I came across a piece on EW where they talked about how Jessie Eisenberg (JE) wrote a fictional piece for The New Yorker (TNY) magazine riffing or ripping on movie critics.
Now admittedly when he scoffed at his horrifying experience at Comic-Con, comparing it to genocide, he started losing fans in that moment. He tried explaining it away a few days later, as expected..
So it started there. But now he wrote this fictional piece about being a film critic where now both he and the New Yorker are taking heat for the piece. (So when will the apologies for THIS begin?_)
Some of the things he says are kind of funny...
“This week, I’m reviewing Paintings of Cole, which I didn’t like, because the press screening was all the way uptown, and there were huge delays on the J train,”
“Nonetheless, Paintings of Cole is easily the best movie of the year. I’m saying this only in the hope that the studio might print my name after a blurb on the movie poster... and I’ve always wanted to have my name on a movie poster. How cool would that be?”
-
To be honest, it seems that Eisenberg's attitude is slowly bubbling to the surface as he gets more and more successful. And this latest "funny" bit reminds me of when Kevin Smith gave reviewers his proverbial middle finger during one of his film's releases, when he said "HJere's my press release. I'm not doing interviews and wasting my time with you." In so many words.
And right now, after that New Yorker piece some critics are fairly ticked at both JE and TNY.
One said "You're better than this," another said about the piece, "Looks like BINGO to me," while on the other end of the spectrum, another critic wrote that "It's not being hypocritical to voice displeasure when a smug asshole attacks your entire profession."
One comment NAILED it on the head: "Being negatively reviewed is VERY hard. Shrugging that off as "part of the game" can be a way of not thinking about that."
-
It's no secret that I have a mild disdain for professional movie critics. But only because when they review movies, they seem to do it as if they are writing to each other, about each other and not to or for the movie fan.
When it's a dramatic piece, sure, they're going to be spot on. But when they completely trash a billion dollar making movie, there is a strong disconnect between the review community and the movie-goer.
This is the primary reason why I break my reviews into dramatic and popcorn categories... there is a place for both kinds of reviews, where the target demographic movie-goer is taken into consideration.
Now that is not to say that most movie critics are writing for the movie fan of a discerning voice. I get that. So there's not wrong with their approach. But again, when they trash a billion dollar film, knowing what it will be, I think there's a professional disconnect.
JE made one funny point about wanting to see his name on a movie poster. I've seen a few blogging "peers" out there blather all over themselves about almost every single movie they've seen, calling them "must see," "film of the year" and everything else under the sun. It became a tragedy watching him try to sell his soul to get into the "circle of the accepted" to see his name on a poster or DVD box. But we all have our operational premises.
-
On an observational note: Over the years I've noticed that some acting talent out there tend to play the same kind of role over and over because that is what is at their core personalities. It is what they can tap into and convey easily and entertainingly.
With that said, I loved Eisenberg in The Social Network and Now You See Me where he sublimely played arrogant assholes.
Now admittedly when he scoffed at his horrifying experience at Comic-Con, comparing it to genocide, he started losing fans in that moment. He tried explaining it away a few days later, as expected..
So it started there. But now he wrote this fictional piece about being a film critic where now both he and the New Yorker are taking heat for the piece. (So when will the apologies for THIS begin?_)
Some of the things he says are kind of funny...
“This week, I’m reviewing Paintings of Cole, which I didn’t like, because the press screening was all the way uptown, and there were huge delays on the J train,”
“Nonetheless, Paintings of Cole is easily the best movie of the year. I’m saying this only in the hope that the studio might print my name after a blurb on the movie poster... and I’ve always wanted to have my name on a movie poster. How cool would that be?”
-
To be honest, it seems that Eisenberg's attitude is slowly bubbling to the surface as he gets more and more successful. And this latest "funny" bit reminds me of when Kevin Smith gave reviewers his proverbial middle finger during one of his film's releases, when he said "HJere's my press release. I'm not doing interviews and wasting my time with you." In so many words.
And right now, after that New Yorker piece some critics are fairly ticked at both JE and TNY.
One said "You're better than this," another said about the piece, "Looks like BINGO to me," while on the other end of the spectrum, another critic wrote that "It's not being hypocritical to voice displeasure when a smug asshole attacks your entire profession."
One comment NAILED it on the head: "Being negatively reviewed is VERY hard. Shrugging that off as "part of the game" can be a way of not thinking about that."
-
It's no secret that I have a mild disdain for professional movie critics. But only because when they review movies, they seem to do it as if they are writing to each other, about each other and not to or for the movie fan.
When it's a dramatic piece, sure, they're going to be spot on. But when they completely trash a billion dollar making movie, there is a strong disconnect between the review community and the movie-goer.
This is the primary reason why I break my reviews into dramatic and popcorn categories... there is a place for both kinds of reviews, where the target demographic movie-goer is taken into consideration.
Now that is not to say that most movie critics are writing for the movie fan of a discerning voice. I get that. So there's not wrong with their approach. But again, when they trash a billion dollar film, knowing what it will be, I think there's a professional disconnect.
JE made one funny point about wanting to see his name on a movie poster. I've seen a few blogging "peers" out there blather all over themselves about almost every single movie they've seen, calling them "must see," "film of the year" and everything else under the sun. It became a tragedy watching him try to sell his soul to get into the "circle of the accepted" to see his name on a poster or DVD box. But we all have our operational premises.
-
On an observational note: Over the years I've noticed that some acting talent out there tend to play the same kind of role over and over because that is what is at their core personalities. It is what they can tap into and convey easily and entertainingly.
With that said, I loved Eisenberg in The Social Network and Now You See Me where he sublimely played arrogant assholes.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Follow Cinema Static on: 
Comments
Post a Comment
Apologies for the moderation mode. I presume you understand...