Lex M
Auditioning
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1
I know a lot of people here frequent DVD Movie Guide, and in fact that Colin is a member here, or at least was the last time I visited some time ago.
Anyway, I have to compliment him by saying in terms of the technical analysis of the discs, Colin's site is quite good. I think he's a little too big on whether or not EVERY second of a commentary is packed with nonstop "information," but that's just personal preference -- I like a frivolous commentary, CJ seems to like them serious and technical. Fair enough.
I can even allow that his personal taste is fairly different from my own; In general, CJ's tastes are pretty much straight-down-the-middle-o'-the-road, nothing disreputable, no camp, no appreciation of junk. If we're being honest, I wish he'd loosen up from time to time, but if that's his taste, so be it. Hell, Kenneth Turan of the LA Times is miles stuffier, but he's still a decent enough writer to make his opinions worth checking out.
But sometimes, CJ just seems so, I don't know, PUT OUT by having to write these reviews. He doesn't strike me as a junior-league Tarantino champing at the bit to see each and every movie. It seems like more movies than not are a minor nuisance to him, and the overall tone is, "I don't see what the big deal is." I think with relatively few exceptions, anyone who reads a sampling of reviews at DVDMG would come away by blurring them all into one -- The tone, the style, the wording is pretty much the same, time in and out for years now -- "Some people love this and think it's a classic, but it didn't do much for me." Even the "praised" films are qualified with endless adverbs -- moderately, generally, modestly, fairly -- which are repeated ad nauseum.
I always wonder, does this guy, you know, LIKE movies? If reviewing them is such a burden, why do it? Or why not mix it up and go really funny with it -- There's nothing wrong with a curmudgeon. Hell, unleash all this disappointment, rather than just wishy-washy faint praise and qualified enthusiasm.
And on a film history basis, CJ is "moderately" sharp but sometimes a little wanting. It seems most films, no matter how classic, have somehow been unseen by him until they arrive at his doorstep on a shiny DVD. While this is inetersting, as it shows how a critical mind un-swayed by years of rose-colored glasses nostalgia might see a "classic" in a new, unprejudiced light, it also just kind of comes off as not really having seen much. And making a claim that Kubrick somehow "ripped off" AMITYVILLE HORROR, even though THE SHINING was notoriously in production for years before the other film was even released, is all kinds of wrong.
Sorry, Colin, I appreciate the effort, but I really want you to mix it up a little; Surprise us with some new insights, or change up the writing style a bit. Sure, Roger Ebert or Manohla Dargis might have a "voice," but each individual review doesn't sound like a Xerox of the last.
Lex.
Anyway, I have to compliment him by saying in terms of the technical analysis of the discs, Colin's site is quite good. I think he's a little too big on whether or not EVERY second of a commentary is packed with nonstop "information," but that's just personal preference -- I like a frivolous commentary, CJ seems to like them serious and technical. Fair enough.
I can even allow that his personal taste is fairly different from my own; In general, CJ's tastes are pretty much straight-down-the-middle-o'-the-road, nothing disreputable, no camp, no appreciation of junk. If we're being honest, I wish he'd loosen up from time to time, but if that's his taste, so be it. Hell, Kenneth Turan of the LA Times is miles stuffier, but he's still a decent enough writer to make his opinions worth checking out.
But sometimes, CJ just seems so, I don't know, PUT OUT by having to write these reviews. He doesn't strike me as a junior-league Tarantino champing at the bit to see each and every movie. It seems like more movies than not are a minor nuisance to him, and the overall tone is, "I don't see what the big deal is." I think with relatively few exceptions, anyone who reads a sampling of reviews at DVDMG would come away by blurring them all into one -- The tone, the style, the wording is pretty much the same, time in and out for years now -- "Some people love this and think it's a classic, but it didn't do much for me." Even the "praised" films are qualified with endless adverbs -- moderately, generally, modestly, fairly -- which are repeated ad nauseum.
I always wonder, does this guy, you know, LIKE movies? If reviewing them is such a burden, why do it? Or why not mix it up and go really funny with it -- There's nothing wrong with a curmudgeon. Hell, unleash all this disappointment, rather than just wishy-washy faint praise and qualified enthusiasm.
And on a film history basis, CJ is "moderately" sharp but sometimes a little wanting. It seems most films, no matter how classic, have somehow been unseen by him until they arrive at his doorstep on a shiny DVD. While this is inetersting, as it shows how a critical mind un-swayed by years of rose-colored glasses nostalgia might see a "classic" in a new, unprejudiced light, it also just kind of comes off as not really having seen much. And making a claim that Kubrick somehow "ripped off" AMITYVILLE HORROR, even though THE SHINING was notoriously in production for years before the other film was even released, is all kinds of wrong.
Sorry, Colin, I appreciate the effort, but I really want you to mix it up a little; Surprise us with some new insights, or change up the writing style a bit. Sure, Roger Ebert or Manohla Dargis might have a "voice," but each individual review doesn't sound like a Xerox of the last.
Lex.
