I don't plan to see this movie, because based on your description and those of other reviewers, it sounds remarkably poorly crafted in writing and story structure, that is, just plain awful. (If I have an outbreak of thirst for justice, I'll rewatch Deathwish or the Punisher. :) ) I wonder about entirely condemning this film. What is the purpose of art? (Underlying my question is my assumption that movies are an art form just as plays, novels, painting, sculpture, etc.) I observe that our souls can get 'hungry and thirsty'. That is, as we move through life, based on what goes on around us, our souls can lack something crucial and we sense that. Pornography is an example. Those who don't have a great sex life seek a substitute. Obviously not the right approach but understandable. I think many would agree that our current culture is seriously deficient in, and in many ways entirely devoid of, certain aspects of justice. One need look no further than the Democrats outright rejoicing at the murder or attempted murder of anyone with whom they have a disagreement and their relentless support for, encouragement of, outright refusing to prosecute/freeing of vicious thugs and crooks. I judge that this movie 'hit a nerve' with the public and so may have served a purpose, or maybe I've just seen way too many movies in the recent decades which were praised to the skies by 'critics' (driven by virulent leftist ideology and defined as 'those who can't do, criticize.' which for the record clearly does not apply to you as a writer or others at TOS.) and which were in my opinion, boring drivel filled with psychologically intentionally impaired helpless victims who whine their way through stories best left untold. In summary, I'll make an analogy to medical care from which I am retired. You see a patient with awful symptoms. You realize that there is underlying disease and you don't object to the appearance of those symptoms because they are valuable tools in making the proper diagnosis. i think this film and its success are symptoms of what is wrong with our culture You and others at TOS seem to be making the right diagnosis but I say don't over condemn the symptoms. Observe and correct.
The movie works because the vigilante isn't likable at all - that's the tension the writer is going for, asking the audience to ask, "how should I feel about this?" Critique of the film making is spot on, but Bolle has never been confused with Nolan anyway.
Bidinotto's commentary is ironic at best, tone deaf at worst, as his craft is the "justified" and "morally centered" vigilante. But still a vigilante - violent but angst ridden, a killer but a tender lover, ugh. Is he actually saying, "my books may give you the vapors, just not the bad kind?" I liken it to an expression used in West Texas about the past - "there's a code of the West until the Comanche shows up".
Your charge of subjectivism here fails because Bidinotto identified the relevant - that's: relevant - contexts about as clearly as the printed word can express. And context is not something to evade.
Ah, the reflexive ad hominem, you're battin' 1000 here. Though an ad hom does not really warrant rebuttal, for the record I know Mr. Bidinotto but, no, I ain't him. Savvy?
I don't plan to see this movie, because based on your description and those of other reviewers, it sounds remarkably poorly crafted in writing and story structure, that is, just plain awful. (If I have an outbreak of thirst for justice, I'll rewatch Deathwish or the Punisher. :) ) I wonder about entirely condemning this film. What is the purpose of art? (Underlying my question is my assumption that movies are an art form just as plays, novels, painting, sculpture, etc.) I observe that our souls can get 'hungry and thirsty'. That is, as we move through life, based on what goes on around us, our souls can lack something crucial and we sense that. Pornography is an example. Those who don't have a great sex life seek a substitute. Obviously not the right approach but understandable. I think many would agree that our current culture is seriously deficient in, and in many ways entirely devoid of, certain aspects of justice. One need look no further than the Democrats outright rejoicing at the murder or attempted murder of anyone with whom they have a disagreement and their relentless support for, encouragement of, outright refusing to prosecute/freeing of vicious thugs and crooks. I judge that this movie 'hit a nerve' with the public and so may have served a purpose, or maybe I've just seen way too many movies in the recent decades which were praised to the skies by 'critics' (driven by virulent leftist ideology and defined as 'those who can't do, criticize.' which for the record clearly does not apply to you as a writer or others at TOS.) and which were in my opinion, boring drivel filled with psychologically intentionally impaired helpless victims who whine their way through stories best left untold. In summary, I'll make an analogy to medical care from which I am retired. You see a patient with awful symptoms. You realize that there is underlying disease and you don't object to the appearance of those symptoms because they are valuable tools in making the proper diagnosis. i think this film and its success are symptoms of what is wrong with our culture You and others at TOS seem to be making the right diagnosis but I say don't over condemn the symptoms. Observe and correct.
The movie works because the vigilante isn't likable at all - that's the tension the writer is going for, asking the audience to ask, "how should I feel about this?" Critique of the film making is spot on, but Bolle has never been confused with Nolan anyway.
Bidinotto's commentary is ironic at best, tone deaf at worst, as his craft is the "justified" and "morally centered" vigilante. But still a vigilante - violent but angst ridden, a killer but a tender lover, ugh. Is he actually saying, "my books may give you the vapors, just not the bad kind?" I liken it to an expression used in West Texas about the past - "there's a code of the West until the Comanche shows up".
Your charge of subjectivism here fails because Bidinotto identified the relevant - that's: relevant - contexts about as clearly as the printed word can express. And context is not something to evade.
I hope you get paid by the word, because sense isn't in your contract. I thought bots were better.
Ah, the reflexive ad hominem, you're battin' 1000 here. Though an ad hom does not really warrant rebuttal, for the record I know Mr. Bidinotto but, no, I ain't him. Savvy?
So to get back on topic: You are still evading.