Banned
Member Since: 11/24/2009
Posts: 61,404
|
Omg the GP is really dragging in the name of art, responsible criticism and reviewing an artist's work, not their life (poor Rihanna/CB)!
@FakeRobHunter
EW's C+ review of UNDER THE SKIN is 5 paragraphs long but only the final one mentions the movie. Prestige sure doesn't buy much these days
@EricDSnider
Now that I look again, EW's UNDER THE SKIN thing is labeled as an "Essay," but then it has a letter grade at the end like a review. Faaaaart
@zhandlen
I haven’t seen UNDER THE SKIN, but this review is a perfect of hollow, intellectually bankrupt cynicism
@notjustmovies
Oh WOW, that EW review of Under the Skin. Five grafs, only the last one actually even considers the film at hand. Well, relatively speaking.
@BryanParrill
On top of the "why do stars do indies?" non-review of Under the Skin, EW had a "Why do stars work with Lars Von Trier?" article.
@markreviews
Aspiring critics: Won't link to it, but if you want to see how *not* to write a review, read EW's of UNDER THE SKIN.
@DavidPoland
I kept hearing about Chris Nashawaty’s EW review of Under The Skin. Just looked. Not only shockingly anti-art, but then gives a “C+.” HUH?!?
@SeanRMoorhead
I know virtually nothing about UNDER THE SKIN, so I have no stake in defending it, but that EW review verges on irresponsible.
@TVMCCA
Read Chris Nashawaty's review of UNDER THE SKIN for EW: mostly mocks stars who make "eccentric" Indie films.
@scottrenshaw
Subhed from EW review of UNDER THE SKIN: "Why do A-listers make art films, and must we be forced to watch?" Ohferchrissake.
@Diana__Barboza
To me, EW's Under The Skin review--focusing on Scarlett's acting career and not the filmmaking itself-- is no more obnoxious than the many
@djeljosevic
Whoa, is that UNDER THE SKIN piece on EW intended to be a review? If so, man, maybe it's not so bad those guys aren't being paid.
|
|
|
|
