#Cinema Review

[kjudgemental]

The Omen (2006) - Horror Movie Review

Director: John Moore Production Company: 20th Century Fox (distributed by) Country: USA Year: 2006 It was only a matter of time. Everything else is getting the remake treatment, so 30 years after the Oscar-winning original film, they finally get around to taking The Omen and giving a completely old spin on it. The cast they managed to get together was interesting, including Julian Stiles, Mia…

[4dmc]

Movie Reviews From Under A Rock: Licorice Pizza

Licorize Pizza is a 2021 American film directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.

A romantic, coming-of-age comedy film set in the 70s, centered around the 2 main characters: 25 year old Alana Kane and 15 year old Gary Valentine. The two struggle with their relationship, family issues, growing pains and finding ways to earn money.

WARNING: Some minor spoilers.

The Bad first: the whole age gap/different age romance is something that IS a great factor regarding the 2 main characters' struggles/conflict in the plot. The age-gap romance is intertwined with the movie's themes of how flawed people are.

My problem with it is that it does give us the same-old rhetoric about glorifying their age-difference romance. Gary is only 15 years old.

However, this Bad thing is part of the story highlighting the flaws of the reality that both characters are navigating as two fumbling teens/young adults do. But alright, I will be expanding upon this as we move forward....

Another Bad thing, and this is probably more so to the personal experience of any moviegoer if they're going to watch this film, is that the style of this film is quite unconventional. Licorice Pizza is highly a "Slice of Life" sort of movie.

Literally, a Slice of Licorice Pizza is near 3 hours long and to a moviegoer who wants things in a straightforward fashion or is used to conventional styles of plot and pace, this is going to be a chunky, near plotless, meandering movie.

That itself isn't truly a Bad thing for a format/style of a movie, but rather for the audience/viewer who will see something like this and may lose track of the story. Or feel like it's going nowhere.

There's also a few, miniscule moments of racist stereotyping; as this is set in the 70s, some Japanese/Asian characters are blatantly stereotyped. Without spoiling, it's because a few of the lead characters are involved with making business in opening the first "Japanese" restaurant chains in the USA. And you can imagine how awkward that is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then the Good: Cinematography, the cast, the emotional beats and themes of the story are this film's greatest strengths.

It actually tells a rather simple, open-ended tale about two people having to grow up and making the best out of everything that they set their minds to. The lead, Alana, is in this state of painfully trying to become mature, especially since she's 25 years old. Gary, on the other hand, appears that he's trying his best to fit into this adult mold he thinks he ought to be, as any 15 year old tries to interpret their maturity.

And all the while the way the film shoots these moments are fantastic. Simple, everyday moments are just when every cast is simply in this still frame. Whilst tense, argumentative moments are further highlighted by both a quiet and this slight tilt in the over-the-shoulder perspective. The film wastes no time in using every camera technique to visually show a lot of the moments the characters go through: whether going to New York City to perform on stage, or on a waterbed falling asleep, it is eye-candy.

I think what's best about this coming-of-age film is its depictions of many adults, specifically Alana's new adulthood. She's young but she's literally now an adult and she has this urgency that she feels she's already missing out on what it is to be "an adult". Yet she's stuck with the same circle of friends, most of which are below 18 year olds, and you get a sense that she wants out of it. It also doesn't help that her own family, her fellow peers around her age group (mostly just her sisters) and even some adults in her various jobs further puts her in this dizzyingly exhausting situation. Like after everything that's happened, she's back to square one.

I discussed before in the Bad section about the age-gap thing. I want to make it clear that, yes, their romance is something the audience/viewer will definitely put into question and criticize. And its ending regarding Alana and Gary's relationship will likely not be different to the viewers criticizing this aspect.

But the film itself is grey-neutral about this flawed relationship. It's not neutral that it passively accepts the romance both Alana and Gary have for one another. But rather the entirety of this film presents a very flawed, mundane adulthood, and an honest imperfect journey to their maturity. Even if it actually means the two of them aren't there yet as the film ends. It knows their relationship is wrong, but the film isn't about making moral statements. Only honestly portraying it.

It's a comedy film; it shows their journey and the ups and downs of their relationship with one another, with other friends and adults, with a dash of absurdism. This is further highlighted as these young characters mingle with businessmen and Hollywood has-beens and aggressive, upcoming actors; all because they want to earn money and make it big.

And it's in these situations of trying to find income that Alana and Gary fight one another, all the while wrestling with their desires for one another: Gary, as a hormonal teen, speaks to Alana about seeing her breasts. Alana, on the other hand, being the adult, refuses at first, but in her impulsivity and anger, she eventually does show her breasts to him.

This is just among their many fights, some trivial, others about their values and singling out the other's flaws. And in their conflict, you can't help but awkwardly and even point out how absurd their fights are, and laugh. But in the end, in some ways you can't help but sympathize these 2 characters because their problems will likely be similar to ours.

Personally, I thought I was going to relate to Alana as she's the closest my age and also it's true that adults still go through a lot of growing up. Adulthood is not perfect. But I ended up more relating and even more entertained with Gary's character. He is forced to grow and mature because of his absent father, and felt he had to shoulder an equal share to his single mom's burden, particularly earning money.

Despite his age and even some of the typical 15 year old hi-jinks, Gary is shown strugglinh in this in-between state of just being young, a teen with ambitions but still not encumbered with any kind of adult responsibility, or at least he's not supposed to; but he is, as he had taken upon himself to hustle both for their family's financial state, as well as having to act like a grown-up, even taking on akin to being a "de facto" leader; as at one point in the film, he became a manager.

All in all, Licorice Pizza may visually intrigue us with the cinematic nostalgia for the 70s, but perhaps even more so for the current teens and new adults in their 20s, who may find the setting and meandering slice of life story, despite it being in a generation not of their own, reminiscent of what they used to be. Or what they want to be, and do, fully acknowledging the awkward and imperfect moments of teenhood and early adulthood.

And simultaneously, its visuals harmonizes with the overlapping themes of the story presented to us: the imperfections of growing up and becoming adults, or even as adults. And the relationships between people, no matter how bad it gets, are worth working hard to maintain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Ugly: Visually, sonically and production-wise, this is a solid film in those arenas. And yes, this film is depicting an age-gap romance, not to mention some Asian stereotyping. There's even the actual length and pacing of the film. There's no denying this film is long and the attention span of the audience can be put to the test with this one, especially since its style of story telling is stylized.

But there's also Bradley Cooper's character here, Jon Peters. Jon Peters was a former hairdresser and film producer. He's also real. In here, he's depicted as among those aggro 70's director/producer, who's super rich and 100% an aHHhole.

The thing is, one research on Jon Peters himself reveals a lot of issues about him. Sure, he has an illustrious career, spanning 7 decades, all starting from when he was an extra from a 50s film The Ten Commandments, to when he became a hairdresser and designed a wig for Barbra Streisand, all the way to when he was a Hollywood producer.

But then there's the fact that he was among the reasons why The Sandman live adaptation had been stuck in development hell since 2011; to sexually harassing a secretary; having very wild ideas for the iconic character, Superman, that got him banned from Christopher Nolan's set of the Man of Steel film (according to him); and down to his own failed marriages.

So yeah...a very interesting little "ugly" thing that doesn't have any connection to this film....except Anderson had Bradley Cooper depict a fictional version of this guy in this movie.

Make of this info what you will.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Beauty: I already said it's cinematography is good, but the best thing I found in this film is this very precise perspectives and camera work. There is nothing too shaky when they characters are running or if there are any of these action scenes happening.

In fact, some of the most "Ah sh!t wtf!" moments are framed in with the camera so still, whilst that "AAhh! Wtf!" happened right before your eyes. It's like you, the audience, have just bear witnessed to some spectacular accident or even an incident as you happen to be there.

Despite these moments, the story is mostly set in these quiet, mundane moments. The perspective of the camera frames them as the moment is fit: if there's melodrama, the camera respects that moment and even hangs in there to let us view the emotion of a character. And this is even painstakingly done on minor characters.

The set design is done with verisimilitude in mind. This is not shot with the 70s glorified. The places where they go has trash strewn, the shop they converted to become an arcade has seen better days. The cars, the technology, the diner, even etc. could've been straight out of our parents' or grandparents' memories. And that's another thing: Paul Thomas Anderson wanted the 70s to come alive in this film, and he has referenced various people, places and even his own experiences when he was a kid into the film.

Costumes are definitely contemporaneous. People's fashions are definitely depicted to be as close to what ordinary people wore in the 70s. With some celebrity characters co-mingling with them, whilst others are from a subculture, the dresses and clothing are made for what they're supposed to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sonically, the soundtrack of this film definitely borrows from or are playing actual 70s songs to better fit the setting. To just truly put us into their world, combined with original songs that further color and highlight moments in this film. The original sounds excel in those slow, mundane and poignant points in the film, with some of their downbeat and slow sound harmonizing to the story.

I have never known what the 70s looks like, but at least with this film, it let me have a peek at someone's memories and style of what it may have been like.

===============================================

Overall: This is probably not for everyone. But still, this is neither a difficult, mental film, nor is it anything simplified. It's just unconventional in its approach on a simple story of a Girl Meets Boy Meets The World type of thing. I won't deny some of the problematic aspects of this film, both inside the story, and also outside, as there are some real-life people depicted in this movie who has done a lot of questionable stuff (yeah I'm talking about you Jon Peters). So if you want, give this a whirl on a long, listless, nothing-better-to-do weekend. And honestly, either Alana or Gary would've done the same thing.

When I 1st watched it, it was because my uncle and grandma wanted to watch something because they've got nothing else to do. My uncle let me picked something from whatever he had pirated (yeah he pirated Licorice Pizza, among other stuff). The title intrigued me and so, we brought out our chicharon (crispy pork snack), red wine and press play. Wouldn't trade that long afternoon for anything else.

[alexjcrowley]

Hello trans community! My name is Alex, I am a cisgender girl and I am currently writing a review of the movie Laurence Anyways (2012), by Xavier Dolan, that revolves around the story of a trans woman. It is inspired by the real life story of Luce Baillargé.

Now, as I specified, I am cisgender, and as much as I try to keep myself informed about the trans community, I am aware of my limits. My point of view on the movie will always be that of a cisgender person, as much as I try to put myself in the shoes of the main character. And as much as I like to think I am qualified to write a movie review, I don't think I am to judge if the representation of the transition experience was a good one or not.

I wanted to ask trans people who watched the movie if they could briefly tell me, through comments or reblogs, if they think this movie did good trans representation and why. If maybe it was good for 2012 standards but now is lackin. Basically, your thoughts.

When I write a review of something, the research process is very important for me. If I have to write in my article that this movie does a good job telling the story of a trans woman, I want my opinion to be backed up by the community this movie is about. I can identify products that are blatantly transphobic, but I think there are some shades I don't notice easily and that I could overlook, ending up praising something for more than it is.

I'd be really grateful if someone helped out in this pickle, I'd reach out to trans people in real life but I live in a small town in the butt of fucking nowhere in which I don't even know if people know what a trans person is.

Please if in this post I made any kind of mistake in the language used towards the trans community I am sorry, it wasn't intentional, point it out to me and I will correct it.

Thanks in advance.

[gophotographer]

"Guardians of the Galaxy 3: The Cosmic Comedy Extravaganza"

If you thought the universe couldn’t get any zanier, think again! “Guardians of the Galaxy 3” catapults us into a cosmic comedy extravaganza that had us laughing our way through the stars. Director James Gunn delivers a hilarious and action-packed joyride that proves even superheroes have a flair for comedy. From the moment the film starts, it’s clear that the Guardians haven’t lost their knack…

[barnabusthebarmyballetschool]

Rating the local cinemas

I have scoured the local cinemas to find any that are showing Lisa Frankenstein. Here are my findings:

Showcase £££££

The most expensive on my list. Located in an expensive shopping centre, this cinema has an imax screen and recliner seats with their own cupholders and even a tray table. Sadly the ticket payment option wouldn't let you leave a lone seat, even if that would be on the end of the row. It also forced you to select your price option before you could see the seat map, which is a feature I really don't like as it might mean getting stuck with the front row, or having to go back through the menus to buy the 'luxury' seats. At least the toilets were clean and functional. This was one of several cinemas that require stairs or lift access to the screen itself.

Vue ££££

Nearly as expensive, this cinema also has recliners but without the mini table. My local has recently had a massive revamp but it seems they forgot about the toilets which were still hit and miss. There were no payment screens (obviously removed as they were always broken anyway) so I had to buy my ticket from the food stand. This cinema is located on the 1st floor so stairs/ lift access necessary, but once inside it is step free access to all screens. It also offers parking validation so at least that cost was minimised.

Cineworld £££

Another imax cinema, but my screening was the regular low budget affair. Parking was free up to 4 hours, and the building itself was all on ground level and felt clean (with funtional toilet locks!). The ticket price was also cheaper, but not by enough to justify the ratty old seats we had. I was able to use Meerkat Movies with a friend as I bought online, but yet again had to select my ticket type before I could see the seating chart. I don't mind paying more for seats every now and then as I prefer to select my distance from the screen, so please let me see the available seats first!

Reel £££

Only 10p cheaper than Cineworld, I had the good fortune to also have free parking due to the late show time. If I had gone earlier in the day/ on the weekend, the cost of parking would have taken this into the more expensive territory. The building itself was good, with comfortable non-recliner seats. This was sadly another select ticket price before seats user interface, and stairs/ lift was necessary to get to the screens.

Odeon ££

By far the cheapest option, with free unlimited parking and only £5 ticket price for Odeon Members (which is free to sign up to). This has always been my preferred cinema, not just because it is geographically closest, but it's all on one level, and the seats are comfotable non-recliners which you can choose from a seat map rather than selecting price options first. There's also a user friendly mobile app you can use to buy and display your ticket, and there's even an option to pre-purchase food if you're into that sort of thing. The only major downside are the broken toilets, with locks and taps not working making the building feel derelict.

[julianlytle]

My review of the new Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom review.

[shortcake22smess]

Choose your symbol

« You needed a father. All you had was me. » - Alfred quote from The Batman (2022).

« Is it just me or is it getting crazier out there ? » - Arthur quote from Joker (2019).

J'ai écrit de façon plus détaillée sur un carnet personnel ce que je pense des deux films. Ils sont bons, mais il y a des points qui me dérangent. Je ne vais pas les développer ici, mais pour faire simple, je trouve qu'il y a trop d'incohérences d'écritures scénaristiques qui aurait pu être évitées.

The Batman : ce qui m'a le plus marqué est Bruce Wayne qui se fait avoir bêtement parce qu'il a un niveau A1 en espagnol, alors qu'il semble doué pour les énigmes complexes ; l'autre exemple est une des scènes finales où Batman saute d'une structure électrique. Je m'attendais à ce qu'il se sacrifie ou que sais-je, mais non, il plonge (plongeon inutile) pour sauver les friqués et cols blancs de Gotham. Le côté emo/dark de Bruce Wayne m'a laissée perplexe, le montage et l'inconséquence des pistes thématiques ont ajouté une nouvelle couche.

6.5/10

Joker : pour ce cas, ce qui m'a laissée dubitative est la cause des émeutes dans le film. Le symbole du clown devient un symbole de révolte populaire qui glisse vers l'anarchie et la soif de vendetta. Ok, pas de problèmes jusque-là. Mais ! Ce soulèvement survient suite aux meurtres de quelques golden boy dans un métro par Arthur (Joker), meurtres non pas commis par haine sociale envers ce que ces jeunes hommes représentent, mais par pure pulsion assassine. Je trouve cela un peu dommage de donner un symbole de résistance à un personnage par erreur.

6.5/10

Ils ne sont pas mauvais sur d'autres aspects (plans, esthétiques, bande son, acteurs...) mais je ne comprends pas tous les éloges à leur encontre.

[dantereviews]

Quickie: Infinity Pool

8/10

Infinity Pool is a recent horror film starring Alexander Skarsgard and Mia Goth, directed by Brandon Cronenberg. This movie was an interesting but perhaps hollow ride. It follows James, an author on retreat with his rich wife to a resort in the fictional third world island nation of Li Tolqa. There they meet the eccentric and mysterious Gabi and her husband who begin to lead James into a debauched, depraved and dangerous diversion. 

The locations on display are all stunning from lush beaches to elaborate villas to brutal facilities. It was a really pretty film overall, especially including the main actors Mia Goth and Alexander Skarsgard who are just stunning. Goth exudes a sense of otherwordly and unsettling seductiveness and Skarsgard plays against type as a meek everyman. He once again goes beyond his natural good looks and explores interesting new territory as an actor. 

The content of the story is a little more murky. While it does play with some conceptually interesting ideas, I feel like the movie never really went deep enough into either the sci-fi or psychological aspects to become truly horrifying. Because of that, although it looks and sounds great, and has an engaging atmosphere, I dont think Infinity Pool is going to stay with me the way some others in the genre have. 

But that being said, some of the scenes did really nail the sweet spot of being gory or brutal enough to make me uncomfortable without resorting to cheap jump scares, and I think overall it takes its place as a fun, creepy romp that isnt too deep, but will definitely take you for a ride.

[oldshowbiz]

1974.

New Jersey critics had it out for Mel Brooks.

[renatapatata]

as soon as i added a very vague letterbox review for this film some guy from work texted me and it took me .5 seconds to realize he had no idea what the plot was actually about… certified ‘bruh’ moment lads

[kjudgemental]

Dune: Part Two - Sci-fi Film Review

Director: Denis Villeneuve Production Company: Warner Bros/Legendary Pictures Country: United States Year: 2024 The biggest blockbuster of the year so far, and possibly one of the biggest of the year as a whole, though as we’re only in March, that part remains to be seen. Originally slated for release last year, it got pushed as a result of the Actors Strikes going on, and so at the beginning…

[alanisyd]

Redes sociais do projeto Pipoca com Psicanálise.

[alexjcrowley]

I have unadulterated beef, as an aspiring cinema critic, towards specific critiques of musical movies.

Now, to be clear, my point is not "you should like musical" nor "you should know EVERYTHING about musicals before talking about them" not even "MUSICALS are a SACRED genre RESPECT them or ELSE".

No that's not what I am going at, but please, hear me out, as someone who is really into cinema, has been writing reviews for movie for a couple of years for, albeit small, online papers, and knows a couple of things about musicals, accept a friendly advice. I am not trying to convert you in theatre kids, I am just tired of always reading the same reviews.

Musical are a genre in cinema, this is not something you can escape and, although now they aren't that popular (not as they were decades ago, at least) you may still find yourself reviewing one.

1) Know Some Background

Let's start with one thing about musical in cinema: musicals used to be HUGE in the movie industry between 1930 and 1950. Think what's happening nowdays with superhero movies. A lot of them were proudced by MGM at the time. I say this because I have found that a lot of older people or people who are into old movies, basically from the 1970 going back, have a grudge against musicals because of how they flooded the industry a many years ago. God knows I'll still hold grudges towards superhero movies when I am 50 being bombarded with Marvel's products now.

I make this preface just to make a couple of things clear: cinema seems to have now reignated its passion for musicals, but this isn't new at all. And if some people still have a problem with musical films for how they invaded the industry ages ago I cannot blame them.

Am I saying you're ONLY allow to hate musicals if you know the history of musical films from 90 to 60 years ago?

No, you can hate musical regardless, BUT if you have to review a musical, please, I beg you, do not start (because I have seen this) with "now EVERYBODY is making musicals out of NOTHING, don't they understand NOBODY likes musicals?".

People used to like them a lot, and then got tired of it, like Marvel movies. And then it took some time and a new audience and musicals came back. I fear Marvel movies will do that too.

You shouldn't know the history of all the musicals, but also check your information. It's just some history of cinema, after all, and you cannot ignore the role musical movies had in it just because you don't like them. Also, I'd invite any hater of the genre to talk about why they think musicals are making a comeback in cinema, it's an interesting phenomenon (I have some idea, but this is not the time or place).

2) Know When Your Bias Is Useful

There are occasions in which hating something about a movie you need to review is actually a good thing. For example, I know a guy who wrote a review in which he said he hated musical, but he really liked Joe Wright's Cyrano, that is a musical version of the original theatrical work. Exposing his bias against musicals was useful in the review, because it's like he said to a potential reader "even though you hate the genre, give this movie a chance".

Does that mean that you should ONLY use your bias against musicals when you like them, so to say "even if I hate musicals, I like this one"? Absolutely not. Declaring your hatred for a genre can also be useful when you didn't like the movie, I'll make a couple of examples:

a) Stating you don't like musicals when reviewing one can be useful to a potential reader. Basically, if you make a very bad review of a musical movie mainly because it is a musical movie, a reader might go "Oh, it's a very bad musical movie then, I won't waste my time with it". But if you specify that you're not fond of the genre, you are recognising this movie wasn't for you, therefore you are saying something that is very important: this movie could be for someone else. People should enjoy movie, the point of a review doesn't have to be "this movie is good/bad", it can also be "this is the movie. It will be good for these people and bad for other people". A lot of movies are just mediocre, but we still watch them because they resonate with us. Maybe this movie wasn't the right mediocre for you, but it could be for someone else. And it's not like who doesn't share your opinion is automatically wrong.

b) Your bias against musicals can be a very powerful instrument in a movie review. You see, I like musicals a lot and, if you make me watch a musical movie, the first things I'd want to talk about would be the musical numbers and the structure of musical. I would focus on the musical part and, distracted by it, I could put less emphasis the movie part. You hatred for the genre can be a very solid ally if you end up, bored by the musical numbers, concentrating of the more "technical" aspects of the movie: cinematography, acting performance outside of songs, sets, customs, everything that's not a song. I am not saying that if I like musicals I will automatically write a non professional review of it because I am blinded by the music. I am just saying that because you, person who hate musicals, do not focus that much on musical performances, you can write a review with a very different and original angle from a lot of reviewers who'll think of the musical movies as more of a musical and less than a movie. Have your strength in concentrating on the movie part, which is sometimes brushed off because people think the core of the product is the musical and filming is just a way of releasing it to the public. UNLESS it is a stage filming, you cannot brush over the cinematic aspect of the product. Don't criticise the musical part if you don't feel confident or knowledgeable enough about it, find something else to say, something other people might not notice!

3) Wild Affirmations For The Sake Of Comedy

If I had a nickel for everytime I have heard some reviewers make very dumb claims about musicals just to elicit a joke I'd have my own car.

Let's start with the "oh but people just BURST into singing it doesn't make any sense!"

My brother in Christ that's the point of a musical. It's called suspeion of disbelief, you can also also find it in acyion movie when they do absurd stunts that should kill the characters but hey, they don't, because it's a movie. It's like someone badly reviewed a fantasy because wizards or elves or trolls are not real. Grow up.

(I am not even saying that you cannot quote this as the reason you don't like musicals, but stop making it an actual "reletable" joke, it's just annoying and overused).

Also, generally, every kind of "musicals as a genre suck" jokes are not very professional. As I said at the beginning of this post, I have written reviews for an editorial staff and let me tell you two things:

a) when you're working on a word count, you have to think twice before sacrificing part of actual review for a joke, especially if it's not that good

b) when you work for an editorial staff, your opinion is THEIR opinion. And I don't mean it as a "they'll tell you what to write", but as a "since this comes out as the opinion of the page/paper/website, your opinion needs to be supported and justified by evidence, or we cannot publish it". Guess what, personal hatred towards a genre doesn't count as evidence.

So you might say "but I don't work for an editorial staff, I have a YouTube Channel/ Tumblr Page/ Instagram Account/ TikTok Account/My Own Website in which I cam say just everything that crosses my mind".

And to that I say good for you! But I am informing how professionals work, at least in my experience. And it's not like of you're a professional you work inherently better that someone who isn't, but also the contrary isn't true.

And by the way, even of you don't have editors to watch over your work, the things I've said are basically: recognise what are important and the usleess parts of your review and support you opinion with evidence.

If you believe in having an opinion supported by actual evidences, maybe do not claim yourself a critic. Of anything, not just movies.

And another point to this paragraph, that ties in with the first paragraph, PLEASE. INFORM. YOURSELF. BEFORE. MAKING. NONSENSE. CLAIMS.

I am not asking for you to read the history of musical, I am asking you to go on Wikipedia for 5 minutes.

I shit you not, I heard a guy saying that a musical "cheated" because it "stole" real songs.

I opened my browser, I typed in "musicals with real songs" and in less than a minute "Jukebox musicals" appeared on my screen. Less than a minute. Just so that people stop making this same mistake, here's the Wikipedia definition:

"A jukebox musical is a stage musical or musical film in which a majority of the songs are well-known popular music songs, rather than original music."

They're not stealing shit, it's a type of musical. God, it's like when you have the horror genre, and then you have all the subgenre, like the psychological, the supernatural, the possession horror, the home invasion, etc.

Musicals can be very diverse, and it's fine if you don't want to know about this diversity because you aren't interested in them, but when you make critiques of them all the same at least check what you're saying it's true. Quick browser research, less than a minute.

4) Musicals Can Still Be Bad

There's this thing, that often people who hate musicals think people who love musicals love all musicals. Which is simply unrealistic.

It's like if sombody said they liked movies and you assumed they liked a the movies in the world. That's not how it works.

And this aspect is important to debunk in movie reviews because I've had a lot of movies critics assume that musical fans will like any musical movie because it's a musical and everything the critics didn't like in the musical movie is actually a pivotal aspect of the genre and the reason they don't like it is always because it's a musical movie and not because that something is actually bad.

I'll make it easier. It's like if someone didn't like superhero movies and then watched Spiderman 3 by Raimi and thought the only reason they didn't like it was because it was a superhero movie and thought everyone else loved it and called it a masterpiece.

Why is it important that we debunk this misconception? Because only then we can have fair reviews of musical movies!

I watched a guy talk shit about Amazon Cinderella musical (you know, the one with Camila Cabello) and, I am sorry if you liked this musical, but I didn't! Pretty bad one, if you ask me. I didn't like a lot of things and, listening to this guy, I realised we thought the same of a lot of things. And then he was like "but well I don't like musicals, so it makes sense to all you, but not to me".

DUDE, NO. You wouldn't think you have to like every horror movie if you like horror as a genre, nor that you have to completely love or hate a movie, but you can like and dislike different aspects. Exactly like I can like something and dislike another is a musical movie, stop treating them like a monolith.

No, not everything that happens in a musical is a fundamental aspect of it. I can say "I liked this song and the cinematography, but that other song sucked and the costums were meh".

And you, critic who's reviewing a musical movie, can say "I don't like musicals in general, and especially in this one I thought the camera movements were off/there were bad costums/the plot was stupid".

You can criticise the plot of a musical if it doesn't make sense to you! Some of the way in which the plot is told are pivotal to the musical genre, I won't lie, but not everything you see in a musical could not have been changed or improved.

I challenge people who hate musical movies to find interesting criticism to move to a particular movie rather to generally scoff at the genre they usually don't know that well.

I am a person always willing to change my mind, alright? Give me the right arguments, I will listen to you, I will change what I think if I think you're right, I will thank you if you helped me see something I hadn't before.

So if you move forward a valid criticism, I will hear you out. I do wish more people had this sort of attitude. I do wish musical movie reviews I happened to read weren't all the same and I think this issue stems from the fact that people do love to hate on something just because.

I hope this post can be useful to someone and, for who made it to this point, that you did not feel like you wasted your time.

[queerism1969]

[luhvrlis]

[lemoniiiiiii]

THINKING ABOUT EXCHANGING LETTERBOXD @'S INSTEAD OF INSTAGRAMS WITH LUKE COOPER LIKE....

he definitely would underestimate your love for movies at first before seeing your account and then he would gain sm respect for you and crush so hard realizing you're just like him. and he would regularly take you on movie theater dates (and would surprise you by taking you to early screenings with q&a's) and you would discuss them afterwards and watch video essays about them online and rate how good they were (completely subjective rating like you two ego's are through the roof and only fed more by your similar tastes, however yours was a bit different than his), he would refuse to watch anything he thought was "cheesy" or "dumb" like maybe some adam sandler films but with you around he ends up being like a dad: walking into the room while it's on and he gets invested in a scene and just stands there in the middle of the room watching it before sitting down next to you (his arms are crossed; he's not giving in that easy) then eventually laying down, head in your lap. after the movie's over he would be like "that wasn't that bad" but would never EVER put it as watched on his letterboxd. they don't count to him.

but you know he's watching them when you're not around because you'll make references to them and he'll laugh too hard for a person who hasn't watched the movie and doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.