Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×

DLizzle

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    4

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DLizzle

  1. Posted

    Nice of Devin to return the favor from the Se7en episode and rail endlessly on sticking points that don't end up mattering. You can criticize "bad" camerawork, "bad" acting, "bad" dialogue, etc. but if it works, it works. It works in Boyz 'n the Hood. I understand it's difficult to have an hour long discussion about something that "just works" (I think Amy did a commendable job here), but I just don't believe that Devin sat cross-armed and unaffected by this movie; he's not a good enough actor.

     

    In addition, I am having trouble putting this point delicately, but I can imagine (or perhaps there has been a Canon episode one could reference) Devin having a very different reaction to a movie with similar and/or different-but-as-numerous problems to Boyz 'n the Hood if it was say, a dramatic slice of life tale of Italians in NYC.

  2. Posted

    But I was listening to past episodes and on the "Blade Runner" episode, Devin does just what he derides here. He complains that the title of the film is meaningless because he read an interview with Ridley Scott in which he said that the title came from another novel, and he used it because he thought it was cool. Devin then proceeds to use the exact same reasoning Amy uses regarding the aspiring bottles. It seems a bit hypocritical, or, at best, inconsistent.

     

    I like that you did this and wish people would do it more often, but I feel like if there was a concerted effort to cross-reference everything every major critic writes or says, we could break the whole thing. On some level critics and readers/listeners alike are constantly having to willfully assess each work/review in a vacuum (but only sometimes, like when it serves us or when we feel like it, or something). I don't know how I feel about it other than thinking it's a weird phenomenon.

    • Like 2

  3. Posted

    I'm saying he's definitely guilty of "deflecting honest discussion with a personal thing" and recognizing that would allow for more richer arguments and thoughtful discussions all around.

     

    I don't think you're wrong that Devin does this in other cases, but in this Woody example, it seems that he's advocating at all times for not allowing real-life events to affect his view of an artist's work, which is consistent with his criticism of Amy here. He's in fact more like the opposite: so beholden to the art that it affects's his view of real-life events, which is arguably/probably more problematic for everyone EXCEPT a professional critic.

×