Comments on: Exclamation Point Not Quite Enough

By: bex

bex — Sun, 09 May 2010 19:14:50 +0000

when it comes to movie reviews, one could argue that it is best to leave out all the previous works of the director. That way, you may see the movie in an unbiased light – the movie for the movie itself, not for some spectacular works the director may have done in the past.

This movie review is about the movie!

and the movie itself, apart from who directed it, was not a success. what kept me interested was that i knew it was based on reality – and even that made me biased towards liking it. Imagine if i gave a hoot who soderbergh is! i probably would have loved it.

By: James

James — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:40:20 +0000

Keen eyes dear readers. I did indeed neglect to mention Soderbergh’s name, but having seen none of his previous works, that’s basically where my commentary would have ended – as a name drop. Matt Damon, on the other hand, is a person whose films I have seen, so I opted to use that as a point of comparison in the review.

If you were looking for a critical analysis of The Informant! versus Soderbergh’s past works, I’m sorry to have disappointed. Hopefully the piece still proved useful and/or entertaining. Thanks for reading!

By: LG

LG — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:18:39 +0000

Um, yeah. Since when does a play get reviewed without mentioning the playwright, an art exhibition without naming the artist(s), a new opera without the composer? This seems rudimentary and Not Too Much To Ask.
Then, yes, what sets an authoritative review apart from a blog entry is that it in addition to commentary it provides context, hopefully with some level of expertise. One way, in this case, might be to show you know something or have something to say about the person who made the film. Like you just did. If S.S.’s body of work is a roller coaster ride, great, why, and where does this film fit in that.
(To my knowledge Soderbergh is not a god, but there are some people who go to see “the latest Soderbergh,” is all.)
If critics can be critical, readers should be too. And this was an oversight, period.

By: Addison Steele

Addison Steele — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:38:36 +0000

I’m not sure what your complaint is about here. Because the reviewer didn’t specifically name the director of the movie, that makes the review invalid? If I want to find out what a director has done previous to the particular movie being reviewed, I’ll just Google it, thank you very much. Aside from that, is Soderbergh some sort of god? His movies remind me of a roller coaster ride: you never know when he is going to put on his “artiste” face or surprise us with Oceans (you pick the number). The reviewer told us about the movie. I don’t see a problem with that.

By: Li Geia

Li Geia — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:41:21 +0000

I believe it to be fairly requisite for a film review to name the film’s director. It would also seem important to have some portion of the commentary reflect what the reviewer thinks or knows about the director and his work. Filmmaker in question being Steven Soderbergh, after all. Oops.