Seeing Avataar this weekend yet again, I googled for a review and was amazed to find this two star review of Avatar by a guardian journo
The Titanic director’s monstrously-hyped creation does look fantastic but, in trying to cover all the bases with militarist sci-fi, vacuous eco-waffle and an intra-species love story, it’s too baggy
Be that as it may, Avatar tries to have it both ways, to be preachy and a thrill-ride at the same time. I can’t in all honesty say it pulls it off – it’s baggy, longwinded and, for all the light-speed imagery, just not quick on its feet. Cameron used to be the tautest film-maker around, but he just got slack.
Qs is: Does anyone care for Old media reviews? Did this review in one of UK’s major publications make a difference to the sales/popularity of the movie?
Today, with social media, we have so many choices. There are so many reviews on YouTube and people ‘review’ films by twitter from within the cinema as they watch it!
So, who cares for pompous old media critics?
Such critics would love us to think that some obscure movie which only critics like is ‘good’
This of course gives the critics a sense of importance ..
But with social media, I don’t think anyone cares for them any more since there is too much choice.
And other than ‘Andrew Pulver is the films editor of the Guardian.’ I dont see any other credentials for the critic!
And for that matter, what exactly makes a movie ‘Baggy’?(a word he uses twice) ha ha!
But WTF .. Like I said, who cares!