GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Reviewers on crack...

POSTED BY: JACQUI
UPDATED: Monday, October 3, 2005 00:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5215
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 5:31 AM

JACQUI


Okay, it's almost so tragic it's laughable...

I said almost.

I was talking to my friend today and she was telling me about this review she'd read of "Serenity" which introduced the characters and had managed to label Wash as the mechanic, River *and* Simon as genius fugitives tortured by the government, Inara as the *crew's* companion and... wait for it... this is the best part... Kaylee as Inara's sidekick and companion in training.



WTF???

Did this person even *look* at a press release for the movie? Or the cover of the DVD box?

I think I might cry. Luckily, I don't think this was in any big press, because I haven't come across it anywhere. (If I did, I'd have words to say about and to the reviewer, let me tell you).

Has anyone else come across such blatant *bad* reviews?

Anyways, my friend and I are waiting for the TV spin off "Inara the Super Space Slut and her Amazing Sidekick Kute Kaylee!". Should be fun.

*sigh*

*~*~*
"Your toes are in the sand."
"And your head's up your..."
"Hey!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 5:51 AM

TOMANTA


The review from Filmsinreview.com (which I am having trouble finding on their site now, but is still linked from rottontomatoes). My comments in []'s. It should be noted that this is an organization that advertises themselves as having reviewed films since 1908.

Some choice quotes:
"A comment by my husband applies here: We signed up for a friend’s weeklong biofeedback program. We left after two days. My husband told the director: “How do you tell someone their baby is ugly?”" [why does this have to do with Serenity?]

"Science now can program everyone’s thoughts and lives (For those interested, I’d like to recommend Jose M. R. Delgrado’s notorious “Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society.”). All, except rebel Capt. Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and the crew of his ship, Serenity." [Say WHAT?]

"The ship’s doctor, Simon (Sean Maher), needs help freeing his creepy, catatonic, but powerfully psychic, 17-year-old sister River Tam (Summer Glau), from the Alliance’s grip. Shoeless and dopey"

[Dopey? I looked up the definition... one applies, but the commonly held one does not.

Catatonic? um... no.]

"Fillion, an obvious alterego for Wheldon, is given all the sexy close-ups."

[So... Mal = Whedon? Hardly.]



"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 5:52 AM

MANWITHPEZ

Important people don't do field work.


I'd watch that show...you know, if it came on HBO late at night or something...

Kidding..I kid...because I lust...LOVE...love,...that's what I meant to say...

Kaylee: "What's so damn important about being proper? It don't mean nothing out here in the black."
Simon: "It means more out here. It's all I have..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:22 AM

THIEFJEHAT


With held breath I waited to see how film critics would react to the film. I saw it during the June 23 screening and I left with a nagging feeling:

For the uninitiated, it may end up being confusing.

And that is precisely the kind of negative reviews I'm reading. On rottentomatoes right now is a review that says exactly that: http://www.threemoviebuffs.com/review.php?movieID=serenity I'm just glad he gave it a fresh tomatoe.

I walked out of theater happy with what I experienced. However I overheard a girl who had obviously been brought along by friends and who had never seen Firefly before. She was asking questions like "Who is (character)?" Why is that person important? What is the Alliance? On and on like that... And I knew right then that this was going to be the biggest problem with this film in getting gross sales figures up.

You see, in 1977 when star wars debued, the USA went nuts. It played in theaters for 50 weeks. That was FIFTY weeks. A whole freaking year. People just kept going back and back for more. That is why it became such a phenomenon and became one of the largest grossing movies of all time. But with Serenity, I fear that new viewers will go...become confused...and drop off the radar. Those of us who are fans will see it again and again...but who knows if it'll be enough.

I want this movie to succeed, I really do. But back in June I said out loud that I feared uninitiated film critics would be harsh, and it seems I was right.



Do not fear me. Ours is a peaceful race, and we must live in harmony.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:37 AM

GIXXER


I too saw the Filmsinreview thingy. Mostly because I want to see the freshs steadily outweighing the rottens. That review was absolute nonsense, (and I say that as haven't seen the BDM yet). Faith is important. And adequate vaccuuming systems.

The site has an amusing archive for something that claims to have been first reviewing the film shows on the deck of the Santa Maria.

I don't have much time for any any critic who doesn't love, or even have a review for "Grosse Pointe Blank" (which incidentally I think is up there with Firefly for effective "conversions.") Nobody you kidnap, tape their eyelids open, and force to watch it can resist it. That came out wrong...

They also liked Matrix Reloaded. I've got that and tried watching it. Fights, action, cup of tea, CGI, more fights, bullet time stuff that was already old by the end of Crouching Tiger, more fights, any change of any script / plot happening anytime soon? No, but here's some more relentless (yet nowhere as near as good as "Aliens") action.

That's 12 minutes of my life I'll never see again...

At dinner I am getting earful.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:03 AM

TOMANTA


Quote:

Originally posted by thiefjehat:

I walked out of theater happy with what I experienced. However I overheard a girl who had obviously been brought along by friends and who had never seen Firefly before. She was asking questions like "Who is (character)?" Why is that person important? What is the Alliance? On and on like that... And I knew right then that this was going to be the biggest problem with this film in getting gross sales figures up.



One of the problems with this film is you HAVE to pay attention. Average moviegoers are used to not having to do so. 90% of what the audience needs to know about the universe and the characters is covered in the first 15 minutes.

It is definitely a problem, but it's not on Joss' end... I blame MTV :).

"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:50 AM

R1Z


Films in Review was, for 75 years, THE film review magazine, and their website is an offshoot.

Victoria Whatzername is listed as a staff writer, but I could not find her review on the site. I suspect she's using that credential to give some respectability to her review of "Josh Wheldon's" film. What I did find on the site was a wonderful review from a screening at the Edinburgh festival.

Anyone who's ever heard of Joss is going to give no credence to a reviewer who can't get the screenwriter/author's name right.

That being said, I suspect Serenity may turn out to be a film for grownups (yay!! doing the "it's about time happy dance". It may be too deep/involved for a 14 year old with a short attention span. This again, so is most anything written by Shakespeare.

At this point, what will be will be. I'm sanguine, and not in the "bloody" way.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:38 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Tomanta:
The review from Filmsinreview.com (which I am having trouble finding on their site now, but is still linked from rottontomatoes). My comments in []'s. It should be noted that this is an organization that advertises themselves as having reviewed films since 1908.

Some choice quotes:
"A comment by my husband applies here: We signed up for a friend’s weeklong biofeedback program. We left after two days. My husband told the director: “How do you tell someone their baby is ugly?”" [why does this have to do with Serenity?]




Yeah, you might have skipped over bits and pieces here. This from the end of the previous paragraph...
"Universal Pictures gave him money to patch together a movie of his maligned baby."

I think she meant how do you tell JW or the fans that the movie is "ugly" as in bad.


Quote:

Originally posted by Tomanta:


"Science now can program everyone’s thoughts and lives (For those interested, I’d like to recommend Jose M. R. Delgrado’s notorious “Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society.”). All, except rebel Capt. Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) and the crew of his ship, Serenity." [Say WHAT?]




Yeah, it's kind of hard to follow... But that's how the movie is going to play out for the majority of the audiences who have not already seen the OTS.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomanta:

"The ship’s doctor, Simon (Sean Maher), needs help freeing his creepy, catatonic, but powerfully psychic, 17-year-old sister River Tam (Summer Glau), from the Alliance’s grip. Shoeless and dopey"

[Dopey? I looked up the definition... one applies, but the commonly held one does not.

Catatonic? um... no.]

"Fillion, an obvious alterego for Wheldon, is given all the sexy close-ups."

[So... Mal = Whedon? Hardly.]





She might have this one nailed, it's usually a device writers use - whether consciously or subconsciously...

Quote:

Originally posted by Tomanta:

"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:42 PM

BLINKER


Quote:

Originally posted by Jacqui:
and... wait for it... this is the best part...



This ain't mere crack we're dealing with -- it's CRACK. That reviewer is on CRACK.

(Whole different beast.)

_________
Sliders: Gate Haven - http://slidersweb.net/blinker

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:19 PM

REALLYKAYLEE


jesus is cooler than most people think.

wanna know why?

because my uncle works for christian reader or whatever and they say that firefly and serenity are awesome! i don't think it's out yet- my shiny uncle sent it to me early but watch for it. the follow up questions are laudable as well . . .

shakespeare: more words than God.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:38 PM

MIKEYMO


I think it's been implied that Wash would be the Joss alter-ego of the group.

"Be ashamed to die before you have scored some victory for humanity." -- Horace Mann

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 3:15 PM

REALLYKAYLEE


didn't he say he was? i know he was gonna play badger, but wasn't wash, like, him?

inspiration

satan eats reavers
chocolate covered flesh bone bombs
watch out reviewers

shakespeare: more words than God.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:02 PM

JASONZZZ



Spoiler alert in the following question...


Select to view spoiler:




So what does that mean if Wash, Zoe, and Book are killed off?





Quote:

Originally posted by MikeyMo:
I think it's been implied that Wash would be the Joss alter-ego of the group.

"Be ashamed to die before you have scored some victory for humanity." -- Horace Mann




Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

Given the freedom to do so, anarchy will result in an organic organization unto itself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:14 PM

MALICIOUS


Quote:

Originally posted by R1Z:
...I suspect she's using that credential to give some respectability to her review of "Josh Wheldon's" film. ...

...Anyone who's ever heard of Joss is going to give no credence to a reviewer who can't get the screenwriter/author's name right...



Speaking of holes who don't know Joss' name, this was from the first email I recieved from FoxMusic regarding the soundtrack:

Quote:

Announcing the long awaited original television soundtrack from [bold]Josh Whedon's TV series “Firefly” - available for purchase now at the Fox Music Store.


Thanks Fox!





Mal-licious

I'm going to add cursing and the hurling about of things to my repertoire.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 4:16 PM

R1Z


Ole' Josh gets around, doesn't he?

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2005 6:14 PM

WIBBLEDTODEATH


Quote:

Originally posted by Tomanta:

"The ship’s doctor, Simon (Sean Maher), needs help freeing his creepy, catatonic, but powerfully psychic, 17-year-old sister River Tam (Summer Glau), from the Alliance’s grip. Shoeless and dopey"

[Dopey? I looked up the definition... one applies, but the commonly held one does not.

Catatonic? um... no.]

"Fillion, an obvious alterego for Wheldon, is given all the sexy close-ups."

[So... Mal = Whedon? Hardly.]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



She might have this one nailed, it's usually a device writers use - whether consciously or subconsciously...



Yes, I think a problem with this review is that the reviewer is ASSUMING, based on the pattern of other movies, certain things about Serenity which are not true....and most reviewers do it.....

It is a device they use....

What follows is a quote from Joss...see full interview at http://homepage.mac.com/merussell/iblog/B835531044/C1592678312/E200509
16182427/index.html


"Mal is somebody that I knew, as I created him, I would not get along with. I don't think we have the same politics...." It goes on to imply that Mal is "wrong" according to Joss, but the movie is (if anything) about the right to be wrong...

Dont sound like much of an alter ego to me!...That, after all... is what Wash is for.....

----------------------------------------
Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. (:~D

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:33 AM

ANSEM


My friend told me that he read a review in the paper this morning that gave Serenity a 5/10. He said the review just said this, "I give Serenity a 5/10, the movie didn't intrigue me much but everyone else in the theater loved it."

Does the movie not explain who these people are at all? Even if it doesn't, a 5/10!? Jeez, I usually would only give something less than a 6 if it sucked beyond belief.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Angel: They talk about me in the chatty rooms?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:38 AM

GIXXER


Thumbs up to Scott Weinberg. Comes over as "Reviewer babbling like you do when you spill out onto the street after seeing a really great movie".

Efilmcritic.com critters are usually short and snappy (and right).

To see him use up about five reviews worth of words in one go did my heart good.


...all those years of priest trainin'...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 29, 2005 5:05 AM

ZEEK


Note: Steve Rhodes is another bad reviewer.

Seriously, I can get that you'd feel like you're missing something watching the movie, because obviously you don't have the whole backstory on these characters. You know what? I never did find out who Morpheus's parents were and what his first bike looked like. I know that characters in movies have backstory that we just aren't going to get in the movie. Why is it that reviewers all of a sudden make a fuss about it when they know that backstory exists somewhere else?

I think if some of these reviewers were never told about Firefly that they'd all of a sudden give Serenity a much better review. Whatever, the majority are on board. That's good enough for me.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2005 10:32 AM

BLINKER


Whoa. You thought those reviews were inaccurate? Check out THIS one!

http://www.nycny.com/movies/serenity/index.html

_________
Sliders: Gate Haven - http://slidersweb.net/blinker

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 3, 2005 12:04 AM

JUKO


Yeah, I was so cheesed off at the review that graced our newspaper. I doubt very much if the reviewer had seen much more than the trailer, if that. And she spelled it Reever (you're writing for a damn newspaper... try doing some research, or at the very least pick up a damn dictionary... it's "reave", you ninny). Of course with that in the paper, I hate to wonder at the damage it did to viewership in my city. I'm just glad Ebert and Roeper give the big ol' thumbs up x2

Does Blue Sun sponser the Blue Man Group?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL