Mike D'Angelo at Sundance: Part 4

re: Mike D'Angelo at Sundance: Part 4

Jon Bender — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:13:38 GMT

Anyone who uses the phrase "a phenomenon I've dubbed..." is a pretentious twat.

re: Mike D'Angelo at Sundance: Part 4

Conniption — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 10:03:24 GMT

Of course, you haven't made a convincing case that the scenes in the beginning were patently false "and/or" schematic (having seen the film, I can say they aren't) and I am highly suspect of the comprehension of your knowledge of "human behavior," so your "criticism" really falls flat. On top of that, you are "reviewing" a film segment whose length was arbitrarily decided by your departure time, not the full feature film, which is a bit disreputable, wouldn't you say? This is arrogance unmet by justification.

(And right-thinking folks won't be snowed by an argument along the lines of "it's jsut so hard to see so many complete films at a festival with a press pass" from a glutton of cinema such as yourself.)

re: Mike D'Angelo at Sundance: Part 4

Adam Cadre — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:48:17 GMT

"Is this legitimate criticism? Is it that hard to watch a complete film?"

It's the filmmakers' responsibility to give the viewer a reason to keep watching. If watching a film to the end starts to feel like a hardship, then yes, that is enough information to determine that, at least for you, the film is a failure.

Admittedly, I can think of one film whose seemingly terrible beginning was retroactively vindicated: <i>Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind</i>. But that was a big gamble on Kaufman's part.

re: Mike D'Angelo at Sundance: Part 4

incongruous — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:28:48 GMT

When you're watching four or five a day, yes, it can be. Furthermore, I've gone back and watched in full several films that I'd bailed on at festivals, and each time found my initial opinion confirmed. (Most recently, The Orphanage.) Most of the time I make no comment about movies I merely sampled, but the praise for Ballast has been so uniform—and, to my mind, so baffling—that I felt the need to explain what it was that made me decide it wasn't worth any more of my time. And nothing that occurs later in the film could possibly retroactively dignify the patently false and/or schematic moments I describe in this post.

re: Mike D'Angelo at Sundance: Part 4

noah k — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:15:33 GMT

Wow - the arrogance it takes to comment on - and self-satisfyingly dismiss - a film only fractionally seen. A sad fact of film festival reporting, perhaps, but D'Angelo's tone is dismaying, as always. Why does Nerve, with a great stable of smart writers, keep publishing one who consistently resists taking the full measure of that which he reviews? Is this legitimate criticism?

Is it that hard to watch a complete film?