archive | I’m NOT interested in the review, but in the complaint about a generalized movie trend. The author, Louis Chilton, goes on a rant using about what he sees as having gone to far in and overly exemplified by the latest Marvel release:

If we are watching, as some critics have suggested, the death of cinema happen before our eyes, then it’s taken the form of a public execution.

It is a film that is about absolutely nothing – a film with no discernable purpose or artistic ambitions, beyond the perpetuation of its own corporate myth.

He explains a little:

Audiences didn’t love Blade because Snipes just showed up, stood there and barked catchphrases – he was part of a story, with a proper character, and stakes, and intentionality. That Marvel cannot see the difference – or, even worse, if it can see the difference but chooses to ignore it – is surely damning.

We call Deadpool & Wolverine a movie because it is released in cinemas, and is two hours long, but other than these technicalities, it shares almost nothing with a traditional blockbuster, when it comes to intent.

And finally concedes with admonishment:

And of course, people are allowed to enjoy what they like. But freebasing cocaine is surely enjoyable to many people; that doesn’t mean we should all get on board with its production and distribution.

  • memfree@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    What really struck me was that he compared Deadpool & Wolverine to Blade?! So… Blade is the movie with “discernable purpose” and/or “artistic ambitions”? I mean, I liked Blade, but if the complaint is that Marvel movies aren’t Citizen Kane, then Blade seems a weak comparison. So where does he draw the line?

      • ZC3rr0r
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Red Bull looked at that and said “hold my energy drink while I create crashed ice”