Alita: Battle Angel (2018)

I think it's clear "objective" in this sense means predominantly concerned with the film as a piece of art, and not as a salvo in a culture war.

If a film is an unmitigated work of art: beautifully shot, and written, and scored, but it contains a loathsome message...is it a good film or not? That's the tough question. The steel man question, as opposed to the straw man of "should critics just list boring facts?" Which nobody thinks and nobody has suggested.

Hard to comment on a film I haven't seen as far as political ideology is involved, but I have seen the critics slay films recently while explicitly stating a political agenda as the reason. The recent remake of Death Wish comes to mind (RT rating 17% vs Audience of 75%). The didn;t like the gun stuff, and they especially didn't like the pro-2A speech given my a bit player in the film. I thought the film was just OK, and overall a fairly pointless remake. For the record, I feel that way about most remakes.

As for searching for problematic issues in film, I do tend to notice that issues these days are mentioned in much less subtle ways than in decades past.I also agree that many folks are more sensitive to the preaching these days. Both are probably true: The messages are more frequent and more overt, and people are also hyper-sensitive to political preaching in films. I also feel that I see critics mention this stuff more these days.

__________________

I can barely remember having watched a musical biopic so the formula isn't tired to me but if I had maybe I would be more critical.

__________________

Part of assessing a film as art means determining what it ultimately means or is trying to say, which can't help but be influenced by a person's individual outlook. Even describing a film in bluntly "objective" terms like "beautifully shot/written/scored with a loathsome message" still ends up reading like a subjective review because it's coming from one person's perspective about what constitutes high and low quality in each of those areas.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

This is the motte-and-bailey thing we've discussed before, because there's obvious scads of daylight between "should they just list facts?" and "it's reasonable to judge art at least partially by what it's trying to say," or however you would summarize the above.

Let's try it this way: do you think someone is being a good critic if they negatively review a piece of art they find beautifully made only because they don't like what it's saying? If so, then you already understand the sentiment being expressed. If not, then we have very different ideas of what it means to be a critic.

That's irrelevant to this question, which is about how much a critic should weigh a piece of art's artistic qualities against its political usefulness or agreeableness to them personally.

That judging art is subjective is obvious, but it is equally as obvious that ceasing to judge it as art at all is even moreso. Criticism can be more or less useful, and more or less mature, and it ceases to be useful or mature when it's simply used as a proxy for political opinions. Whatever subjectivity is intrinsic to the act is minimized when a lot of people absorb art, treat it primarily as art first, and talk and think a lot about what makes it good as art. The opposite happens when they abandon even that attempt and just start talking about what strikes them personally or politically.

I totally agree that the public can overrate films that they see, I've lamented often that you walk down the stairs after the cinema listening to folk banging on about how good that turd you watched was. That being said you are perhaps being overly dismissive of an audiences ability to review.

In aregards to Alita by the way I'm not suggesting that anything sinister is happening other than Critic incompetence.

I continue to subscribe to the idea that when the dust settles the user reviews, thousands of them will be able to give you a highly accurate indication of whether a game, TV show or movie is good or not and just how good or bad.

Yeah, I dig. That's understandable.

FWIW, I used to subscribe to this idea. But as media becomes stratified, I subscribe to it less and less. Seems like it's just too easy for people to figure out what they're getting ahead of time and then get it, and love it, so that audience scores are a lot less valuable than they used to be.

I do still use them sometimes for very general observations and baselines, but that's about it.

I don't always agree though, a gaming example would be PUBG, a game I have about 2000 hours in and like but due to repeatedly messing up issues and broken updates those are the issues that people take to the review sites and it sits about 5/10.

Hell I would probably give it 6/10 but I love it aswell. Not sure what point I'm making here .

identity politics are everything in modern day movie reviews. I mean just look at the stuff on letterboxd

https://letterboxd.com/vvitchenbaum/...-exploitative/

__________________

When you put it that way...I guess so?

Perhaps. I still reckon the flip-side is that a superficial assessment of a film's more immediately tangible details that doesn't actively elaborate upon any kind of deeper meaning (for better or worse) doesn't strike me as particularly useful or mature either, possibly even less so than the review-as-political-proxy.

I really think you should watch it. Gauging the movie by the dynamics between critic and public opinion is pretty limiting as I personally feel this type of movie plays very well to a specific audience (gamer, comic fan, sci-fi nut) but maybe not so much to the average person just looking for something to watch on a weekend afternoon. I do think lines have been blurred with the popularity of MCU titles, I mean specifically with accepting more cartoonish special effect heavy flicks as the norm by the general public. Still though, while Alita hits a lot of my hopes for such a movie, it does have a run of strikes. And they're obvious.

From a story telling perspective, it misses. Often. If I were to judge this solely on a technical and objective view, it would score lower than where I personally have it [3/5]. I would expect critics to recognize those shortcomings and note them accordingly. Now from a subjective and very personal perspective, I love sci-fi and I adore CGI special effects. Most any movie that attempts to break new ground or refine how they use such effects get bonus points from me by default (not Jurassic Park cuz I hate that franchise with a passion, but even I can admit the FX in those movies are brilliant). Alita is no exception there. At the same time though, Alita really is not exceptional save for the effects and how well they blend within the action, or any other quality the viewer wishes to project onto it. Apart from the violence and fight sequences, Ready Player One is probably technically superior.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

To confirm, you're responding to this?

...do you think someone is being a good critic if they negatively review a piece of art they find beautifully made only because they don't like what it's saying?

We have a pretty massive difference of opinion on what it means to be a critic, if you think the answer to this is "yes."

At this point I really think you need to expound on just what you think movie criticism is, because you seem to have defined it down to the point where it's just a synonym for "opinion," that doesn't even really attempt to divorce art from message or impact from craft.

My cynical side suspects you've done this by working backwards from the fact that people you usually disagree with are agitating the other way, and not necessarily out of some deliberate and previously thought-out conclusion, but please feel free to correct me by articulating something more thoughtful than that.

Why reckon about the flip-side at all? That seems to be the straw man I'm always talking about. Comparing your view to some opposite extreme is an easy way to make an idea look better than it is. Compare it to the best version of the opposing view you can formulate, instead, if you actually want to be even moderately introspective or self-critical.

I really don't know why you think these things are equal, anyway. Review-as-political-proxy is no longer engaging with art on the level of art. It implies that the art is subsumed by the political, which seems like the kind of thing you (and most people) would rightly hate in the abstract.

Maybe I should reformulate. Out of touch objectively. Objectively corresponding to a reasonable persons standards rather than out of touch with the masses - which are at times..unreasonable, however a strong divergence from the public raises questions. Then it gets a little difficult with the next layer which is the audience - as it may appeal to the audience but not the gen public. Complicated.

Although no doubt it occurs, it would be strange for a critic to actively go in one direction without some objective guide. Guide? Cinematography, story, acting....and making an effort to be objective without indulging in ideologies. Fair game if its a nazi propaganda type movie and you are opposed to nazis however a reasonable person objective standard would be opposed to this type of film and it should be marked down accordingly.

I only come from this from a personal and very small sample. I used to read reviews throughout my youth - it was a thing I enjoyed. I read less and less these days (making the sample even smaller) however I have noted things like characters and 'originality' being marked up or down according to ideology or more specifically - social politics. Now! If you are going to call me on this and get me to provide examples for Atila - I can't. I haven't read any reviews lol. I haven't seen the film, lol again.

So...in reply, yes, it does make me suspicious when there's a great divide between a critics score and audience score. But there are various things that counter that such as the specific audience, the unreasonableness of the masses, etc. But I'm allowed my suspicion. Perhaps I went a bit far condemning them as 'out of touch' - in regards to the masses and my objective explanation here - I can concede this however I hope you can see that it raises questions.

Wait, I thought that post was phrased in such a way that disagreeing with the sentiment meant we had different ideas of what constituted being a critic, but now it's agreeing with that which means we hold different ideas? Does this mean you subscribe to a third way of thinking? In any case, it sounds like we do have different takes on this matter.

Regarding whether or not my concept of criticism is essentially redressed opinion...I'd say it's at least partially true, and I reckon that's worth acknowledging with some honesty rather than attempting to hold one's self to some purely academic ideal of objectivity that may well be subconsciously skewed by personal perspective anyway. I disagree with a lot of different people when it comes to movies, but I don't think I outright claim that my arguments are inherently rooted in objectivity because that sounds like it's more liable to limit any sort of dialogue and my ability to process other people's arguments. Sometimes my responses are more about that kind of processing rather than trying to "defeat" a person by proving that my point is the only correct one. In any case, I just question the idea that it's a more valid form of criticism to separate "art" and message into mutually exclusive concepts that can easily be judged individually rather than examining how they inform or reflect one another's overall quality.

As for whether or not this stance is simply reverse-engineered from arguments like the ones in this thread, I think the next post I quote makes it clear that there needed to be a better clarification of terms in order for any of this to really make sense, especially regarding the concept of objectivity in criticism (and what "objective" even means, and exactly how much relevance any of us think it really holds).

These methods can be considered equal in that they are both about compartmentalising whole artworks and emphasising different aspects of what makes the art good or bad, so obviously it's a matter of questioning why we should favour one method over the other - you could arguably compare it to splitting the difference between style and substance. If judging a film purely by its politics and/or messages is "no longer engaging it as art", then can't you say the same by judging it purely as a surface-level audio-visual experience? Maybe a pretty picture appeals to your aesthetic sensibilities, but it's what the picture is trying to communicate that's supposed to stick with you - I'm not just talking about politics here but also any other artistic theme. In this regard, this may well be what I formulate as the "best version" of the flip-side - that while acknowledging a film's more readily-discernable aesthetic qualities is all well and good, it still seems like it's missing a bigger picture than the alternative.

That's a more understandable way of phrasing it, though of course it begs the question as to who or what counts as "reasonable" under the circumstances and how easy it is (or isn't) to define that. Regarding technical aspects like cinematography, it does help to have an understanding of the craftsmanship involved if only to be able to determine whether or not its abstract quality actually suits the material to which it's being applied.

As for critics-versus-audiences, I'll agree it is interesting to note when the divides are as sharp as they are in cases like this - I just don't think that automatically assuming it's a sign of critics being "out of touch" or whatever you want to call it is the ideal response even on the occasions where I myself disagree with critical consensus.

Excellent discussion, lads. If y'all have any pro reviewers to whom you're partial, how about listing some of them in the "Your favorite professional reviewers" thread under the "General Movie Discussion" forum.

I started the thread 3 days ago, but haven't seen any responses. Surely some members read pro reviews?

~Doc

The thing is that it is fundamentally impossible to measure "artistic quality" objectively.

Art is fundamentally subjective: artistic experience is the communication that arises between the individual and the piece of art. Each individual is different so each individual will have a different communication with the piece. What is "beautiful" depends on the individual.

I think that North American culture is particularly concerned with social conformity in terms of aesthetic tastes. In other countries, people are less concerned about "objective quality" of subjective things like movies and music, with means, essentially, they are less concerned about the concept of conforming to what is socially accepted as "good" or "bad", they have this very strong "review culture". That North Americans are so crazy about it is a bad thing in my opinion: they are forcing themselves to become slaves of the "socially accepted opinions".

In regarding movie reviews, I think that movies can only be objectively measured on how well they are received by their target audience. That is if the communication between the people who are the target audience for the movie and the movie results in a positive reaction. Alita's target audience is young people who are interested in a science fiction action movie. This target audience loved it, so it is, by this objective standard, a good movie.

But given North American critics did not love it, it might not appeal to the preferences of this (commercially insignificant) group. It is not like James Cameron was trying to make this movie pander to the few hundred paid movie reviewers in North America, as most of its revenues are projected to come from China and Japan anyway.

Of course, the feminazi critics like this one https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/a...tle-angel-2019, are going to criticize the movie:

So, what does that say about the movie? Nothing. Her criticism only gives information about her, not the movie she is "reviewing": it says that the critic is unable to tolerate the idea that people might find what she calls "Barbie-size proportions" beautiful or that a female might develop a crush on a very attractive looking male that is Hugo.

The vast majority of the world's population does not holt into any form of "identity politics".

Identity politics is a very recent and very Anglo-American thing that has no existence outside of Anglo-America from 1990 to 2019. It is a derivative of Marxism that emerged in recent decades and has deeply influenced the mentality of liberal-arts type people in Anglophone countries and some journalists elsewhere. In Japan, for instance, there is no such thing. In Brazil we have a little bit of identity politics creeping up among people who are easily influenced by American media.

Identity politics is not a typical form of political ideology, it is a totalitarian ideology. A totalitarian ideology is such that is dominates the totality of a persons' though. In that case, a movie critic will be unable to tolerate any deviations from the "party-line" and will lash out at any perceived deviations. That is exactly what happened with the reviewer I quote above.

Totalitarian ideologies are enemies of art because art is communication between individuals: art is individual expression and totalitarian ideologies do not tolerate out any form of individual expression that does not conform to the "party line". Which greatly restricts artistic expression.

For example, Anglo-American identity politics regard as intolerable the depiction of a female cyborg that looks thin or a gay man who suffered problems in his personal life because of his homosexuality.

See? That is an exact example of totalitarian ideology in action right now: you find it intolerable to depict some things that, well, happen to gay people.

When I saw the movie I just saw it as a depiction of the hardships a gay man had to go through in the 1970s and 1980s. Yes, it was not easy to be gay back in the 1970s and 1980s. To depict that fact is disrespectful? I never saw anything remotely homophobic in the movie. In fact, I think that depicting Freddie as an LGBT activist first and as "Freddie, the artist" second would be the true insult, which is exactly what movie critics expected.

Alita is not really concerned with "class warfare". That is a Marxist reading of the movie or the manga.

What the manga shows is that there exist a floating city where people are well-off and a dirty city at the "bottom" where people are not well-off. Although I thought that in both the manga and the movie the difference between scrapyard and Zalen is the difference between living in developed or developing countries and not really about social stratification since Zalen and scrapyard/Iron City are two separate societies. People in scrapyard dream about going to Zalen in the same way that people in Africa and Latin America dream about migrating to Anglo-America or Europe. Anyway, the existence of social stratification does not imply in the existence of "class consciousness" much less "class struggle", which are ultimately a Marxist fictions.

Aita and transsexuality? What? I read all the 30+ volumes of the manga published over the past 30 years and there was never a hint of anything about transsexuality in it. I guess the movie's take on transhumanism would have more relevance on the obesity epidemic that occurs in North America as transhuman cyborgs in the movie never looked overweight (although there are some overweight looking cyborgs in the manga).

The social role of a movie critic is to provide information to the prospective audience about the quality of the movies available. Information should be relevant to the prospective audience by informing the audience about movies they might enjoy before they watched it.

For example, when I read critics reviews of Alita I felt like reading a vegan's criticism of a steakhouse. How relevant is the opinion of a vegan regarding a steakhouse to the prospective public for the steakhouse? The critics reviewing movies like Alita or Bohemian Rhapsody are clearly not part of the movie's target audience, their criticism is only a reflection of that, their words have little resemblance to what the movies are trying to achieve.

When movie critics are approaching a movie without taking into account what the movie wants to do and what the audience might want from the movie they are not doing their job. Alita is not trying to be a neo-Marxist piece of identity politics, it is trying to be a science fiction visual effects-driven action movie. Movie critics are unable or unwilling to evaluate what it is trying to be and so they are not being competent.

Of course, some people argue that the role of a movie critic is not that: That critics should measure the "artistic value" of a movie. However, artistic value has no objective existence outside of the interaction between the movie and its target audience.

I think that the best example in my experience is music reviews. In particular, heavy metal music reviews. Being a metal head I almost only read metal music reviews written by fellow metalheads.

When I read mainstream music reviewers list ( like this https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...-ozzy-osbourne) it feels like I am reading something from someone from the outside, who do not really respects nor understands what he is talking about, trying to describe to other outsiders what he perceived. To me, this kind of review is not useful.

What I really found useful when exploring metal albums is reviews by people like this: https://www.metal-archives.com/user-.../hells_unicorn, he reviewed 3,000 metal albums and has superb understanding and knowledge about the genre.

Movies tend to have a bit of a broader appeal than music so profession reviews they tend to be more useful. Still, movie critics have not learned from videogame critics yet that they should limit themselves to reviewing movie genres that they like.

Otherwise, they just sound like vegans trying to review the food of a steakhouse.

That review is sickening - and to come from the Ebert website smh.

Another movie the critics got quite wrong is Greatest Showman, everyone I know loves it, especially those with kids. Was reminded about it due to Hugh Jackman performing at the Brit Awards last night.

Audiences scores are not fantastically high or anything but the critics basically panned it.

I get a lot of what Yoda is saying about it being their job etc but can they not lighten up a bit and enjoy this fun event movie.

I've listened to million dreams by Pink and Never Enough an embarressing number of times.

The Greatest Showman is one of those word of mouth films that probably did better last year, especially around Xmas than the year before having been critically dismissed.