Please log in to participate in this forum.
Rex Reed gave it a negative review! HAHA, I called it, I frickin knew it! I said it in the real shot at 100% thread, wow so predictable.
Dec 19 - 07:00 AM
It's because it wasn't a Republican president that got him.
Dec 18 - 11:38 PM
Speaking of which, did they ever release that picture of President Obama scalping Bin Laden after rappelling into the compound?
I like Obama, but this was ultimately the work of military and intelligence agencies over the course of many years with the support of two different administrations. Obama just made the same call just about anyone in his position would have made (though interestingly, Biden was against the raid.) I swear, it seems like these days all I hear is that Obama killed Bin Laden, not Seal Team 6 killed Bin Laden.
Dec 19 - 05:08 PM
lol, I did get a good kick out of this, the only two reviews that disliked the movie were the two Christian/Spiritual magazines (the one's most people would probably just ignore anyway) It's a funny coincidence. If the 3rd bad review is another Christian paper I'm going to die of laughter.
Dec 18 - 02:54 PM
I can't speak for the other publication, but I read The Christian Science Monitor regularly, and I wouldn't call it a spiritual magazine, despite the fact it has the word "Christian" right there in the name. The founder of the newspaper belonged to the church of Christ Scientist, and was quite devout, but for the last few decades the paper has made a point to be objective and secular in its reporting, which is one of the reasons I like it.
As for the reviews themselves, The reviewer for CSM is disgusted at how detached those who took part in the manhunt are, and you never really see much in the way of emotion or remorse. As for the other spiritual magazine, they open with an anecdote about a Buddhist monk trying to find a peaceful solution to understanding Bin Ladens motives, and the reviewer is openly distraught over America's constant desire for revenge over understanding.
In a nutshell, both reviewers are upset because this movie was a perfect opportunity to showcase and explore the "eye for an eye" morality of the United States, but it skips the opportunity entirely, avoiding the moral issues rather than addressing them.
Dec 18 - 01:26 PM
i agree those are both decent criticisms. the christian science monitor review i read and i don't remember any positive thing said about the movie, yet the score was a c+. i would have liked to see what worked and what didn't.
Dec 18 - 01:44 PM
I noticed that too, the score given by CSM seemed somewhat high considering the content of the review itself. My assumption is the reviewer probably felt it was still a technically great movie, but had to dock major points due to it's refusal to address some of the major issues of morality it ignored.
I for one feel confident I'll enjoy the movie, but after reading the dissenting reviews I can respect why the reviewers felt the film was too detached.
Dec 18 - 02:23 PM
Well it's obvious those two magazines don't base the movie off of it's own terms only their own.
Dec 18 - 01:23 PM
The whole reason we have movie critics is because we value (or are at least interested in) their opinions. If I understand what you're saying--and honestly, it's difficult to tell--you seem to think that every movie is imbued with some sort of objective message, that a painting or other man-made work of art has some absolute purpose or meaning that critics are supposed to understand and relay to us. That's not how it works; it never has been and it never will be. Such things are given meaning and purpose by their creators, and critics may or may not be able to see what that meaning or purpose is. The best they can do is give an educated opinion, and the best we can do is take that opinion for what it's worth and then formulate our own.
So to say that these two publications use "only their own" terms to judge the movie is to misunderstand the role of a critic. And if you think they're biased, you're only looking at the words "Christian" and "spirituality," thereby ignoring the full reviews and the well-formed, respectable opinions within them.
Dec 18 - 02:06 PM
No I read the whole review and his score didn't even coincide with his written words, for one. Of course he can judge the film anyway they want but to me it's not a valid opinion if you are judging the film with a moralistic input. That's not a view that any save few can share and frankly a limited one that lacks any solid truth. By meeting a film on it's own terms you don't have to like it's message but judge it for it's artistic merit (which btw what half these TOP critics did, which is plausible). To conclude that you think it doesn't take your stance on torture so you give it a bad review is like saying you hate The Godfather because it glorifies the mafia. Again, some may respect this type of review but I certainly don't.
Dec 18 - 07:41 PM