Film Fanatics - Chat Thread II

I really want to see Julia's Eyes. I'm probably going to have to go to Leicester Square to see it because my nearest cinema sucks, but I think it'll be worth it. I can say to my parents that it's good Spanish practise.

Are you going today ?

I thought that about Ratatouille lol

Now there's 2 other films that are supposedly going to follow (maybe have one in each decade), do you think they should leave the original trilogy alone? Or will there be a point where they reboot that era again with a fresh take?

Same.

Watched Tangled, Cars and Toy Story 3 in recent weeks.

I must say, I enjoyed all three a lot more than I expected to. All three had very good humour mixed with excellently well put-together action scenes. The dialogue in Pixar films is much cleverer than I remember, too.

I hear nothing but good things about Up, but the lack of dialogue puts me off. It was one reason I was switched off entirely by Wall-E (amongst others).

Tangled was Disney, not Pixar- brilliant film though! You should give Up a chance, it's only a bit at the start that doesn't have dialogue, and it's a really moving sequence, the rest has plenty of talking.

Anyone else excited for Kung Fu Panda 2? Also really want to see X-Men: First Class but I'm not sure if I can find anyone to go with me.

I have a friend you might get on with who lives in Surrey and will want to see it again lol...

And on Ebert, maybe he does but you'd never guess it unless you read his reviews regularly, I check every now and then and just loads see poorly rated films and assume he doesn't like the majority of films (then again it is summer film season so that could a lot of the low ratings)

I always think ebert is often interpreted as being overly negative because he's one of the few people who actually uses the full range of ratings in a world where anything less than 8/10 or 4/5 is crap.

Ebert does not use more range than the vast majority of respected film critics. In fact, given that I just found out he only gave 13 out of 68 films less than half marks, I'd suggest he probably uses less.

What I've said can probably be spread across nearly all 'respectable' critics of just about everything. I haven't read anything from Ebert in a while tbh so maybe it's just the way i've perceived him in the past.

When the vast majority of society rely on reviews on Amazon (or whatever site people buy from) where everything is either the best film ever or something that should be smashed into a million pieces any real reviewer who gives it an accurate depiction can be seen as harsh.

Well yes, but then people who make their cultural judgements off the back of Amazon reviews and youtube comments (or many of the people who voice their opinions there) don't really deserve to be taken seriously. (As an aside, it could be argued that with the new reputation system and the visible indicator of how many people agree with you that is the way that TSR is heading)

I do really like Ebert as I think he has a very strong personalised way of reviewing that makes it more intimate, but with a few notable exceptions I do think he is more generous to films than a lot of critics. Someone I've really started reading a lot of recently is A. O. Scott - he's a lot more detached from the film and views it more critically, and almost always has something unique to offer in interpretation.