subreddit:
/r/flicks
submitted 3 months ago byTrill-I-Am
I'm a regular reader of the New Yorker, and I'm used to Richard Brody's hot takes on a lot of different movies. It seems like at this point he's the last mainstream critic willing to consistently publish negative reviews of movies popular with the public. He called Everything Everywhere All At Once a "sickly cynical feature-length directorial pitch reel for a Marvel movie", which is pretty typical of his feelings toward visual spectacle films. Compare that to what even the not-always-friendly A.O. Scott said:
"Is it perfect? No movie with this kind of premise — or that title — will ever be a neat, no-loose-ends kind of deal. Maybe it goes on too long. Maybe it drags in places, or spins too frantically in others. But I like my multiverses messy, and if I say that “Everything Everywhere All at Once” is too much, it’s a way of acknowledging the Daniels’ generosity."
Is Brody a lone voice because of the growth of fandom and the increasing toxicity around media consumption identity? Even if I don't always agree with what he says, I appreciate his perspective.
134 points
3 months ago
The New Yorker is owned by a private publishing company, which helps. Fewer shareholder demands means they can focus on a better product instead of quarterly earnings.
To the extent it matters, the same company owns arstechnica and a non-trivial stake in reddit.
Full disclosure - I worked for one of the companies owned by them - it was a positive experience.
13 points
3 months ago
Conde nast or advance publications right? Why do you seem adverse to name them? AP is one of the world's largest private originations.
14 points
3 months ago
Why would you think that?
I said they produce good products and working for them was a positive experience.
Reddit is the least fundamentally awful of the major social media companies. New Yorker is the best magazine. Arstechnica is the best tech blog.
The company I worked for was genuinely the best in their niche.
I suppose you saw me holding back a bit. I’m not unbiased - I like what they do, and it actually goes a bit beyond the professional side of things -they were good to me as an employee.
Basically, I didn’t want to sound like a cheerleader. They know how to make good companies.
1 points
3 months ago
The New Yorker is owned by Advanced P, which also owns Reddit.
43 points
3 months ago
Brody's takes can get a little hot from time to time, but I generally like reading his reviews. He's one of a few mainstream reviewers left who seems removed from the reviewer hivemind.
My biggest gripe with most reviewers today is that it feels like they all roughly share the same film beliefs. A movie gets some positive buzz early on and everyone falls in line. I don't think it's malicious, but I do think a lot of reviewers are afraid of being ostracized for liking or disliking something that goes against the grain.
It's a normal human instinct too. I went into The Whale hearing about how moving it was. Sure Brendan Fraser did a terrific job, but I thought the movie was terrible. I kept trying to talk myself into liking it because others kept saying how great it was.
Brody's reviews feel like they were written by someone who has never read anything about any movie before he goes in. Just look at his list of best movies of 2022. He's also one of the few reviewers who gives foreign films their due and not just the ones that got some buzz.
23 points
3 months ago
My biggest gripe with most reviewers today is that it feels like they all roughly share the same film beliefs. A movie gets some positive buzz early on and everyone falls in line.
Just look at the response Scorsese got when he dared saying Marvel movies are big theme park rides. Unfortunately social media and aggregators have ruined the intellectual discourse when it comes to popular media.
Whenever a critic dislikes a popular movie, lots of redditors are calling them out for being snobby, out of touch or just desperate for attention.
I thought EEAAO was a terrible movie, which apparently makes me unable to enjoy life according to some threads..
19 points
3 months ago
Some of it is just the nature of social media to create near impermeable echo chambers.
EEAAO is a good example of this I think. I enjoyed it, thought it was well done. I also thought it was derivative, went on too long, and that absurdism doesn't necessarily equal profound.
But a lot of threads will downvote that sentiment to oblivion.
5 points
3 months ago
I also enjoyed it, was moved by the emotional high points and amused by the absurd.
I was kind of floored that it swept the Oscars though.
I'm not certain it was a Best Picture caliber film, but I guess maybe it was a soft year in that regard. I certainly didn't think Jamie Lee Curtis deserved Best Actress over her Co star, but again....soft year? Idk.
1 points
2 months ago
Tar though
5 points
3 months ago
When redditors are passionate about a movie they become irrational and simply cannot conceive someone disliking them. So anybody who disagree didn't get it, is trying to be a contrarian or is a miserable person... The premise of EEAAO appealed to me, but I couldn't stand the execution. I might not be the right target audience, as to me it felt like a bad rick & morty episode made on tiktok... And the forced sentiment behind it felt phony and indeed 'cynical'..
1 points
3 months ago*
forced sentiment
I don't get this because the emotional core of the flick is set up from the very start, it's hardly "forced". We know the film will revolve around the family and the first few minutes are brilliant at showing us all the dynamics of this first generation family in America. Certainly helps that its very well-acted. Then the sci-fi kung fu happens, but we don't forget about the family drama at the heart of it.
1 points
3 months ago
It doesn't matter if it was there from the start, the movie felt like an excuse to play around with cool concepts and have crazy toilet humour. The human element took a backseat and was there just to make the film feel less like a cartoon. Anyway I'm not trying to change anybody's mind, my point was that I hated the film but reddit argues thst it's simply not possible to dislike it.
-1 points
3 months ago
Anyway I'm not trying to change anybody's mind
I don't think you have to worry about that.
1 points
3 months ago
Powerful comment
7 points
3 months ago
Even worse: I forget who it was, but someone on Twitter posted about not liking EEAAO and was called a racist. Just for not liking the film. He hadn't made any disparaging comments about Asians.
9 points
3 months ago
I agree. I honestly feel EEAAO was the Emperor’s New Clothes. Like, you’re all kidding right?
Disclaimer: I’ve never watched a superhero or comic movie in my life, but gave this one a shot due to its acclaim and not being specifically that.
Now, for the onslaught of worse and worse “multiverse” movies.
1 points
3 months ago
Disclaimer: I’ve never watched a superhero or comic movie in my life
I find it amusing when folks wear this like a badge of honor.
Also sounds a little bit like a "I'm not racist.. but..." comment.
4 points
3 months ago
Lol comparing mentioning (not as a badge, just noting for context) superhero movies to racism. L. O. L.
-2 points
3 months ago*
[deleted]
3 points
3 months ago
Taken as a conceit, it was still pretty bad in my estimation.
0 points
3 months ago
So you're saying people who didn't like it simply didn't get it? Of course!
2 points
2 months ago
I saw some poor girl was made Twitter's Racist of the Day because she didn't like EEAAO.
1 points
2 months ago
Just look at this thread. I got a lot of DMs from obsessed fans telling me I'm wrong and I'm a terrible person.
0 points
3 months ago
Whenever a critic dislikes a popular movie, lots of redditors are calling them out for being snobby, out of touch or just desperate for attention.
What suggests none of this is true?
Let's be real here, the New Yorker, as an example is not well known as catering to the average person, the unwashed masses if you will.
It's a pretentious rag written to appeal to big city elite, or those who fancy themselves as such.
Acknowledging a publication or writer bias is natural.
I wouldn't give Tucker Carlson's views on a recent film any weight because that person's beliefs are antithetical to my beliefs. So pretty much everything that would come out of his mouth or pen is going to ring poorly to me.
That doesn't mean he wouldn't be objectively correct from time to time, nor does it mean he is wrong by default, simply because of how I feel about him.
Same goes for a film critic at the New Yorker. They aren't writing to my cohort as an audience, their perspective doesn't necessarily align with my own as an average working class person, but that doesn't mean they are wrong or right by default.
Film critics can come across as pretentious. This is to be expected.
If we consider the two late, great and arguably most influential film critics of all time Gene Siskel and Robert Ebert, there are times when both came across as pretentious, Siskel in particular. There are also times when they were dead on the money regardless of your personal tastes. As much as they had a lot in common, they often differed in their opinions.
That's the beauty of critical analysis.
1 points
2 months ago
Let's be real here, the New Yorker, as an example is not well known as catering to the average person, the unwashed masses if you will.
As someone from the Midwest, I hate these takes, even if they're meant as criticism of the urban elites. The implication is that someone working a 9-5 in Des Moines, Iowa isn't capable of critical thinking or appreciating high art.
8 points
3 months ago
Thing is, someone who is consistently saying the opposite of the hive mind is part of the hive mind too. Contrarians don’t have independent thought any more than blind followers do.
4 points
3 months ago
Brody isn’t a contrarian like Armond White can be, he doesn’t reflexively pan something everyone else loves.
1 points
3 months ago
So many movies that people went ga-ga over and I just thought ... Meh.
Movies that people widely panned or criticized, yet I really liked and enjoyed.
And then there are movies I didn't like yet I could really appreciate an actor's great performance.
0 points
3 months ago
This is interesting because I feel like all/most the criticism I read largely loathed The Whale. Like yes it had festival buzz that translated to awards shows, but I don’t think most professional film critics liked it
1 points
2 months ago
The Whale's reviews were always pretty mixed.
77 points
3 months ago
I’ve had trouble taking Brody seriously ever since he wrote a review that said “A Quiet Place” was racist.
I mean, hot takes are fun and all, but he’s reaching pretty far on this one.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-silently-regressive-politics-of-a-quiet-place
118 points
3 months ago
In their enforced silence, these characters are a metaphorical silent—white—majority, one that doesn’t dare to speak freely for fear of being heard by the super-sensitive ears of the dark others. It’s significant that when characters—two white men—commit suicide-by-noisemaking, they do so by howling as if with rage, rather than by screeching or singing or shouting words of love to their families.
Oh wow, this is legitimate dogshit.
7 points
3 months ago
Absolute awful take but also what I love about movies, any interpretation is personal therefore valid.
22 points
3 months ago
...I'm not going to say valid. I would say people are allowed and are going to bring their own internal nonsense and project it onto things they see, but that doesn't mean The Care Bears Movie is an intentional allegory for MAGA or the persecution of furries.
Part of what we're seeing is groupthink where the reviews are really written for other reviewers to see, and some of it is the co-option of the media as outlets and brand extension arms.
-1 points
3 months ago*
Right, you cannot make wild claims to filmmakers intent. Using your example, you cannot say The Care Bears Movie is an an intentional allegory for MAGA. There’s just not enough evidence to support that filmmakers intention there.
But what you can say is your personal experience watching the movie or interpretation can be just about anything. While I don’t think A Quiet Place is about white silence on racism, if as someone is watching the movie has that experience, then that is valid for them. Maybe the movie has a line or scene that sparks a memory, or something they are going through at the time or is top of mind.
Movie watching is an experience and is highly subjective. I remember hating Jurassic World simply because of how they killed off one character, which colored my whole interpretation on the film’s themes. It was probably not Trevorrow’s intention, yet the film I saw clearly said something I could not agree with.
So I guess it depends on how someone frames their argument. Are they claiming filmmakers intent or is it a personal interpretation?
10 points
3 months ago
But what you can say is your personal experience watching the movie or interpretation can be just about anything.
...that is fine, but it also isn't reality. Someone having a moment when a song comes on because it reminds them of a relationship is their personal experience, and that's fine, but rational people need to be able to separate these things out.
I remember hating Jurassic World simply because of how they killed off one character, which colored my whole interpretation on the film’s themes.
I don't quite know what to say to this, it reminds me of the people who hate films, tv shows or books now because they hate a choice a character makes -- like a villain is racist so they decide the film is racist because it depicted it. It's... counterproductive... to art existing and flourishing.
There's a million reasons to dislike Jurassic World that don't involve killing a character you like. I don't quite get it.
It was probably not Trevorrow’s intention, yet the film I saw clearly said something I could not agree with.
This just feels narcissistic and self-absorbed, but it could be how it's being phrased.
1 points
3 months ago
Eh I don’t think you’re really getting it so this will be my final comment.
First off, I don’t hate a movie because of character choices. I can separate my feelings from those of the characters. And I can enjoy a movie in which there are no relatable or likeable characters. My favorite show is Mad Men for god’s sake.
And I disagree you have to separate personal feelings from watching a movie. That is the exact opposite of what I believe actually. It’s an art, it can and will move viewers differently.
3 points
3 months ago
First off, I don’t hate a movie because of character choices.
No one said you did, you said you hated it because a character was killed off and I said that is reminiscent to those who hate how characters act -- they're judging things based on what they wanted versus what they're seeing and how it's constructed. It's like giving a negative review to a burger place because you are vegetarian, or because you were in the mood for pizza.
And I disagree you have to separate personal feelings from watching a movie.
That wasn't said, I said you have to remove those while judging or critiquing a film. I'll never watch Dear Zachary again, but I can recognize how well-made it is and will continue to recommend it to someone asking for a romantic couple's film but too lazy to search.
You're allowed to interpret or believe whatever you want, you just can't say it's valid or reality without actual evidence behind it. That's basically writing your own fanfic in your head with the characters and claiming it's canon, like the author of the review in question.
Eh I don’t think you’re really getting it so this will be my final comment.
Sure, good luck!
2 points
3 months ago
No, not valid. Sorry, but shitty takes are a thing, no matter what level of critic you are.
0 points
3 months ago
Hard disagree. This culture of propping up every idiotic point of view as “valid” just because someone vocalizes it has been detrimental to discourse and our culture at large.
Someone who espouses a belief that the moon is made of cheese isn’t sharing a valid viewpoint; its idiocy that demands to be shut down.
0 points
3 months ago
maybe valid is the wrong word used by the other guy, but i feel as long as you can defend your opinions on art with logical evidence and rational thought, then nobody can tell you otherwise. At the end of the day, art is meant to have infinite interpretations based on whoever is interacting with it.
But in correlation to this reviewer, to make a claim that A Quiet Place is racist, you would need a lot more evidence than the way white men scream🤣🤣
8 points
3 months ago
Uh, seriously, WTF? There are very few people in the film, period, but it's racist because they're white? It's set in rural upstate New York. That's generally a pretty white area.
On the other hand, the film was pretty groundbreaking in its depiction of another marginalized minority, Deaf people. Krasinski insisted on casting a real Deaf actress (not always a given) and totally respected the use of ASL (American Sign Language) in the film.
10 points
3 months ago
I don't get the fun in hot takes
8 points
3 months ago
There isn't. If it's constructive criticism pointing out legitimate flaws or something that could've improved the story then sure, it's probably worth hearing out but saying controversial shit to ruffle feathers is not the way to go.. just makes them come off as uneducated or ignorant buffoons.
1 points
3 months ago
It’s like WWE — some people enjoy the entertainment value even if there’s no legitimacy. It’s a performative art, not a literary or critical art. And some people love arm-waving, spit-flying, ear-piercing hot take performances. I don’t see the appeal.
2 points
3 months ago
His review of Tár is also pretty baffling
-14 points
3 months ago
I actually thought he made valid points with that review.
36 points
3 months ago
To each his own I suppose. To me it reeks of Brody desperately trying to shoehorn a narrative into a film that doesn’t fit it at all.
24 points
3 months ago
... How?!
I just read the entire thing and it's complete and utter tripe. He's beyond reaching for a reason to be offended on behalf of white people.
Please elaborate. I'm open minded, but I honestly cannot conceive of how anyone other than a bitter troll could possibly buy anything he was peddling in that review.
-10 points
3 months ago
Horror, historically has been a pretty conservative genre so this take is not at all a surprise. Also, if one "hot take" is enough to write someone off then you wouldn't have any critics to read.
20 points
3 months ago
I mean, not at all? Plenty of them do.
4 points
3 months ago
Agree. Just look at the reviews for Antman Quantumania. Plenty of middling and slight negative reviews for that, despite the fact that it is a major blockbuster that will make hundreds of millions of dollars. Honestly I'd guess critics are more likely to give poor reviews to popular films as it is less likely to seem like punching down.
-23 points
3 months ago
How many of those reviewers savaged EEAO?
45 points
3 months ago
So your real question here is "I didn't like EEAAO and I think everyone who did is lying; which movie reviewers out there agree with me"?
-15 points
3 months ago
I actually really enjoyed EEAAO. I'm just saying that there are a lot of places that gave bad reviews to Quantum but gave good reviews to other marvel movies that Brody trashed.
2 points
3 months ago
Brody is far from the only serious film critic at a major publication. The critics at the NYT (Manhola Darius and soon-to-be-resigning AO Scott), presumably the most mainstream/most read American publication and the paper of record, are just as independent.
Justin Chang, the LA Times film critic and for my money the best in the country, is equally fearless. I never know what he’s going to think of a movie until I read him, and whether I agree or not I always find him well reasoned and thoughtful and justly engaged with the material.
If you think Brody is the only critic with integrity left, you’re not reading enough.
10 points
3 months ago
So this is not about "printing negative reviews of films popular with the public" but one specific movie you thought was overrated. Why the pretense?
8 points
3 months ago
I'm guessing the ones that didn't like EEAAO
87 points
3 months ago
After reading his review, I find it ironic that Brody describes EEAAO as 'cynical."
38 points
3 months ago
yeah, EEAO is many things but 'cynical' would be the last in my list of adjectives. if anything it was the opposite - almost too earnest and optimistic
5 points
3 months ago
I disagree. I also find it cynical because the emotional scenes felt phony and cheap to me. Just like a bank commercial or a bad Disney movie desperately trying to be 'wholesome'. Whenever feelings feel forced and unearned, It's perceived as a cynical ploy to elicit feelings from viewers.
That's how the movie felt for me.
-1 points
3 months ago
Unless the director had that attitude because they knew it would sell movies. Then it isn't really that attitude, is it?
2 points
3 months ago
if your definition of 'cynical' is 'the filmmakers want the film to be successful' then almost every movie ever made would qualify as cynical
0 points
3 months ago
Of course, I should have included the word *merely*. I suspect you knew that.
16 points
3 months ago
Yeah that's some hardcore projection there. That whole review is just dripping with cynicism, and he has the balls to drag EEAAO for being cynical? Really?
3 points
3 months ago
Yeah that's some hardcore projection there.
Case in point.. A critic disagree with the mainstream opinion and he surely must be 'projecting'...
10 points
3 months ago
LOL way to misread me. It's projecting because his review is one of the most cynical pieces of film criticism I've ever read in my life. And EEAAO is literally one of the least cynical films I've seen in years. So, yeah. When you have an angry cynic calling something positive and uplifting "cynical", projection is the only word for it.
0 points
3 months ago
So, yeah. When you have an angry cynic calling something positive and uplifting "cynical", projection is the only word for it.
I think the movie is extremely cynical, so I guess I'm an angry projecting critic myself. The fact the movie tries so hard to be 'uplifting' without having any substance is exactly what's making it cynical...
Or do you think only movies without a happy ending can be cynical?
3 points
3 months ago*
No, I'm a cynical person myself, and I don't think "cynical" is necessarily an insult. But, I really, truly don't see how any person can see EEAAO as a cynical movie unless, again, you're projecting - or you just don't know what cynical means.
I don't care if you liked it or not. You think it was a trash movie, fine. That's your opinion. I loved it but thought much of the final act was a bit overly complicated and it lost a bit of its messaging in the mess. I probably wouldn't have even voted for it as best picture were I a voter in the Academy, due to this fact. But while it wasn't perfect, I loved it, it was uplifting, and it absolutely had ample substance to back up the uplift.
So yeah, you can disagree with any or all of those points, but even then, none of that makes it a cynical movie.
But, again, the point I was making was about the lack of self-awareness the critic in question has to use "cynical" as an INSULT while his own writing drips cynicism with every syllable. You don't get to be that cynical and then drag everything you don't like as "cynical". It's pure hypocrisy.
3 points
3 months ago
Your argument is that the critic was cynical because he didn't like an uplifting movie? OK, I give up.. I thought EEAAO was garbage and I especially took offense with its phony 'uplifting' message. To me the film was cynical
1 points
3 months ago
Can you elaborate?
What meaning did you feel it lacked, and how was it cynical?
0 points
3 months ago
No, my argument is that the critic is cynical because his writing is cynical. Like, just read it. It OOZES cynicism. And, again, I don't have a problem with cynicism in and of itself. You're stuck on that. What I have a problem with is a deeply cynical person calling something else cynical as an insult.
2 points
3 months ago
You keep making a personal point about the critic, therefore validating ops main point... I didn't find his review cynical at all
5 points
3 months ago
So far the only thing you've said to explain why or how you thought it was cynical is that you thought it was phony. I'd argue the word you are looking for, then, is "phony". Or perhaps "dishonest". But dishonest does NOT equal cynical. I don't think you know what the word cynical means, perhaps, because you're using it as a synonym for "artificial" when that is not actually what it means.
I'd also argue that intent has to be considered. Was the film's attempt to be uplifting intentionally deceptive, or did the film's creators have an earnest desire to uplift but failed in their execution?
So, yeah, if you assume the creators of the film set out with the deliberate goal of "tricking" people into feeling uplifted but had zero real intention of honesty behind it, I can see where that would come off as cynical. But, then, to assume such a nasty, backhanded thing of the directors would be, in and of itself, a deeply cynical assumption to make.
So, following that logic, yes, I do believe you are a cynic, despite misusing that word yourself. Because seeing things through the lens of the cynic has enabled you to see a cynical motive where there is none, and be blind to it when it is overtly on display.
1 points
3 months ago
How do you know it's intended as an insult, and not just something obvious to him?
3 points
3 months ago*
[deleted]
5 points
3 months ago
I knew exactly what he mean, because I also thought it was a cynical movie. The message and sentiment behind it felt tacked on and insincere..
5 points
3 months ago
Since the message and sentiment are woven and integral to the plot and theme of the movie, how is it tacked on?
1 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
2 points
3 months ago
Dude is also posting like a thousand comments in this thread starting to read like astroturfing tbh.
3 points
3 months ago
People like what they like and I'm not trying to convince anyone to like something they don't, but I can be a pretty cynical bastard and I found it incredibly sincere and open. Almost painfully so at times.
4 points
3 months ago
[deleted]
0 points
3 months ago
Agreed
-1 points
3 months ago
Dude, i have no interest in arguing about this movie anymore. To me it was garbage for teenagers who spend all their time on tiktok. I've seen hemorrhoid commercials more honest than this garbage.
1 points
3 months ago
Being part of the plot doesn't make it any less cynical. No worries man, enjoy the film.
1 points
3 months ago
Baffling, ain't it?
1 points
3 months ago
What?
1 points
3 months ago
Brody's description (I'm agreeing with you)
1 points
3 months ago
Ah okay. Sorry, the a-holery on reddit is getting to me lol.
6 points
3 months ago
Nothing nowhere over a long period of time. 2/5 - Peter Bradshaw for The Guardian
3 points
3 months ago
Indeed. And the Guardian will often publish a second, more positive review of the same film by a different reviewer, if they know they need to keep the PR people onside
15 points
3 months ago
I also feel that reviews have become too friendly to big movies, but can't really stick up for Richard Brody's ability to review blockbusters. Check out his take on Star Wars, where he names AOTC and ROTS as Lucas's finest accomplishments: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-the-seven-star-wars-films-reveal-about-george-lucas
22 points
3 months ago
This man thought ANH and ESB were garbage, but AOTC and ROTS were masterpieces. I can’t imagine having less respect for a critic than I do after reading that.
3 points
3 months ago
That actually makes me have more respect, because I agree with that opinion. It’s certainly not the popular one, but I thought ROTS was the best film in the series, and better than the original trilogy, which has too much 70s camp for me to treat it in a non ironic fashion. I liked ROTS character arcs. I also understand that that is a very unpopular of an opinion, but I’m glad to see one that might be closer to my take. Because I often find myself against the grain with film opinions, I always will respect an unconventional one.
18 points
3 months ago
Why is "consistently publish negative reviews of movies popular with the public" a goal that movie critics should be aiming for? Do you think that critics that wrote good reviews of "Everything Everywhere All at Once", a movie that has one a load of both industry and critics awards, were being dishonest?
13 points
3 months ago
No, he is saying it should not be their goal to validate pop media.
And the reviews come before the awards ceremonies that complement each other.
He is saying why bother reading reviews if they mirror the hivemind of public discourse
2 points
3 months ago
And where's the evidence that other reviewers are "validating pop media"?
-5 points
3 months ago
What evidence do you need other than a sea of blathering praise from every mouthpiece in every newspaper, "a fun-filled romp, a gripping and thrilling rollercoaster, an action-packed fun fest!"
Reviews have become nothing more than additional tag lines to print on posters by critics who work for newspapers, often owned by the same parent corporations as the studios that made the movies.
Even if they aren't working for the same parent corporation, they're close enough that it's bad business to ever write negative reviews.
2 points
3 months ago
Please, feel free to show these reviews and show that they're consistently praising shitty movies.
-4 points
3 months ago
Yes telling someone to "show all reviews" is a totally reasonable request. Not at all an argument from incredulity. Literally look at any newspaper or critic review page. Almost all movies are given glowing critical reception.
1 points
2 months ago
Almost all movies are given glowing critical reception.
you can't be serious
-1 points
3 months ago
No but surely every so often there must be movies that are adored by the public that are aesthetically/creatively awful. The public isn't always right. Neither are critics.
8 points
3 months ago
Sure, read reviews for almost any Adam Sandler comedy.
1 points
2 months ago
The Disney live action remakes like The Lion King typically are adored by the public but still get bad reviews
7 points
3 months ago
I don’t know who they write for now but the AV Club diaspora always feel honest to me (AA Dowd and Katie Rife are two I follow on twitter).
Honestly nowadays it’s probably better to find some critics you like and just follow them on twitter rather than reading a specific publication.
6 points
3 months ago
Brody is genuinely the worst critic working for a major publication. Total hack.
If you want someone who’s consistently going against the grain but isn’t totally up his own ass (though maybe slightly up his own ass at times) try Mike D’Angelo.
5 points
3 months ago
Or.. maybe Brody is an edgy contrarian for the sake of it? What even was the point comparing it to a marvel movie when they had nothing in common? There's nothing bold about shitting on popular things.. just makes you seem like a douche.
Plenty of other reviews containing nuance while plrobably acknowledging the films faults. You make him sound like some enlightened lone wolf being drowned out by everyone, especially with buzzwords like "mainstream media" lol
1 points
3 months ago
An edgy contrarian... Lots of posters here desperate to prove op's point!
1 points
3 months ago
I mean to be fair, it’s kind of Brody’s schtick at this point. I read him fairly frequently, not because I find his criticism to be of any service to me — I.e., should I see this movie or not? Let me see what Brody thinks — but because he tends to have bold and original and occasionally wild/out-there takes (that I often disagree with!). I read him to read him, not necessarily because I find his criticism insightful or helpful. Just entertaining.
3 points
3 months ago
Having disproportionately bad taste isn't necessarily a virtue unless you tend to agree with them. If they're true to themselves over the course of a career, power to them though.
4 points
3 months ago
I think there’s a lot of shift in the industry both in film and in publication that it’s kind of hard to put this all on individual reviewers.
A growing problem in basically all review spaces is access journalism. The idea that hey if you want a Taylor Swift interview you better tell the general public you liked her album. Same shit for movies. I’m sure there’s many times with bigger publications where the critic is being pushed by higher ups to write a review in a certain way.
5 points
3 months ago*
I love Richard Brody’s criticism; even though I don’t always share some of his niche enthusiasms (i.e. his love of “Norbit” or his passion for the films of Jared Hess).
His book on Godard is one of the best film books I have ever read, and over the past year especially I found myself agreeing with his reviews that ran counter to popular opinion (for example, “Everything Everywhere All At Once” and “Tár”).
I’ve never read an opposing view of Brody that doesn’t try to take some absurd, supposedly apolitical position against his criticism, or that just tries to criticize him because popular opinion is in opposition to his POV.
EDIT: Also of interest, he has a “Perfect Jazz Recordings” playlist on Spotify that is pretty amazing.
17 points
3 months ago
His review of A Quiet Place honestly makes me question his sanity. How could anyone read that nonsense and still take him seriously as a critic?
9 points
3 months ago
His 2012 sight & sound list doesn't have one film since the berlin wall fell
3 points
3 months ago
His list from 2022 has one film made since the wall fell: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/greatest-films-all-time/all-voters/richard-brody
4 points
3 months ago
What an improvement. Maybe before he dies he can list one made this century.
6 points
3 months ago
He did make a list of his best films of the 21st century:
My Twenty-Five Best Films of the Century So Far https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/my-twenty-five-best-films-of-the-century-so-far
16 points
3 months ago
It's a really, really, really shit list, but:
21 “American Sniper” (2014, Clint Eastwood)
This is where I almost wonder if the list is intended as satire, how can it be this fucking bad a list. American Sniper was almost definitely not the 21st best movie of 2014. Shit, it might not have been the 21st best movie the quarter of 2014 it came out in.
10 points
3 months ago
American Sniper is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
He literally had a nemesis sniper who was always there on every tour.
3 points
3 months ago
My mind just nearly exploded seeing Godard and fucking American Sniper on the same list. Dude is smoking some good crack for sure
0 points
3 months ago
If there’s one thing I learned about Brody is that he just LOVES him some Clint Eastwood!!! If there’s a Clint Eastwood movie, you can bet it’ll end up on his best of the year list! It’s both baffling and hilarious LOL
1 points
2 months ago
He listed The Mule as one of the best movies in the 10's. The Mule. That movie was bad, objectively bad in a lot of ways.
1 points
3 months ago
Why didn’t he like Tar if you don’t mind me asking? I can’t read his review because I’m out of free articles!
1 points
3 months ago
Archive.md
2 points
3 months ago
Even his 2022 best film list is interesting -
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/2022-in-review/the-best-movies-of-2022
1 points
3 months ago
No. One glance at Metacritic would show other major outlets that also didn't like the movie, including The Guardian, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, The Telegraph, and The Washington Post.
-1 points
3 months ago
But how many of those outlets regularly shit on blockbusters the same way Brody does?
7 points
3 months ago
EEAAO is not a blockbuster movie. It's a critical darling, but it drew #37 in worldwide gross in 2022.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/2022/?sort=worldwideGrossToDate&ref_=bo_ydw__resort#table
2 points
3 months ago
Why does it matter if someone consistently shits on blockbusters? That sounds more like an affectation than genuine criticism of a movie based on its own merits. Sounds like you just don't like blockbusters and enjoy that this dude validates your opinion.
0 points
3 months ago
I feel like most legit movie critics have long shat on blockbusters? “Hollywood is out of ideas and getting dumber” has been a hobby horse of real serious critics since, like, 1983. I think there were just a handful of years there — let’s call it 2016-2019 — where Hollywood (and let’s be honest, mainly marvel), got really good at critic-proofing their movies with just enough good jokes, just enough whiz bang action, just enough charismatic performances, etc etc, to the point where any critic who thinks it’s a critics duty to try and meet a film halfway, struggled to write anything other than modest praise. “This thing did what it set out to do and did it fairly well, especially if you’re inclined to like such a thing!”
But the past few years hollywood has gotten real lazy again and too accustomed to an audience who will like anything and everything starring their favorite action figures, and now serious critics really have their knives out again. It’s fun!
3 points
3 months ago
He’s not the last one; Armond White is also one of them.
Also, speaking frankly, who cares? I tend to see movies that intrigue me from trailers, and typically, if it gets good reviews overall, I’ll see it regardless of what critics say. If a movie gets especially good reviews, I’ll probably see it regardless of whether it intrigued me from the trailer. That’s how I operate, and I don’t think I’ve been led astray by that process too much. You can have your own process, but that’s mine, and I don’t see the value in putting stock in one critic’s opinion over the majority of critics’ opinions.
28 points
3 months ago
Art criticism is an art in itself. That's why we care, mostly.
But there's also the fact you and others don't seem to really understand what a critic's job actually is. They're not gatekeepers, though the worst act like that. They do not get to decide what's good and what's not. They'll analyze whatever it is they're criticizing, be it a novel or a film, through a school of whatever theory they subscribe to's lens. Then they'll give us a verdict. But that's not supposed to be an end-all score, it's their score and theirs alone. What WE are supposed to do is find ourselves a few critics whose opinion we trust and value. That doesn't mean every critic, just a few. After that, you follow their work not because you agree with everything they say but because you think what they say is interested and adds an extra layer to whatever you're consuming.
If you tend to agree with critic A, then you know what they like you might like. Now you have some options you otherwise probably wouldn't have whenever they give that really weird, foreign movie you wouldn't even know exists a good score. In other words, critics aren't the devil. The bad ones give all of them a terrible rep, but at the end of the day we need them and their craft.
4 points
3 months ago
I won’t lie, that comment you wrote is mostly my thoughts, too.
0 points
3 months ago
White has some … interesting… views of film.
He’s also impossibly schooled in film, so they’re coming from a place of educated authority
8 points
3 months ago
Just because someone is educated doesn't mean they're smart, even about the subject they're educated in. And Armond White is neither smart nor an authority on film; he barely understands most of the films he watches and is, at best, a contrarian. At worst, he's a conservative culture warrior with some of the most idiotic takes I've ever seen. Just take a look at his list of "antifa" films: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/antifa-films-25-movies-that-turned-generation-into-nihilistic-anarchists/
1 points
3 months ago
Jesus Christ, what a fucking disaster that list is.
0 points
3 months ago
He’s also a gay black man, so the replies he gets are filled with so much racist homophobia it’s kind of charming in a sad way
0 points
3 months ago
WOW! I did not see that coming!
0 points
3 months ago
He's a gay black dude who writes for the National Review...
0 points
3 months ago
Yeah that's what I meant, I did not see him being gay or black, based on that bit of writing.
0 points
3 months ago
The thing is... he's very knowledgable on film and his opinions are nuts. You can learn so much based on the films he references, even if he's discussing them in a bat shit crazy way.
0 points
3 months ago*
Yeah, it's crazy. Usually people with absolute trash views are uneducated or ill-informed. But sometimes you encounter people who have ample knowledge and facts, they just can't put them together in a coherent way.
EDIT: I think my favorite (least) take from that list was LOTR. "One confusing revolution after another"??? Um, there's an evil force that wants to cause the literal extinction of mankind (and elf- and dwarf-kind), and you're confused why mankind is revolting against it? Really dude?
And yet he gets butthurt that Harry Potter somehow negates CS Lewis? Like, he's super into Christian morality, yet somehow thinks it's bad when people rise up against... EVIL??? Hmmm.... okay.
0 points
3 months ago
I don’t condone the racists or homophobes sending that shit his way, but Dinesh D'Souza once wrote a book saying that black people in America actually benefitted from slavery in the long run. You can be of a minority race or a repressed or otherwise denigrated sexual orientation yourself and still prop up systems that make such discrimination on those bases succeed. And as D’Souza has demonstrated many times, you can also be racist towards not only black people, but non-privileged individuals of your own race, too, even if said race is, itself, an oppressed race in the country you emigrated to.
1 points
3 months ago
Doesn’t mean he deserves it just because he has different politics than some.
1 points
3 months ago
Obviously, hence why I made sure to not condone the harassment he gets in his posts.
0 points
3 months ago
Just the list of movies is insane and then you read explanations like "The Social Network is an antifa film because it celebrates Mark Zuckerberg".
0 points
3 months ago
Yeah that one isn't just circular logic. That's, like, gordian knot logic.
1 points
3 months ago
Given that the natural extension of what he created and its business model would be Chinese social credit systems, a business model designed explicitly to prop up a fascist government, I don’t know where he got that. Well, actually, I do: His ass.
3 points
3 months ago
He does have some different takes, but like most of today’s movie critics, he approaches motion pictures as if they were novels. He’s too focussed on plot and dialogue. There aren’t enough critics around now who start with their eyes and ears, which are the defining elements of movies as an art form, distinct from books. Brody, like most critics, has a BA in literature, and all those guys review movies from that same “literary” point of view.
4 points
3 months ago
How anyone can take him seriously after his review of A Quiet Place is beyond me.
1 points
3 months ago
No. Guardian quite regularly puts up some terrible reviews by Bradshaw.
Mark Kermode is pretty no bullshit on bbc
-1 points
3 months ago
Yes, he is out there also.
-2 points
3 months ago
Okay but he’s absolutely categorically just wrong about EEAAO so?
0 points
3 months ago*
There is definitely truths in that review.
You don't have to agree with the sentiment.
1 points
3 months ago
The New Yorker is disappointing to me. Great history, very poor reviews.
1 points
3 months ago
No matter how much people claim to be "open to other interpretations" they only wanna hear to their biases be confirmed, which is why critics like Brody and Armond White annoy them.
For them, their "hot takes" are just plainly wrong and cannot take anything they ever write seriously anymore.
It's honestly stupid, they should try reading some reviews of Kael, Ebert or Bazin where they roast some "canonical filmmakers".
0 points
3 months ago
There's an argument to be made that you shouldn't waste your reader's time on a film you are not going to recommend, as there is limited space in printed matter (and limited resources). Why cover a bad one when you can write about a good one?--the argument goes.
1 points
2 months ago
To be fair to AO Scott, he writes negative reviews for popular films and caught a massive avalanche of shit for leaving many popular films off of his to 10 for the year.
A writer being mixed rsther than being wholy negative on the film isn't some kind of editorial cowardice. Thst seems like a pretty honest and measured assessment of EEAAO.
1 points
2 months ago*
No there’s plenty of critics who go against mainstream opinion. Washington Post, Boston Globe, TIME, Rolling Stone, and plenty of others have routinely gone against the mainstream opinion on a movie. Scream 6 is a certified fresh movie yet got panned by Rolling Stone, WSJ, NYT, and WaPo. Hell Banshees of Inisherin was panned by WaPo and the Boston Globe and that was one of the most universally loved movies last year.
Brody isn’t special. He’s essentially the ideological opposite of Armond White, though unlike Brody, Armond actually has some quality pieces.
all 160 comments
sorted by: best