How To Train Your Dragon (2010): A-

There’s a common cliché in reviews to call an entertaining film; a thrill ride or a roller-coaster experience. As much as I hate to use and embrace this kind of term, no film in history has better represented that feeling than How to Train Your Dragon. The plot is intriguing but standard; the voice work is over-top but well executed blah blah blah. I’m going to challenge myself in this review to write about only one aspect of the film because there’s only one that really matters. That aspect is of course the scenes between our main protagonist and his dragon. More specifically, the flying sequences! There’s many classic flying scenes in film’s history; none of which are better than the ones found in this movie. I’m serious. It’s better than when Superman first lifts Louis into the sky. Better than when Harry first gets on his broom or when Buzz Lightyear finally gets to infinity and beyond. Even better than (and it hurts a bit to say) when E.T takes us up in the bikes and soars across the moon.

The reason why HTTYD is so successful is a mixture of human psychology and developments in 3-D technology. First, we are introduced to our easily likeable protagonist Hiccup. Then we get a cute dragon that just happens to also be the fastest and most powerful breed. Next is a training montage where Hiccup has to work for the gift he’s about to receive and then finally we’re off and flying.  The filmmakers at DreamWorks Animation set the right mood and start to use 3-D in the most beautiful display I’ve ever experienced. It’s not a subtle and cool use like Avatar, but a simple and well executed "Escapism Machine" that takes everyone in the audience and puts them on that dragon. Maybe DreamWorks puts us there so we can return to a child like simplicity. Or maybe it’s just to sell some dragon action figures. Whatever the reason is, it really worked. Go to the theaters and see this one in IMAX and 3-D. Don’t worry about the DVD, or action figures or T-shirts. I know it’s a big investment but put in the $13 and experience something truly spectacular.

Review: Taken (2008): B

There are many ways a revenge movie can be ruined. By revenge, I simply mean that the movie drifts along until Point A, then after that event we move into point B and spend the rest of the movie revenging the crimes of point A. Technically, this script does follow the standard 3 act formula, but you get the idea. Since the themes of revenge and vigilantism are highly controversial, it would take a masterpiece to provide well delivered commentary while still engaging in fun action. Most films can get the action right, but loose themselves in trying to preach to the audience. Director Luc Besson sidesteps this common mistake with ease and provides us with a revenge film done right.

The plot is simple; someone has taken Liam Neeson’s daughter and Neeson just happens to be an ex-preventer (a.k.a. an Ex-Jack Bauer ). The rest of the movie is spent hunting down the kidnappers and making them pay/die before his daughter is killed (or worse her virginity is taken!). Liam Neeson is great in his role but the credit for the success of this movie shouldn’t be steered away from Besson. Neeson is a convincing “One Man Army” but the performance is fairly passive. Another commonly flawed aspect of the revenge film that Besson executes perfectly is the setup. If we don’t get enough daddy-daughter time then the motivation is weak and our interest can wane later on. On the flip side, if we got over-saturated with lovey dovey bullshit then the acting will falter and the action fans will start to moan and groan. Besson flicks our heart strings a few times and then gets in to it. The film has little to say and doesn’t break any new ground but you have to give credit to any film that succeeds in a genre that is so often mishandled. The icing on the cake is that the film is rated PG-13 despite the constant presence of drugs, blood, torture, murder and sex trafficking. So now that you have to approval of the MPAA, you can cuddle up with the kiddies and watch old Qui-Gon Jinn smash a guys head in with a fire extinguisher right before he shots him in the face.

Review: The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans (2009): B-

According to Lt. McDonagh (Cage), “he has his bad days”.  I’ll tell you right now that’s the understatement of 2009. It’s hard to recall a more horrific cinematic monster in recent years than this snake of a lieutenant that slithers through a broken and flooded New Orleans. Stating that Cage might be the only actor able to pull this performance off isn’t strictly a compliment. He takes a very radical direction and what he lacks for in skill he makes up for in balls. This is no doubt a comeback for Cage, who takes every weakness we’ve seen in him the last few years, amplifies them and turns them into something grotesquely unique.

Herzog takes his time telling the story and even though I was intrigued most of the way through I wasn't feeling that classic Herzog touch. Our very bad lieutenant drifts along in a drug induced rampage as he constantly abuses his job and authority in order to get his fix. When he isn’t hunting down three gang members called Big Fate, Midget and G, he’s mixing drugs with his prostitute girlfriend (Eva Mendes). Technically he’s a loose cannon but he’s more like a loose Colt 45 with a bad attitude and worse cocaine habit. He begins as a cop who’s causing more crime than he’s solving and were he ends is somewhere truly terrifying and hilariously absurd. While it's hypnotic performance and a fun ride, I wasn’t quite buying everything Herzog was selling. The film probably has something to say about Katrina but I’m not ashamed to admit that it went over my head. I’m also fairly certain I don’t want to know what I’m missing. I recommend renting it with friends, but don’t be surprised when the film ends by stamping you on the forehead with a gigantic “What the Fuck”.

Review: Blade Runner (1982): B+

A dark electronic score floats over a dark screen  as the legendary opening lines drift into view. “Early in the Twenty-First Century, the Tyrell Corporation advanced robot evolution into the Nexus phase-a being virtually identical to a human-known as a Replicant.” Luckily for us, it's already 2010 and the dark future of Ridley Scott’s Sci-Fi classic hasn’t come true quite yet. We’re also lucky that even though the cyberpunk dystopia has yet to happen, the film still packs a punch almost thirty years later. It’s the first generation of a hybrid genre that I can only describe as Neo-Tech Noir. We get cold retired detective (Harrison Ford) but also some killer cyborgs (Rutger Hauer). The rainy rooftops and dusty diner’s are still there, but so are the mega-corporations and artificial intelligence. The idea of setting classic film noir in a cyber Los Angeles is an idea worth an entire series. Unfortunately, we have to settle for just two brilliant hours of this unique cinematic world.

Blade Runner, at its heart, is a classic cult favorite made by a classic cult director. However, despite the film’s watch-ability and intelligence, it’s not for everyone.  Its nihilistic tone and gothic feel give it an independent but absurd feeling that can seem a bit dated at times. Of course, if you’re willing to embrace the goofy 80’s Sci-Fi aspect of the film, Blade Runner has plenty to offer. It’s vast exploration of themes including; technology, memory, free will, self-awareness and human compassion make it an essential viewing for anyone who cares about the history of cinema. Its influence has grown with time and will continue to inspire Sci-Fi films long into the future.

Review: Sunshine (2007): A

It’s scary when great films can slip under the radar. Danny Boyle’s 2007 film Sunshine is one of these films. Yes, it has a significant cult following and received many strong reviews from the critical community. However, this movie deserves to be remembered as one of the best of its generation and I don’t feel people have welcomed it into such a realm. The film is simply a masterpiece, a term I don’t use often. It would be shame to classify this as simply “Classic Sci-Fi”. It’s a true triumph in adventure, science fiction and thrills.  

All ten of the lead and supporting performances are understated and fully developed.  The script creates characters whose lives and deaths are fully appreciated and conceived in a genre where human life is usually used to waste or for emotional manipulation. The crew of Icarus is challenged with saving the earth. The (endless) problems they face create a struggle one that could equate to actually saving the planet. The struggle Boyle puts the characters through eventually translates to the films audience and the hope of humanity’s existence becomes stronger than ever. The film should be considered a leader in all of the respective genres that it touches on and Boyle should safely be considered one the previous decades strongest directors.

Multiple Perspectives: Date Night

x

I've always enjoyed reading the countless different perspectives of films. For every movie released, their are people who love it, hate it, or couldn't care less about it. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have created the ultimate perspectives calculator, but the number isn't quite enough. These are three of the most interesting takes on Date Night that I could find. You can read my "Sparknotes" version of the reviews below, but I've also linked to each of the individual pieces. Decide for yourself who got the best of this movie.

Michael O’Sullivan: Funny? You bet your minivan it’s funny. 4/5 Stars.

• It ain't what Carell and Fey do; it's the way they do it. 
• Regardless of the silliness of the situation -- or, in truth, because of it -- they're a joy to watch.
• The premise of the movie is itself somewhat run-of-the-mill. Directed by Shawn Levy ("Night at the Museum") from a script by Josh Klausner, the story looks like just another "The Out-of-Towners": A couple of middle-aged fuddy-duddies get in trouble in the big city and spend 90 minutes going through contortions to clear their names, to mildly amusing effect. In the hands of, say, a Greg Kinnear and a Sarah Jessica Parker, the thing could be a disaster. It's not. Not by a long shot.
• That's because Carell and Fey have something that no movie, no matter how predictable, can stifle. It's called chemistry, but it's not the romantic kind. Instead, it's the power that each of them has to crack the other up.
• It doesn't make sense. It doesn't have to. All it needs to do is make us laugh.

Ramin Setoode: Steve Carell Deserves a Little More Respect.

• But comedy isn't a branch of mathematics—the formula actually works in reverse. The Office might have the critical backing and the Emmys, but it's a dwindling import that nobody will talk about in 10 years (do they still even talk about it now?).
• If the stars had been—for example—Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler, it wouldn't be worth catching even on TBS. But Carell is such the unusual film actor (he got his start on The Daily Show, after all) that he can make even the most mundane line pop.
• The premise is like Charlie's Angels  without the angels.
• Because Carell has such a gentle onscreen presence, he brings out the best in his female leads. Who knew that Anne Hathaway had action-babe potential before Get Smart? Or that Catherine Keener could be so Julia Roberts–lovable in Virgin? He also transformed the normally dramatic Juliette Binoche in Dan in Real Life, a better romantic comedy than anything Hugh Grant has done in the last 10 years. In Date Night, Carell is the cake batter that holds up Fey's icing.
• Carell might not get the onscreen recognition that he deserves—yet—but give him time. Like Ben Stiller, he's a thinking man's comic, with the potential for crossing over into drama.

A.O. Scott: For Better or Worse, and Tonight It’s Worse.

• It must be said that “Date Night” — in which a suburban married couple out for an evening in Manhattan endure car chases and the unwanted attention of thugs with guns — is superior to most recent movies of its kind, the marital action comedy. This is not saying much: better than “The Bounty Hunter” or “Did You Hear About the Morgans?” is not quite the same as “good.”

  Though Ms. Fey shows occasional flashes of the smart, anxious sarcasm that drives Liz Lemon through the showbiz tumult of “30 Rock,” and though you can’t look at Mr. Carell’s face without inferring the antic cluelessness of Michael Scott in “The Office,” both performers are constrained by the drab formula demanded by long-form, big-screen entertainment. 

  A flurry of outtakes accompanying the end credits suggests how much livelier this movie might have been if they had been allowed to improvise everything, or had just written the script themselves without regard for plot twists and character arcs and all the other creaky Hollywood machinery that keeps them running frantically from one set piece to the next.

   But let me just say that “Date Night,” like so many other films of its type, too often relies on words, catchphrases and inflections that signify a generally accepted notion of funniness rather than being, you know, actually funny.

  “Date Night,” not untypically, tries to go both meta- and sub-, to be straightforwardly shticky, archly self-conscious and also, in the end, sweet and sincere. This should not be an impossible feat, and Mr. Carell and Ms. Fey might have been able to pull it off — if they had only been permitted to try.

  
  

  Questions

  
  

  Do Fey and Carell have enough talent to separate this from the trashier and more  produced romantic comedies of the year?

  
  

  Would the movie have been better if Fey and Carrell had written the script themselves?

  
  

  Is a good romantic comedy one that breaks the conventions of its genre, or is it one that succeeds at portraying standard material in a fresh way?

   

In Response to the Kid in the Front Row's "Film Critics Suck"

The grievances in this post are at the heart of a problem that interests me more than almost any other. “Film Critics suck” is a big statement coming from a such a respectable and important blogger like the Kid. I think there’s a lot of truth and power behind his statement. Film criticism, for many, is seen as elitist and out of touch with the public. The democratization of the Internet and criticism has brought a new platform to ideas that make the critics in the print community less prestigious.

First, it’s important to get this image of the grumpy old white male critic out of our mind. There’s no doubt, they exist but there are many more voices out there now. We should be focusing on finding many different voices in the critical community so that all the anger and dissatisfaction has some truth and perspective to it.

Films are an art, a source of entertainment, but so is film criticism (at least non-authoritative film criticism). I also don’t think professional film critics should die and go away. I don’t think that complete critical anarchy is the solution. I think they should change and adapt to the culture around them. I think the voice should change from an authoritative one to a moderator instead. The film critic of tomorrow should be a professional film appreciator who can manipulate social media and today’s technology to bring the most interesting criticism to the public’s eye. Film criticism is a beautiful thing and if we can get people to see it, maybe they’ll change their preconceived judgments of the snobby film critic who hates things before he walks in the theater.

Critiquing art is essential. It’s an art of its own and deserves the respect to exist and thrive. People will pay and respect the most interesting voices. Its finding and utilizing these voices that is key to film criticism’s success.

Your idea of reviewing the review (and I suggest the reviewer as well) is an excellent idea. Perhaps a Rotten Tomatoes where we can judge film critics? A community to support the voices we love, and criticize the reviewers that need a little criticism of their own.

Review: Hot Tub Time Machine (2010): C+

The idea is beautiful in its simplicity; time travel in a hot tub.  Sure it seems like a bit of a stretch but with the right kind of writers and a strong cast anything was possible.  The biggest weakness of this average effort is that the movie had all the tools to create a comedy classic. Sadly, the movie falls apart in its execution. To begin, the entire project is just a little heavy on its “Home Sweet Home” feeling.  The cast should have been exploring new absurdist comedy ideas instead of falling back on boring plotlines that everyone’s a bit too comfortable with. As soon as Poison turns it up to 11 and alcohol is vigorously consumed our older viewers are transported back to their strange glory days. The hopes of a senseless plot that didn’t really care about the “lesson learned” are immediately eliminated with the introduction of unnecessary relationships and immature fantasies of the past. We even got a feeble attempt to teach the “adults in arrested development” a lesson before they travel back to their boring depressing lives. It’s a lighthearted movie, but is also a bit frustrating because this crazy ingenious idea was enough to get people in the theater, so why pretend like you have to spoon feed us useless narrative that is lacking even compared to 80’s movie standards? As for the adults who’ve had a fun escape back into the good old times they’ll be transported back to their regular lives with no time machine to fix their problems. Of course, as I write, I’m still humming Jessie’s Girl, enjoying my 21^st century perception of cinematic male bonding and feeling good enough about the movie to call it the best of comedy of the year until further notice. I hope 2010 has something better in store for us.

Michael Phillips on the Future of "At The Movies"

Michael Phillip's Semi-Response to A.O.Scott's Brilliant Piece on The Future of Film Criticism. Click the links to read or check out my key highlights section below.


The Highlights:

• "The energetic, articulate discussions between Scott and Phillips was a rare thing to see at a time when Rotten Tomatoes-style aggregation of reviews reduces everything to my-opinion-is-as-valid-as-yours; the latest hosts faced hurdles that Siskel and Ebert never encountered."
• "Doing television, especially nerd television — two nerds, talking about film culture high and low — means working in a suspended Willy Loman state of feeling "kind of temporary" about yourself (Arthur Miller's indelible phrase) and your future."
• "Tony and I used "Shutter Island" and "The Ghost Writer" to debate the works of Martin Scorsese and Roman Polanski, which is the sort of thing Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert used to do, so it's not really new at all. But it's appreciated. People notice."
• "If I could change anything about the show in these final months, it would be the physical environment. "
• "I suspect another version or two of the show will pop up somewhere, very likely in Chicago, because it is the city of Roger and Gene and Oprah and Studs Terkel and Irv Kupcinet and so many others who have sustained Chicago's reputation as a city that talks, and listens, and argues, and challenges a lame or blowhard assertion when it hears one."

Key Quote: "Canceled, but maybe it's kind of temporary"

First executives take Conan and now there canceling the only review show on television...I'm loosing hope in this whole video-tube-screen thing that everybody seems to like. My personal reasons for paying for cable are slowly melting away.

I think it's a true shame the show has been canceled. This is one of the biggest losses in film criticism since the death of Gene Siskel. Having a definitive criticism show is important in spreading the love and understand of the film critic community (not to mention having a show featuring intelligent conversation that doesn't revolve around politics).

I personally like the idea of moving the show online. Live or edited. Doesn't matter. The top critics talking about the new releases and other film related topics with cool guests.

Questions:


If some form of the show did return, would you like to see it back on TV or do you like the idea of a legit online show?

90 Minute Star Wars Review: Future of Film Criticism?

Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones review by RedLetterMedia (The last 10 minutes is posted below). Insightful and hilarious.

Wouldn't it be cool if this was in some way the future of film criticism. It might seem absurd at first but think about it....

1. Long form video criticism - Detailed criticism has been done before. It's died down to purely academic writing with our ADHD culture that doesn't like to read more then it has to. However, with the the video it takes it to a new level with the constant visuals, witty comments and fun editing.

2. Comedy - This dark humor is the perfect way to comment on what the critic believes to be a bad movie. While the audience for this kind of dark cinematic comedy might be limiting, imagine if there was a more mainstream "Jon Stewart" type commentator that did a weekly review show.

I obsess about one day having that kind of show (on TV or the web). Maybe RedLetterMedia isn't the future of criticism but I think he's really on to something.



Questions:

Would you mind seeing more detailed video criticism?

If so, would it need to be comedy? Would it need to be one person? Or could it be a serious conversation?

Ebert Update

 "In this excerpt from the Archive of American Television’s interview with Roger Ebert, the film critic discusses his philosophy, his working relationship with longtime colleague and sometime rival Gene Siskel, and the origin of the “Two Thumbs Up/Down” review."


Loved that he hints that all ratings are relative and in an ideal critical world, would not be necessary.

• This video also addresses the following embarrassingly dismissive comment I've been seeing all over Twitter "Rather be an artist than art critic, film-maker than film critic, musician than music critic, church builder than church critic!". I consider Ebert's writing to be it's own form of artistic expression. Many of the great film critics also accomplish this (Sarris, Parker Tyler, Farber, Sontag).
• As Ebert's Twitter followers will already know, his most invaluable contribution to modern film criticism was: "I taught @scottfilmcritic what Peeps were."

Multiple Perspectives: Clash of the Titans

I've always enjoyed reading the countless different perspectives of major releases. For every movie released, their are people who love it, hate it, or couldn't care less about it. Here are three most interesting takes on Clash of the Titans that I could find. You can read my "Sparknotes" version of the reviews, but I've also linked to each of the individual pieces. Decide for yourself who got the best of this movie.

 
Clash of the Titans

“Clash of the Titans” - Roger Ebert. One Thumbs Up.

• "The outcome is told in "Clash of the Titans" with impressive technical mastery and somewhat lesser dramatic command. For its intended audience, I suspect this will play as a great entertainment. I enjoyed myself, particularly after they released the Kraken."
• "The climax is classic, with the fair Andromeda hung by her wrists and suspended in a clinging white gown over a flaming pit at the edge of the sea."
• "I like this kind of stuff. I don't say it's good cinema, although I recognize the craftsmanship that went into it. I don't say it's good acting, when the men have so much facial hair they all look like Liam Neeson. I like the energy, the imagination, the silliness. I even like the one guy who doesn't have a beard. That's Perseus."
• "So do I recommend the movie? Yes, if you intuit that this review is affectionate and have the same tolerance for goofy Greek gods as I do."
• "One word of consumer advice, however. Explain to kids that the movie was not filmed in 3-D and is only being shown in 3-D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket."

• 
  

“The Gods Must be Cringing at This Remake” – Stephen Witty. 

• “Sing, Muse! Sing of the age when kings lived in the wood of holly, and made pictures move upon the walls, and with their gold bought marble pools, and seaside villas, and concubines named Tiffani with two I’s. For it was in that time that the tale of the “Clash of the Titans” was told again.”
• “But no, the mortals decreed, this was an epic made for Sam of Worthington, and Ralph of Fiennes, and Liam of Pay Me Now. And it would be full of tricks made by machine, and talk made by fools, and pictures of three dimensions that seemed merely like the View-Masters of old. And it did make the gods angry.”
• “For this plot did desecrate their memories, and dilute the ancient myths like cheap wine, bringing in the djinns of Arabia, and the sea serpents of the Norsemen and a painted mystic from Burning Man.”
• “And these effects were full of slime and cheap outsourcing, and the much-heralded third dimension blurred the vision, giving every character the heads of hydras and citizens in the amphitheater the pain of migraines.”
• “And abandoned by the gods, Zeus did rage, and seek out the brothers Warner with his mighty lightning bolt. But the sirens sang to him, and offered a very sweet two-picture deal, with profit participation.”

“Clash of Titans Deserves Wrath of Zeus” – Tom Long. D-.

“Apparently the gods need better agents.”

“The action sequences, despite three decades worth of technological progress, manage to be just as ungainly as the originals, carrying no real thrills, just a lot of disconnected noise, in the way of so many post-"Transformers" aspiring blockbusters.”

“In terms of blame, let's start with director Louis Leterrier but not forget screenwriters Travis Beacham, Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi. But let's be kind and lay the rest at the feet of the gods.”

“This is the third special-effects blockbuster the previously unknown Worthington has headlined within a year, having played a robot ("Terminator Salvation") and a disabled soldier/giant blue Catman ("Avatar") previously and to far better effect. The best that can be said is he shares his embarrassment with good company here.

“Fifteen minutes into this film you want to leave. Half an hour in you attempt to revel in the awfulness. Ten more minutes, though, and you want to leave again. That craving never subsides until you're out the door. "Clash of the Titans" is just about as bad as movies get.”

• 
  

Quesitons:

Do you think Clash of the Titans is a fun time that's getting a bad rap or does it deserve the large amount of crap that is piled on it?

Is it Ebert getting too soft these days? Are other critics getting too hard on Blockbuster/3-D/CGI/ Action Movies?

Film Critics In Focus

New Theories; No Consensus
By Bryce Renninger (April 2, 2010)

• Gives a great summary of the wave of "film criticism's demise" articles that have been released recently.

The Highlights

• “There used to be James Agee, and now there is Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten movies routinely make huge sums of money in spite of the demurral of critics. Where once reasoned debate and knowledgeable evaluation flourished, there are now social networking and marketing algorithms and a nattering gaggle of bloggers.” - A.O. Scott 
• “Insofar as we think of criticism as evaluation, we need to distinguish between taste (preferences, educated or not) and criteria for excellence.”  Responding to the assumption that film criticism should foster a love of films, he said, “Enough with the love, already.”  And finally, “Opinions need balancing with information and ideas.” – David Bordwell
• Kevin Smith recently decided that his new film “Red State” will not be screened for free in advance for critics.  This in response to the critical bashing of Smith’s latest film “Cop Out.”
• "In the end, we get a few more views on the relevance of the craft.  As Smith says those that pay for tickets have the only relevant opinion, critics wonder if he’s afraid of criticism, if he realizes the financial status of a critic, and if he values the act of talking critically about art at all.  In this new turn of events, we have a few new theories on relevance but no consensus. "

Lights Camera Jackson

This 10 year old might be bringing new meaning to the democratization of film criticism. Such a young age and already putting out enough decent content to be considered a certified critic.

Brought to my attention when Ebert posted "This 10-year-old kid is harder on Clash of the Titans than I was." on his Twitter. LCJ has his own Facebook page and Twitter account that you can follow him on.

LCJ not only writes reviews but also has multiple podcasts that you can listen to (I recommend the Where the Wild Things are episode). He sticks to mostly family movie reviews but offers an interesting insight that I've never really experienced before .

While he isn't fully developed (Giving Wall-E a B and Mall Cop a B+), it's fun to imagine that film criticism has such a young and inspiring writer in their future. It'll be fun to watch him grow as a writer through his website and I hope people check him out.

Jonathan Rosenbaum on the End of Film Criticism

The End of the Film Criticism Industry

• Published in  Cahiers du Cinéma España; ran in their January 2009 issue (No. 19). — J.R.
• Interesting comments coming from something published over a year ago.

The Highlights:

• "It’s by no means unusual for a “retired” film scholar such as myself to find more work as a freelancer since my retirement late last February than I did for most of the previous two decades as a staff reviewer for the Chicago Reader."
• "Some of this fixation seems to stem from the unfortunate conflation of film reviewing (a profession that has suffered some recent losses in the U.S. since my own voluntary retirement, as a partial reflection of the many layoffs that have taken place this year in print journalism) with film criticism as a more general activity."
• "Some of it seems to reflect an apocalyptic reflex that affects many of the arts (as in periodic  announcements about The Death of the Novel)."
• "One reason why film reviewing in the U.S. appears to be undergoing a loss of prestige is the rapid growth and expansion of Internet film reviewing and blogging, which has intensified the already popular idea that anyone can be a film critic (unlike, say, a dance critic or a sports commentator — two other professions in which some background knowledge is regarded as essential). "
• "As for those with blogs, I prefer those who are cinephiles, know something about film, and know how to write and do research….”

Questions:

Is film criticism in the future just a hobby? Will the number of employed film critics drop to a select few that actually get to make a living off of it?

Do you think all aspects of art journalism will eventually go through this faze?

I'm in a Relationship....With Movies (Revised)

We met in a dark room. Don’t worry she’s not that kind of girl. She did most of the talking and I just listened. Popcorn is her thing and butter is mine so we didn’t have any trouble getting to know each other. Something we have in common is that neither of us likes it when she’s interrupted. She’s a storyteller, and nothing ruins narrative like a ringing baby, or a crying cellphone.

It’s hard to describe her beauty, because it changes every day. She’s as dark as Gotham but lighter than the aviator’s morning. She’s a midnight summer’s dream with just a touch of evil. The hills are alive with the sound of her voice and she smells of napalm in the morning.

Yes, the sex is good. She’s got this weird thing where she likes to play music, and then increase the volume during the climax. At first it freaked me out a bit, but now it’s one of those little annoyances you learn to love.

She’s always shoving some new delicacies down my throat. Chinese, Italian or French New Wave. She also loves to read, it’s where she gets her inspiration. Her mother was an author and she tells me it’s where she gets most of her stories. She also loves to move, it gets in the way of her reading. Raging, crouching, finding, singin’, raising shining, diving, training, leaving, saving, chasing. She does it all.  

Some say I’m crazy for dating someone that is different before each sunrise or sunset. Being personal with a girl who will never belongs to just one.  I’ve never been with someone who is judged by everyone. Everyone I talk to has their own opinion, including me of course.

What bothers me is that she expresses herself to everyone the same way. She hides nothing and loves everyone. Of course, not everyone listens to her the way I do, and even though it’s a lie, sometimes when people ask, I tell them she told me something she didn’t tell the rest.

Enough about her. This is about us and more importantly Me. First, it’s important to understand that I’m usually good at figuring her type out. However, like all relationships, we’ve had our ups and downs. This recent slump has been the deepest and I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to crawl my way out. 

Sometimes she’s a drug. A pure escape and I'm her junkie. Like most users, I figured I could control myself. It wasn’t that simple. I thought a had a real future with this girl so it was easy to give myself to her, but as the days went by I begin to realize that I was hearing her talk about life more than I was living it. However, she isn’t always the drug I make her out to be. Some days, she’s more than that and it’d be foolish to pretend that all relationships don’t have two sides. She’s a food, not a pleasure, but a necessity. Like any 19 year old, I’m hungry.

Of course if I’d figured out this complicated two piece puzzle then there’d be no reason for writing all this. All I know is that the more I understand her, the more I appreciate her. While I’m lost when I’m with her, I also know I'd be lost without her.

Here's looking at you, kid.