Snark import...

No Comments

• bill says:

  August 21, 2009 at 10:53 am

  You had a lot pent up, did­n’t you?

• Dan Coyle says:

  August 21, 2009 at 11:26 am

  Boy Howdy, that’s lov­erly. I wish you had also taken aim at Johnny Boy’s “Top 15 of the Millennium”, too.

• Matthias Galvin says:

  August 21, 2009 at 11:43 am

  By far the best snark I read was this state­ment on the trailer:
  “It looks like an 80’s car­toon designed to sell toys that are rebranded left overs from Thunder Cats”
  Magnificent Troll, Mr. Cameron. Magnificent Troll.

• Matt Miller says:

  August 21, 2009 at 12:02 pm

  “Dizzying hat trick of error…” Lovely. And brings to light a factor of Armond’s inept­ness that you left out of your take­down last week: his reviews are often rife with fac­tu­al error. My per­son­al favor­ite AW reviews are those in which he com­pletely bases his oh-so-contrarian read­ing of the film on said errors (his recent Coraline review comes to mind).

• markj says:

  August 21, 2009 at 1:37 pm

  I seem to have strayed into an altern­ate uni­verse where James Cameron’s Avatar is being derided and JJ Abrams Star Trek is being her­al­ded as some kind of mas­ter­piece. Can some­body please let me out?

• Christian says:

  August 21, 2009 at 2:33 pm

  Bingo, markj. Bingo.

• Earthworm Jim says:

  August 21, 2009 at 6:15 pm

  Markj, isn’t it pos­sible that Abrams’ Star Trek and the Avatar trail­er *both* suck? That would be my own per­spect­ive at the moment, though I’m keep­ing an open mind for Cameron’s movie.

• Owain Wilson says:

  August 22, 2009 at 8:53 am

  This Avatar trail­er is noth­ing to get your knick­ers in a twist over. It’s just a trail­er to a film nobody has seen. A per­son who watches this trail­er is per­fectly entitled to decide wheth­er they want to see the fin­ished film or not based on what the trail­er shows them, for this, as I under­stand it, is the sole func­tion of a trailer.
  I des­pise the faintly intim­id­at­ing air of ‘you have no right to think Avatar looks rub­bish because it is the work of James Cameron’ that looms behind me every time I go online. It reminds of that sociopath­ic army of Dark Knight true believ­ers who sent death threats to film review­ers for giv­ing the film ‘only’ four stars out of five. Those people make my shit itch.
  Anyway. I love James Cameron but this trail­er is a dis­aster – pos­sibly one of the worst ever cre­ated for such a major movie. I’ll reserve my judge­ment for the film itself until I’ve actu­ally seen it, but the trail­er does indeed make me think it looks rubbish.

• Dan Coyle says:

  August 22, 2009 at 3:55 pm

  Offered without com­ment, John Nolte’s review of Inglorious Basterds:
  http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/08/21/inglourious-basterds-review‑2/

• markj says:

  August 22, 2009 at 5:29 pm

  @Owain:
  You have no right to think Avatar looks rub­bish because it is the work of James Cameron.
  I jest… 😉
  It’s pretty clear to me ana­lys­ing the shots that Cameron knows what he is doing. If the film turns out to be a huge let­down i’ll be very sur­prised… the gen­er­al con­census from people who saw the foot­age shown in theat­ers yes­ter­day is that it was pretty spectacular.
  We’ll all find out in December I guess…

• Allen Belz says:

  August 22, 2009 at 10:22 pm

  Regarding fac­tu­al errors, White isn’t alone (though his per­cent­age may be way bey­ond the curve)…Ebert does it with sur­pris­ing regularity…usually no more than one error per review, but very dis­tract­ing (and dis­ap­point­ing) when it’s a big one that throws a large part of his under­stand­ing of what the par­tic­u­lar movie’s about out of whack.