilled the requirements of. He also seems to read far too much into it's basis in a ride - the link between the two being tenuous at best.
Thirith on 21/3/2007 at 11:06
I agree with you, KingAl, about Kermode's verdict on the first POTC film - but how many of us are always completely and utterly balanced and fair in our opinions. Even though I disagree with some of what Kermode writes in his DMC review, it's still a fun review to read. If there's one thing I hate about the Internet, it's the "I disagree with X, so what he/she says is utter crap!!!" attitude that's so prevalent. I mean, for fuck's sake, can people really just see things in black and white?
fett on 21/3/2007 at 11:44
Well, even the best movies have a bit of crap in them, as do the best TV shows, albums, etc...It's just overkill when a critic assess these things based on some invisible subjective merit. I don't think anyone walked into POC intending to tally it's long term relevance, or to compare it to movie X to calculate it's value. They sat down, watched the movie, and liked it. If Kermode, or anyone else denounces it because it's based on a ride, they're bigger idiots than the people they criticize for bad taste in film.
I also don't get why he expected Ice Age 2 (haven't seen it) to be anything other than a stupid little cgi movie with otters getting smacked around (or whatever it is). It's intended as a glorified 2 hour kid's movie, not a fix for the ills of Western civilization, and he's a twit for expecting it to be anything more than that.
Matthew on 21/3/2007 at 11:59
I don't think it's that fett, as he often gives praise to movies that aren't exactly high art, as long as he feels they do what they set out to do and do it well, if you get what I mean.
Thirith on 21/3/2007 at 12:35
I don't know Kermode well enough, but for me that's central. What does a film set out to do, and does it succeed in this? If DMC was a failure for me, that's not because it wasn't the spiritual successor to Kurosawa's films or a Tarkovsky movie. It's that it wasn't enough of a ride; half of the time, it failed to be fun and/or exciting for me. Similarly, while I find snobbish critics silly who expect every sci-fi flick to be 2001, I dislike the reverse snobbery of those who say "Dude, it's just an action movie! Who gives a fuck?" when you criticise bad, incompetent, boring or just lazy filmmaking.
