Good God this was satisfying to read. Every Richard Brody review I have ever read serves one and only one purpose: to show off how well-read (well...-viewed?), interesting, and insightful Richard Brody is. He is completely uninterested in serving the reader as a film critic.
My favorite example is his review of Whiplash. The title is "Whiplash Gets Jazz All Wrong". Well, yes, Richard, that's the point. He says the movie's "idea of jazz is a grotesque and ludicrous caricature" because jazz is supposed to be collaborative, not combative. Yes, Richard, good job, *that is indeed the point.* He finds it unbelievable that Miles Teller's character would worship Buddy Rich, a mere "technical whiz" with no heart. YES, RICHARD, THAT VERY TELLING DETAIL POINTS TO AN IMPORTANT CHARACTER FLAW IN THE PROTAGONIST--WHICH IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
Not a useful review. You do, however, come away with the impression that Richard Brody knows a *lot* more about jazz than you.
I haven't even seen the movie (and I have my own qualms with the subject of "elevated horror", but that's something else entirely) but even just looking over the review, my GOD. This part right away: "Horror is an accursed genre. Because it promises to deliver a specific sensational effect, its stories are obliged to fit into preordained patterns." Yes, Richard, some forms and genres have inherent constraints or even in-built patterns. An English sonnet always has the volta in the same place and the same rhyme scheme. It is, as is usually the case for him, a completely vapid commentary.
I like early Malick: Badlands and Days of Heaven. those movies are about "youth" and they are themselves actually young. I find that very rare. they have almost no content. they are pure form, streams of images, a never finished thought. I know malick studied heidegger but that particular nazi philosopher benefits you most when you forget about him. in my opinion in his later movies malick tried too much to be a philosopher.
Good God this was satisfying to read. Every Richard Brody review I have ever read serves one and only one purpose: to show off how well-read (well...-viewed?), interesting, and insightful Richard Brody is. He is completely uninterested in serving the reader as a film critic.
My favorite example is his review of Whiplash. The title is "Whiplash Gets Jazz All Wrong". Well, yes, Richard, that's the point. He says the movie's "idea of jazz is a grotesque and ludicrous caricature" because jazz is supposed to be collaborative, not combative. Yes, Richard, good job, *that is indeed the point.* He finds it unbelievable that Miles Teller's character would worship Buddy Rich, a mere "technical whiz" with no heart. YES, RICHARD, THAT VERY TELLING DETAIL POINTS TO AN IMPORTANT CHARACTER FLAW IN THE PROTAGONIST--WHICH IS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT.
Not a useful review. You do, however, come away with the impression that Richard Brody knows a *lot* more about jazz than you.
He's unbearable to read. He's the critical equivalent of fucking Mr. Magoo.
He's totally out to lunch. His review of Weapons is so wrong-headed.
I haven't even seen the movie (and I have my own qualms with the subject of "elevated horror", but that's something else entirely) but even just looking over the review, my GOD. This part right away: "Horror is an accursed genre. Because it promises to deliver a specific sensational effect, its stories are obliged to fit into preordained patterns." Yes, Richard, some forms and genres have inherent constraints or even in-built patterns. An English sonnet always has the volta in the same place and the same rhyme scheme. It is, as is usually the case for him, a completely vapid commentary.
The best movies about a child’s inner-life: The list is very obvious and not open for discussion.
the spirit of the beehive
the night of the hunter
zero de conduite
Extremely good list, only it sorrowfully lacks any dinosaurs like in The Tree of Life
I like early Malick: Badlands and Days of Heaven. those movies are about "youth" and they are themselves actually young. I find that very rare. they have almost no content. they are pure form, streams of images, a never finished thought. I know malick studied heidegger but that particular nazi philosopher benefits you most when you forget about him. in my opinion in his later movies malick tried too much to be a philosopher.
SUPA NINJA!