TheUnbeholden said:
No it isn't a possibility. I have never read a book in one day, let alone 3 in 3 days. (assuming the average length of a book being 300 pages) It would take about half of my free time to read one book in one week.
I get through about 100 pages in one day assuming I spend all of my free time that day...
If bob was expected to read the book the movie is based on, it would leave only half is time to get the review written/summarised to be within the clips short time frame & get clip edited with all his good takes ect
Yes, it is a possibility, all things are possible, though not all things are probable. How probable a solution this is for Bob is an unknown, I don't know how fast he reads, what other projects he has going simultaneously, if he's holding down a 9 to 5 in addition to this rather cush set up, etc. But is it possible? Hell yes. Folks are assigned 300+ page novels to read over a
weekend. And if he's in that much a crunch for time, spark notes that shit. It's better than nothing, and what we have here is nothing. If you want to beat your breast and champion the cause of the movie maker and the movie aficionado, shouldn't you demand a higher level of criticism? What you've got, is a stream of verbiage and the pretense of witticism coupled with a slide show. This may not be without merit or worth in and of itself, but is this a review I'd expect most thinking souls to take halfway seriously? Hell no.
TheUnbeholden said:
I think your statement here is essentially an insult to every movie maker, or movie aficionado. A movie isn't here to be a complementary snack to a book, a movie is supposed to be able to stand on its own to 2 feet. Able to create a coherent and original piece of work (in the medium its in, eg sci-fi movie) that can be judged on its own merits.
This movie does not. Its 2 and half hours long and its still not accessible to the "haven't read hunger games" crowd, in other words the general population.
My friend, pause a moment, and realize the swaths of butthurt in the above series of statements. A movie doesn't
have to me anything more than a series of moving pictures with or without accompanying sounds. If a film doesn't take the risks inherent in an adaptation rather than a translation (which by all means, I typically prefer), because it's meant to cater primarily to those hungering for a translation, it has the right to do so, and should be judged from both perspectives (that of outsider and intimate.) Don't talk to me about insult, not when we're calling this a successful review. The art, lit., and music majors don't give movies quite as much flak as video games, but the community as a whole hardly seems to consider them equal to their preferred cultural mediums. I'm not saying this is good or fair, it's merely true. You've got high enough standards for your films, but appalling standards for your critics.
Lionsgate isn't hurting for your respect, they'd prefer your coin. Go into the film expecting an adequate translation of the novels into celluloid, and more often than not, you'll walk away generally pleased. Walk into the theater expecting a half way decent film, and lo and behold, this is what you'll receive (dependent of course upon how you define a half-way decent film).
I'm not here to champion the film, never had been, never will be (I'll champion the Fountain, I'll champion that shit till kingdom come), you may like it, you might not, definitely get more out of it if you read the book, etc. etc. I'm generally more concerned with a man who tends (on occasion) to show a high level of critical insight and knowledge, half-assing it. (though this is rather indicative of the state of criticism for the medium).