4 ms·

I got the same feeling; I'm not sure what movie the reviewer thought he was going into, but it feels like he was expecting a David Lynch film or something simil

I got the same feeling; I'm not sure what movie the reviewer thought he was going into, but it feels like he was expecting a David Lynch film or something similar, not a simple kid's movie.

dennisnedry 11y ago
That's the problem with critics, they get paid to analyze things. Sometimes things don't really need to be analyzed, just taken at face value.
- 2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
  I think understanding when a movie is just for fun is part of a film critics job. In Australia we used to have Margaret and David before they recently retired. They were really good film critics with tastes that covered a large spectrum of movies.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    On the other hand, there's "Man Getting Hit By Football"[1]. One can find a film too simplistic to be appreciated even if one takes it as "just for fun". As people whose work is very subjective, critics don't lend themselves to be read in an ad-hoc fashion, in my opinion. One should follow their reviews, compare them with the works one has also watched/read, and only then decide which critics are more appropriate for you. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU
anigbrowl 11y ago
I think it's especially important to analyze kids' movies because of their significant ideological impact. You cant ell effective kids; stories without dumbing things down. I found it a very interesting analysis.
- icebraining 11y ago
  You can't tell effective kids' stories without dumbing things down. Isn't that exactly what he disagrees with, though? I think he's looking for a director that can tell a kids' story, and show the shape of the inner mind, without having to dumb things down. It's a tall order - he says it would require a director of genius - but I think his point is that if a director needs to dumb things down to make a film for kids, (s)he's better off not doing it at all.
  - rufus_t 11y ago
    I believe "You cant ell" was meant to be "You can tell", not "You can't tell", and that you agree with each other.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Oh, I think you're right. Never mind, then :)
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      Yes, I didn't have time to proofread and missed the mistake. Sorry for the confusion!
icebraining 11y ago
I wouldn't say he expected any different; I think he just loathes the fact that these "kid's movies" are, as you called them, simple, or better yet, simplistic. He thinks the movie does a disservice to kids by presenting what is, in his opinion, a distorted and sugar-coated representation of mental life and motivations. Essentially, he thinks that a good movie would pass to viewers what Malick's Tree of Life does about the inner life of children (feelings of wonder, the need to act out for its own sake, the deception ones does for others and even oneself, etc) in a way that would appeal to kids. (By the way, this is just what I understood from the review; I haven't seen Inside Out)
huu 11y ago
"The very notion of what’s appropriate for children looms over any consideration of a movie intended for children." This is the author's justification for why he's critiquing the film. I disagree, personally, because he himself is not a child. I doubt any child would enjoy "The Tree of Life".
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't think the author expects children to enjoy The Tree of Life; I think he just believes it's possible (if difficult) to write a film for children without losing its subtlety.

I got the same feeling; I'm not sure what movie the reviewer thought he was going into, but it feels like he was expecting a David Lynch film or something similar, not a simple kid's movie.

dennisnedry 11y ago

That's the problem with critics, they get paid to analyze things. Sometimes things don't really need to be analyzed, just taken at face value.

2muchcoffeeman 11y ago
I think understanding when a movie is just for fun is part of a film critics job. In Australia we used to have Margaret and David before they recently retired. They were really good film critics with tastes that covered a large spectrum of movies.
- icebraining 11y ago
  On the other hand, there's "Man Getting Hit By Football"[1]. One can find a film too simplistic to be appreciated even if one takes it as "just for fun". As people whose work is very subjective, critics don't lend themselves to be read in an ad-hoc fashion, in my opinion. One should follow their reviews, compare them with the works one has also watched/read, and only then decide which critics are more appropriate for you. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU

anigbrowl 11y ago

I think it's especially important to analyze kids' movies because of their significant ideological impact. You cant ell effective kids; stories without dumbing things down. I found it a very interesting analysis.

icebraining 11y ago
You can't tell effective kids' stories without dumbing things down. Isn't that exactly what he disagrees with, though? I think he's looking for a director that can tell a kids' story, and show the shape of the inner mind, without having to dumb things down. It's a tall order - he says it would require a director of genius - but I think his point is that if a director needs to dumb things down to make a film for kids, (s)he's better off not doing it at all.
- rufus_t 11y ago
  I believe "You cant ell" was meant to be "You can tell", not "You can't tell", and that you agree with each other.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Oh, I think you're right. Never mind, then :)
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Yes, I didn't have time to proofread and missed the mistake. Sorry for the confusion!

icebraining 11y ago

I wouldn't say he expected any different; I think he just loathes the fact that these "kid's movies" are, as you called them, simple, or better yet, simplistic. He thinks the movie does a disservice to kids by presenting what is, in his opinion, a distorted and sugar-coated representation of mental life and motivations. Essentially, he thinks that a good movie would pass to viewers what Malick's Tree of Life does about the inner life of children (feelings of wonder, the need to act out for its own sake, the deception ones does for others and even oneself, etc) in a way that would appeal to kids. (By the way, this is just what I understood from the review; I haven't seen Inside Out)

huu 11y ago

"The very notion of what’s appropriate for children looms over any consideration of a movie intended for children." This is the author's justification for why he's critiquing the film. I disagree, personally, because he himself is not a child. I doubt any child would enjoy "The Tree of Life".

icebraining 11y ago
I don't think the author expects children to enjoy The Tree of Life; I think he just believes it's possible (if difficult) to write a film for children without losing its subtlety.