I just got some Pizza Rolls in the mail...

[Russell]

I've always hated to admit this in the very rare instances that I have strongly disagreed with Confused Matthew... but his reviews are usually pretty solid. It isn't too often that his objectivity is too clouded by emotional reaction... one of the few exceptions being "No country for old men".. oh man, the amount of venom that poured fourth through my speakers as he reviewed it almost put me into a coma.

[Watchman]

I've always hated to admit this in the very rare instances that I have strongly disagreed with Confused Matthew... but his reviews are usually pretty solid. It isn't too often that his objectivity is too clouded by emotional reaction... one of the few exceptions being "No country for old men".. oh man, the amount of venom that poured fourth through my speakers as he reviewed it almost put me into a coma.

So if in 2014, Peter Hyams were to direct an inferior sequel to No Country that explained away everything that was enigmatic about the first film, CM would heap praise upon it to antagonize fans of the original film? "No Country For Old Men: The Year We Made Contact"   

[Russell]

I've always hated to admit this in the very rare instances that I have strongly disagreed with Confused Matthew... but his reviews are usually pretty solid. It isn't too often that his objectivity is too clouded by emotional reaction... one of the few exceptions being "No country for old men".. oh man, the amount of venom that poured fourth through my speakers as he reviewed it almost put me into a coma.

So if in 2014, Peter Hyams were to direct an inferior sequel to No Country that explained away everything that was enigmatic about the first film, CM would heap praise upon it to antagonize fans of the original film? "No Country For Old Men: The Year We Made Contact"   

It's possible! 

[BBQ Platypus]

I've always hated to admit this in the very rare instances that I have strongly disagreed with Confused Matthew... but his reviews are usually pretty solid. It isn't too often that his objectivity is too clouded by emotional reaction... one of the few exceptions being "No country for old men".. oh man, the amount of venom that poured fourth through my speakers as he reviewed it almost put me into a coma.

I hate the word "objectivity" when it's connected with something like film reviews.  You are reviewing a film and giving an opinion of it.  By definition, you are not being objective.  Stop pretending that you are.  What you're really trying to do is elevate your opinion to the level of fact.  Stop it.

The clincher for me was his 2001 review - not so much the opinion he gave (I disagree with it), but the fact that he took 70 minutes to say the same goddamn thing over and over again.  And then his 2010 review, which I watched until it reached the point when I realized he was just using it as a bludgeon to hammer home the same point he had already made abundantly clear with his 2001 review.  It actually soured me on the whole idea of the video recap/review style of online reviewing, since it called attention to its obvious flaws.  First, there are very, very few circumstances where you actually need to recap the whole film to make your point.  Second, it typically misses out on the visual, filmic aspects of storytelling in favor of the bare plot (which often isn't even the most important aspect of a work of literature, much less a film).  In short, those two reviews were so bad that they ruined an entire genre of internet criticism for me.

Plinkett's reviews have some of the same problems with length, longwindedness, and hyperbole. They are better for the most part, though, largely because as filmmakers, the RedLetterMedia guys know a lot more about film qua film than Matthew does, and thus bring a lot more to the table in terms of their analysis.  Matthew's analysis rarely goes beyond the bare plot.

I still watch Stand-in Stan's videos, though.  They're short and cover more interesting subjects that are more within his range of expertise.

[Russell]

I hate the word "objectivity" when it's connected with something like film reviews.  You are reviewing a film and giving an opinion of it.  By definition, you are not being objective.  Stop pretending that you are.  What you're really trying to do is elevate your opinion to the level of fact.  Stop it.

I see what you're saying, but it is possible at least on some level to critique a film from an objective standpoint, don't you think?

[BBQ Platypus]

I hate the word "objectivity" when it's connected with something like film reviews.  You are reviewing a film and giving an opinion of it.  By definition, you are not being objective.  Stop pretending that you are.  What you're really trying to do is elevate your opinion to the level of fact.  Stop it.

I see what you're saying, but it is possible at least on some level to critique a film from an objective standpoint, don't you think?

No. The purpose of a film is to create a subjective emotional or aesthetic response within an audience.  To judge the effectiveness of the film is to judge the degree to which it provoked such a response.  Sure, you can talk about the exact way a shot is framed, but by what standard can this shot be judged to be "beautiful" or "effective?"  By whether or not it provoked a reaction.

[Russell]

No. The purpose of a film is to create a subjective emotional or aesthetic response within an audience.  

I was talking about other objective factors, like the script and internal contradictions within the framework of the story, which can constitute fact.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

No. The purpose of a film is to create a subjective emotional or aesthetic response within an audience.  

I was talking about other objective factors, like the script and internal contradictions within the framework of the story, which can constitute fact.

Nope, different people could have different yet valid views of those things as well...  One of the few things you could look at objectively is continuity, like the dead girl showing up in space mutiny, use that as a guage of overall quality.

Take Pan's Labyrinth, I strongly disagree with every single point Mathew makes in his review.  There is nothing at all in that film I like.

I haven't watched his 2001 review, but I take it from others talking about it that he misses the point, it's something that really needs to be seen on a big screen with good sound, it's more about the experience of watching it than the story itself.  For the story it helps to read the book...

[Watchman]

No. The purpose of a film is to create a subjective emotional or aesthetic response within an audience.  

I was talking about other objective factors, like the script and internal contradictions within the framework of the story, which can constitute fact.

Let's put it this way: there's no such thing as pure objectivity. Even dealing with things like plot holes, we're usually driven by our emotional reaction to the film. Let's take Minority Report, which I like & you hate. We're more likely to scrutinize these things if the film has failed to suck us in. Your negative reaction to Minority Report made your mind much more susceptible to its plot holes. Whereas it was one of the few films I thoroughly enjoyed at the cinema from beginning to end; the film succeeded at sucking me into its world & thus I didn't have (or even want) the emotional distance for intellectualization.

(To very loosely paraphrase something Ridley Scott said on the Alien DVD commentary: "I'm well aware that, scientifically, there's no sound in outer space. If your first reaction is really 'Hey, there shouldn't be sound in outer space!'...just shut up.")

The only way to be objective is to be a computer (or an alien scientist observing humanity under a microscope). There's no way you can be objective about something like lens flare. All you can do is take a poll and see how many people were bugged by it. And if you have positive inclinations towards the film, chances are you'll be less bothered by the lens flare.

What I'm trying to say is: when writing something, there's actually 2 levels of Subjectivity Vs Objectivity:

1. The emotions/attitudes you have before you're writing something
2. The point you're trying to make directly with your text

My point is that, even if you try really hard to achieve #2, you were still led to it by your very nature as a thinking, feeling human being who, wittingly or not, carries the baggage of #1.

I haven't watched his 2001 review, but I take it from others talking about it that he misses the point, it's something that really needs to be seen on a big screen with good sound, it's more about the experience of watching it than the story itself.  For the story it helps to read the book...

Some call it "story". Some call it "Arthur C Clark's stubborn need to spell things out."

Kubrick was trying to achieve a whole new form of narrative through film. It wasn't about linear storytelling.

From what little I watched of the CM review, I was turned off by his allegedly "objective" argument that "it's a fact that nothing happens."

And if he hated No Country For Old Men, I'd suspect he uses the same argument. That twit has no concept of visual storytelling. "Oh, good, people talking + camera movement = something's happening." IMO, the place where Nothing's Happening is his reviews.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Some call it "story". Some call it "Arthur C Clark's stubborn need to spell things out."

Well, Clark was a hard science fiction writer, not fantasy.   And he doesn't get around to talking about what is really going on until the 3rd book 2061.   The funny thing about the series is that in the book 2001 all the stuff with the large obelisk happens around Saturn, but in the later books everything happens around Jupiter just like the movie.

[doggans]

No. The purpose of a film is to create a subjective emotional or aesthetic response within an audience.  

I was talking about other objective factors, like the script and internal contradictions within the framework of the story, which can constitute fact.

It's true that there are commonly-accepted "rules" of filmmaking, but a film could follow every rule and still suck, and it could break every rule and still work. That's what makes "objective" criticism near impossible--the most a critic can do is explain the factors that led to his personal reaction.

[Russell]

It's true that there are commonly-accepted "rules" of filmmaking, but a film could follow every rule and still suck, and it could break every rule and still work. That's what makes "objective" criticism near impossible--the most a critic can do is explain the factors that led to his personal reaction.

I guess you're right. I still think however it is possible to be objective ONLY as far as removing yourself as far from subjective as you can. Obviously objective in this context is not and cannot be an absolute.

[shodan]

Russian gentleman: So who is to say what is moral?
Sonja: Morality is subjective.
Russian gentleman: Subjectivity is objective.
Sonja: Moral notions imply attributes to substances which exist only in relational duality.
Russian gentleman: Not as an essential extension of ontological existence.
Sonja: Can we not talk about sex so much?

[Russell]

Totino's pizza roll sales jumped 300% since 2009... coincidence?

[Watchman]

Hey Gunflyer, I guess now's a good a time as any to ask the meaning of your user name "Gunflyer".
Because my brain keeps mixing it up with "Tailgunner", the Iron Maiden song!

"Climb into the sky never wonder why
Gunflyer, you're a Gunflyer"