Watching Movies Alone with crumbsroom

Indeed. There’s another layer to the critical controversy where a bunch of climate scientists have launched a logically fallacious assault on film critics, essentially saying that them not liking the film shows that they don’t care about the climate crisis.

It’s sparked a huge back and forth where both parties are comically inept.

The critics are largely out of touch, poorly articulate and uneducated in the field they purport to be experts in.

The climate scientists don’t understand film criticism either and are confusing the “what” with the “how.”

So critics are trying to do some “nuh uh, you lack self awareness because this backlash against critics is indicative of the general resentment of the expert opinion you’re complaining about!”

But most film critics are hardly experts. And their complaints for this film seem to stem more from personal exhaustion from the stupidity of the world rather than the movie itself, many irate because it doesn’t offer a positive outcome or outlook. It’s **** criticism hit by **** criticism and what could be more befitting for a movie about what a ********* our world is, despite being a mostly okay flick overall.

I had read about the scientists response to the criticism of the movie and meant to reference how that also has got me screaming hopelessly into the collar of my shirt.


At this point, it's not even about movies anymore. Or art. Or science . Or politics. It's just the death of discourse, the swapping of thoughts in any kind of good faith. It is maddening. And it seems like Don't Look Up is the kind of movie that is particularly exploiting the fissures in all the dumb-talk that is swirling around it.


In short, people are tools. And if they don't like Mackay glibly pointing it out to them, regardless of the quality of the actual movie, I'm beyond any sympathy for those who feel they've been pointed out.

Did I ever say I liked Logan?


I liked Logan.

2/3 great. 1/3 ehhh

Haven't seen Don't Look Up yet, but it did inspire one of the most savage one-sentence reviews I've seen on Letterboxd lately:

Hell yeah; the biggest game-changer for Superhero movies since The Dark Knight, baby!

Logan is on the shortlist of movies I'll cite as "the only good superhero movie", despite the fact that there are a decent number I actually like.

Thanks. I like you too.

That's true.

Logan is one of the few superhero films I actually like quite a bit.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

You, sir, are the only good superhero movie.

Actually, he said he "liked" Logan, indicating he used to like you but doesn't anymore.

I accept that I'm not the audience for these kinds of things, and there is no doubt some do it better than others, but Logan was different in that it had a human element to it which felt convincing. Approaching truth and not some put on meant to pretend there is some kind of gravity in what I'm watching. It wasn't only that it was more realistically rendered, more grounded in reality, but was actually willing to let its dramatic scenes breath. It is amazing what a world of difference that makes for me. While I'm rarely the one to invest too much in 'rooting' for the good guys to win, at least when the film is presented to me like this it feels like it has stakes. Usually, in superhero films, the characters feel more like soundbites than human. I take offence in this kind of pure cinematic artifice also asking me to treat the life and death stakes they offer with any level of seriousness. You can't do both with me. Logan allowed me to treat what I was watching like it might actually matter.

Doesn't this assume it will change something about these kinds of movies though? It seems to me they have just settled back into the same-ol' since Logan's release.

If anything they've gotten worse. Did you guys see WW84? Yeesh.


(Actually, that one is interesting for how it foregrounds the audience contempt that drives the genre, as the plot is basically about how we shouldn't want better lives for ourselves. Shut up and eat your gruel.)

Crumbsroom, watch WW84.

My problem with Logan is that it aims high dramatically, and often succeeds on the strength of it's cast and characters, only to become narratively lazy and sloppy, as if relying on the comic book crutch to not craft an intelligent story to match.

This comes to a head in the farm house, where it sacrifices the most dramatically potent moment for a "whaaat??? Evil clone!!!" reveal. There's two movies at odds with each other in Logan and in the 3rd act, the worse film wins.

It's still a groovy film overall and among my favorite superhero joints but that dissonance cut it off at the knees before it could really stand alongside my favorites. I'd even take X2 and Days of Future Past over it, as it stands.

It's frustrating because The Wolverine had the exact same problem. I thought they'd learned from their mistakes only to see them double down and go "eh, just have the mercenaries chase the superkids on door and grab em as if they don't have powers that will evicerate them. And a tree trunk should be able to breach an adamantium skeleton." I can accept such things when a movie holds itself to be stupid fun. But even in the script for Logan, it's clear all involved are going for a big ol SERIOUS MOVIE.

I think I agree with this.

I'm so illiterate in comic book that I read this as World War 84.

Patty Jenkins and Gal Gadot did declare war on the world with that film, so it's a fitting misread.

And let's bring some attention to the hilarity of critics drawing comparisons of their expertise with that of scientists. Let's put aside the fact that scientists have empirical data at their hand which leads them to their results, and aren't guided mostly by intuition as most critics (even the best ones) ultimately are.



If critics can claim to be experts in anything, it is understanding the history of film and its general evolution as an art form, the historical (social, economic, philosophical) context of whatever is feeding the intentions of the artist and a general understanding of the many different approaches a movie director may be adopting as they try to articulate their creative impulses. But exactly how are most of these detractors folding these elements into their take down of Don't Look Up? How many of them have actually scratched beyond their irritation with MacKays smugness or the overwhelming feel-badness of this project? With presumed grievances that they are being made fun of too? Because it seems to me they are trying to relabel their twisted panties as 'expertise' and its amazing seeing these third rate ****s trying to stand proudly on some kind of moral or intellectual pedestal that anyone with eyes can see isn't about to support the weight of their dank, undeserved egos.


Whether or not Don't Look Up is great, good, just okay, kinda crummy or a total turd, nearly every vitriolic comment I've read about it from critics seems to be misguided in Modest Proposal sized proportions. They don't appear to know exactly from what angle they can fairly criticize it, so they are falling back on some kind of protective outrage at the simple gall of what the movie is trying to do. At its outrageous levels of bile. At its lack of taste. That it dares to take aim at more than just the handful of targets these critics think are worthy of this kind of scorn.


Frankly, I'm just finding myself liking the movie more and more seeing what a nerve it has clearly struck in people. Even with the messiness, even with the indulgence, maybe it was actually better than I thought.