Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > General Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old 01-17-2012, 01:36 PM
fess up movie reviewers- why do you incessantly synopsize every @#!ing movie

I have hit the wall and I have to ask what the fuck. Nearly every reviewer! Why is this habit lodged into everybody's heads like some kind of lodge in everybody's heads! Oh my gosh. Roger ebert, when bored, can spend entire reviews walking you through what happens in the movie while making remarks about its plausibility or entertainment value, as if demonstrating his viewer comprehension to us. Even schmoe reviewers often preface their critiques by walking us through the movie's synopsis or basic history, as if any reader on the green polluted face of mother gaia doesn't know The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is an adaption of Larsson's trilogy of books concerning Libseth Salander and Blomkvist, and there was a Swedish film by the same name, and it's about yadda yadda yadda and it's directed by David Fincher who is best known for Se7en and Zodiac, on and on into pseudo professionalism infinity. And all the while the critic is seemingly oblivious to any notion that their wasted space and our wasted attention spans might find these incessant preliminaries

this annoying

This persisting format is a reflex for movie reviewers who are leaned back into an outdated time when readers couldn't easily access a wikipedia or imdb page. The age when the movie reviewers had to introduce movies to the audience is over. It's just a ghost now. They could make paranormal activity 4 about format-devoted critics scaring little children with movie origin stories like a comic book aficionado with tourettes explaining batman. We already know about the movie. Every film is saturated. We don't need reviewers to waste their time getting us caught up on the generic introductions. Yes it was the professional format a long time ago, but it's still the professional format for some goddamn reason, summoned up from the realms of unpronounceable gothic sea sludge for every wannabe and finally-be reviewer to repeat and recite ad nauseam! Argh it's so mindless. Latin phrase exclamation point!

I'm sure there are rare occasions when the reviewer needs to introduce a certain context just to frame their critique
Spoiler:
But those are the rarest exceptions with writers of the rarest form. I don't want to read ten reviews of Carnage where ten reviewers reintroduce the preliminaries just because they are stuck in the matrix. Open your eyes. You don't have to do that. You're free. If you want to critique the need for Fincher's remake with the original Swedish version you can spend a sentence reminding us there was a previous version of the storyline and then plow into your review without further dawdling over the finer details you googled before writing your review with this posture of cinema omniscience.
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump