If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Samuel L. Jackson strikes down upon NY Times film critic who panned "The Avengers" with great vengance and furious anger   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 65
    More: Amusing, Samuel L Jackson, New York Times, Avengers, New York, A.O. Scott, music critics, S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury  
•       •       •

6098 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 04 May 2012 at 10:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-04 10:09:10 AM  
Somehow I doubt this was the first negative review of a Sam Jackson movie.

Oh, and he added that the film suffers from a "grinding, hectic emptiness" and "bloated cynicism."

You're right, it was great.
 
2012-05-04 10:24:40 AM  

Mugato: Somehow I doubt this was the first negative review of a Sam Jackson movie.

Oh, and he added that the film suffers from a "grinding, hectic emptiness" and "bloated cynicism."

You're right, it was great.


I also think it isn't the first time a celebrity has told a critic to STFU. For an entire profession dedicated to providing criticism of other people's work, their twitter campaign to defend their colleague from Jackson seemed kind of pissy.
 
2012-05-04 10:46:37 AM  
"a snappy little dialogue comedy dressed up as something else, that something else being a giant A.T.M. for Marvel and its new studio overlords, the Walt Disney Company."

Yes? And?

Maybe Jackson should just sic The Hulk on Scott?

That's Clark Gregg's job.

"bloated cynicism."

The Golden Age died. Let it rest in peace already.
 
2012-05-04 10:48:46 AM  
I SAID, IS SAMUEL JACKSON ACTING LIKE A BIATCH?!
 
2012-05-04 10:50:00 AM  
Why would a critic use "great vengance and furious anger" to pan a movie? Seems a little excessive.
 
2012-05-04 10:50:05 AM  

kbronsito: I also think it isn't the first time a celebrity has told a critic to STFU


I can understand how someone who spent months of his life on a film, especially an actor who has little control over the final product, could get annoyed by someone who fancies himself as some sort of expert on film ripping on a project that he spent so much effort on. But it kind of goes with the territory. I never pictured SLJ as some whiny biatch like Kevin Smith is.

Aren't professional critics pretty much headed for extinction at this point? There are random people with an internet connection who know more about and appreciate film than most of these people.
 
2012-05-04 10:51:14 AM  

Braindeath: That's Clark Gregg's job


Was.
 
2012-05-04 10:52:11 AM  
Maybe they wanted hotzpatcho.
 
2012-05-04 10:54:14 AM  

Mugato: kbronsito: I also think it isn't the first time a celebrity has told a critic to STFU

I can understand how someone who spent months of his life on a film, especially an actor who has little control over the final product, could get annoyed by someone who fancies himself as some sort of expert on film ripping on a project that he spent so much effort on. But it kind of goes with the territory. I never pictured SLJ as some whiny biatch like Kevin Smith is.

Aren't professional critics pretty much headed for extinction at this point? There are random people with an internet connection who know more about and appreciate film than most of these people.


When looking at reviews I give more importance to Rotten Tomatoes then user reviews on forums. I don't even look at the "audience rating" most of the time.
 
2012-05-04 10:55:06 AM  

Grandemadaca: Why would a critic use "great vengance and furious anger" to pan a movie? Seems a little excessive.


That's the idea. They don't review movies anymore. They write inflammatory BS designed to attract readers and garner attention to the publication.

Don't trust ANYone for a movie review anymore.
 
2012-05-04 10:56:07 AM  

Carth: When looking at reviews I give more importance to Rotten Tomatoes then user reviews on forums. I don't even look at the "audience rating" most of the time.


Well maybe not just random reviewers but there are sites that have regular people who write about films who know a helluva lot more than people who write for magazines or newspapers.
 
2012-05-04 10:56:55 AM  
writers will always team up to defend each other cuz if one gets his ass kicked then all the sudden it's open season
 
2012-05-04 10:58:43 AM  
I just wished to volunteer that I'm seeing this movie in 3D IMAX later today.
 
2012-05-04 11:00:41 AM  

irving47: Grandemadaca: Why would a critic use "great vengance and furious anger" to pan a movie? Seems a little excessive.

That's the idea. They don't review movies anymore. They write inflammatory BS designed to attract readers and garner attention to the publication.

Don't trust ANYone for a movie review anymore.


Trust in Ebert. He has nothing to gain, nothing to lose. Just calls it like he sees it.
 
2012-05-04 11:02:19 AM  

Carth: When looking at reviews I give more importance to Rotten Tomatoes then user reviews on forums. I don't even look at the "audience rating" most of the time.


Audience ratings are always overly high because it's a self-selecting sample. This is especially bad in niche genres. An anime movie, for instance, has to be really bad to earn less than 4 1/2 stars on user reviews.
 
2012-05-04 11:05:01 AM  

Decillion: Trust in Ebert. He has nothing to gain, nothing to lose. Just calls it like he sees it.


Ebert's obviously a good writer but often he doesn't understand the movies he's criticizing, especially if they're sc-fi related. He also has some irrational hatred of video games and I'm not a gamer at all but I find that annoying. And he didn't like Die Hard.
 
2012-05-04 11:10:03 AM  

Mugato: Decillion: Trust in Ebert. He has nothing to gain, nothing to lose. Just calls it like he sees it.

Ebert's obviously a good writer but often he doesn't understand the movies he's criticizing, especially if they're sc-fi related. He also has some irrational hatred of video games and I'm not a gamer at all but I find that annoying. And he didn't like Die Hard.


One of the things that I like about Ebert is that he's been around for so long that we know these things about him. I can pick and choose which of his reviews I would agree with and which are colored by his known bias.
 
2012-05-04 11:10:39 AM  

Decillion: irving47: Grandemadaca: Why would a critic use "great vengance and furious anger" to pan a movie? Seems a little excessive.

That's the idea. They don't review movies anymore. They write inflammatory BS designed to attract readers and garner attention to the publication.

Don't trust ANYone for a movie review anymore.

Trust in Ebert. He has nothing to gain, nothing to lose. Just calls it like he sees it.


I don't care how much grief the Internet community gives Ebert, other than Scorsese he is the most knowledgable person about film and film history we have today. I trust him completely 90% of the time. There are sooooo many films out there and he reviews foreign and small indie films on the same level as the blockbusters that will always make money.
 
2012-05-04 11:12:02 AM  

Mugato: Ebert's obviously a good writer but often he doesn't understand the movies he's criticizing, especially if they're sc-fi related. He also has some irrational hatred of video games and I'm not a gamer at all but I find that annoying. And he didn't like Die Hard.


Yeah, Ebert completely missed the point of the final scene in Spider-Man despite the fact that it was about as subtle as a hammer.
 
2012-05-04 11:15:28 AM  
Armond White is amused by SLJ's antics.

www.filmmakermagazine.com

"Come at me, bro."
 
2012-05-04 11:16:44 AM  
If Samuel L. Jackson can't protect the movie, you can be damn sure he'll avenge it.
 
2012-05-04 11:18:21 AM  
The review isn't that bad. Some scathing bits but also some flattering bits.
 
2012-05-04 11:19:50 AM  
Jackson, who plays S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury in the upcoming superhero epic "The Avengers," virtually eviscerated New York Times critic A. O. Scott on Twitter on Thursday, after Scott wrote a less-than-glowing review of "The Avengers." -FTFA

Can we please stop using such over the top hyperbolic rhetoric. Eviscerated? Really?

Eviscerated how?

Eviscerate, sure, let's use it. It's a great metaphor for a clever verbal retort so powerful and witty that you render the offender incapable of mounting any kind of credible defense. I'm pretty confident it's impossible to eviscerate someone using twitter.
 
2012-05-04 11:22:41 AM  
Why does he care? Critics are humans and have opinions. They can't all like your movie. Grow the fark up and deal with criticism like an adult.
 
2012-05-04 11:27:40 AM  

eiger: Why does he care? Critics are humans and have opinions. They can't all like your movie. Grow the fark up and deal with criticism like an adult.


Right. He's acting like he did the gig pro bono.
 
2012-05-04 11:33:53 AM  

kbronsito: Mugato: Somehow I doubt this was the first negative review of a Sam Jackson movie.

Oh, and he added that the film suffers from a "grinding, hectic emptiness" and "bloated cynicism."

You're right, it was great.

I also think it isn't the first time a celebrity has told a critic to STFU. For an entire profession dedicated to providing criticism of other people's work, their twitter campaign to defend their colleague from Jackson seemed kind of pissy.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-04 11:36:25 AM  
While Scott didn't outright pan the film in his review, which was published Thursday, he did throw a few jabs at the men-in-tights extravaganza, calling it "a snappy little dialogue comedy dressed up as something else, that something else being a giant A.T.M. for Marvel and its new studio overlords, the Walt Disney Company."

Sounds about right. You could say this about the majority of movies pumped out of Hollywood, but the superhero genre has added new dimensions to the definition of "prostitution".
 
2012-05-04 11:41:23 AM  

irving47: Grandemadaca: Why would a critic use "great vengance and furious anger" to pan a movie? Seems a little excessive.

That's the idea. They don't review movies anymore. They write inflammatory BS designed to attract readers and garner attention to the publication.

Don't trust ANYone for a movie review anymore.


ebert is still safe
 
2012-05-04 11:50:38 AM  

irving47:

Don't trust ANYone for a movie review anymore.


Exactly - 93% on rotten tomatoes and I have no interest in seeing this crap. Shiny things go boom boom and people fly through the air, all based on a coloring book for children. I'll wait for a movie that doesn't require you to 'turn your brain off.'
 
2012-05-04 11:59:04 AM  

She comes in colors everywhere: irving47: Grandemadaca: Why would a critic use "great vengance and furious anger" to pan a movie? Seems a little excessive.

That's the idea. They don't review movies anymore. They write inflammatory BS designed to attract readers and garner attention to the publication.

Don't trust ANYone for a movie review anymore.

ebert is still safe


As long as he keeps his chin up.
 
2012-05-04 12:00:15 PM  

Marshmallow Jones: Exactly - 93% on rotten tomatoes and I have no interest in seeing this crap. Shiny things go boom boom and people fly through the air, all based on a coloring book for children. I'll wait for a movie that doesn't require you to 'turn your brain off.'


As long as it's also good I'm fine with it. The Matrix could be described as "Shiny things go boom boom and people fly through the air", but it was enjoyable because it was also fairly clever and well-shot.

These superhero movies, on the other hand, have been dreadful. You spend the entire movie establishing the superhero, so at then end if you were asked what the plot was, all you can come up with is "there's a superhero now". Thor was even worse, since it basically started with Thor as a superhero but decided to go that rout anyway. So it's a meaningless fight-scene at the beginning, a fish-out-of-water scene at a diner in the middle, and "there's a superhero now" at the end. And Anthony Hopkins collected a paycheck for sleeping on camera for 70% of the movie.
 
2012-05-04 12:00:23 PM  
The film was damn near perfect as these movies go. There were great character moments (all credit to Joss on that), the dialogue was snappy and fun, the quiet moments added to, not stopped, the dramatic growth of the film, the effects were all top-notch, the look felt remarkably consistant for merging 4 film franchises, and the end stinger had the crowd whooping.

Plus, props to old Jewish man who won't kneel.
 
2012-05-04 12:01:19 PM  
oh and one last thing: the best scenes are not in any trailers.
 
2012-05-04 12:02:26 PM  
What's kinda funny is one of the "protectors" of the critic told SLJ to get over it because it was one bad review among hundreds of good reviews.

Doesn't that kinda mean that the one bad review was...I don't know..."wrong"... in some way? Reviews are more than just an opinion, they are supposed to be "enlightened" critiques of why and how a movie is good or bad. If yours is the only review that said "kinda sucked" then that review is pretty much just your personal reaction, and essentially meaningless as a "critical review".
 
2012-05-04 12:02:47 PM  
This is why movie reviewers should be classified into genres and stick to them. How many more scathing reviews of the dumb action movies do we need to read by pretentious arthouse twats. We get it, you think you're smart.
 
2012-05-04 12:06:13 PM  
What a whiny little biatch.

Sam Jackson needs to stop believing the hype about himself. You're not a folk hero, you're a 60 year old man who yells. Shut the fark up.

/did he seriously not like Die Hard III?
//it's second best of the series, he can fark himself even harder
 
2012-05-04 12:11:26 PM  

sure haven't: What a whiny little biatch.

Sam Jackson needs to stop believing the hype about himself. You're not a folk hero, you're a 60 year old man who yells. Shut the fark up.

/did he seriously not like Die Hard III?
//it's second best of the series, he can fark himself even harder


Is this supposed to make you cool, hip and/or smarter than everyone else?

/Fail
 
2012-05-04 12:12:54 PM  
I love Sam Jackson, but I honestly thought this was in poor taste on his part. A critic gave you a moderately negative review? Boo hoo. People have different opinions, which an adult should know and accept.

Sadly, he probably has enough 15-year-old fanboys to mindlessly troll this dude.
 
2012-05-04 12:13:43 PM  

Mr.Tangent: This is why movie reviewers should be classified into genres and stick to them. How many more scathing reviews of the dumb action movies do we need to read by pretentious arthouse twats. We get it, you think you're smart.


Actually the question is how many more dumb action movies do we need to be made. Asking for a movie to have some thought behind it beyond blowing shiat up is now considered 'pretentious' - which is a good indicator of teh stoopid of the movie going public. Hell if i was in Hollywod, I'd be pushing for a movie called 'Blowing Shiat Up Man', a superhero who does nothing but blow shiat up and wears a costume while spewing recycled one-liners. It'd make a billion dollars with the 'turn your brain off' crowd - as if they ever have theirs on in the first place.
 
2012-05-04 12:23:40 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: What's kinda funny is one of the "protectors" of the critic told SLJ to get over it because it was one bad review among hundreds of good reviews.

Doesn't that kinda mean that the one bad review was...I don't know..."wrong"... in some way? Reviews are more than just an opinion, they are supposed to be "enlightened" critiques of why and how a movie is good or bad. If yours is the only review that said "kinda sucked" then that review is pretty much just your personal reaction, and essentially meaningless as a "critical review".


A critique is by necessity an opinion, so no, it's not wrong just because it's an outlier. And from what they revealed in TFA about the review, it doesn't even really say that the movie "kinda sucked". Sounds like the critic was saying the movie tries to advertise itself as something it's not.
 
2012-05-04 12:32:49 PM  

Marshmallow Jones: Asking for a movie to have some thought behind it beyond blowing shiat up is now considered 'pretentious' - which is a good indicator of teh stoopid of the movie going public.


There are plenty of movies being made that don't involve blowing shiat up. What's pretentious is whining about the fact that some movies do involve blowing shiat up. Not every movie has to be Citizen Kane. If you don't like The Avengers, don't pay money to see it.
 
2012-05-04 12:34:47 PM  
Have the bonuses for actors become tied to Metacritic scores the same way that it has for developers of video games? Because it's seems sort of silly to get pissed off because one dude didn't like a comic book movie as much as other people did.

Looking forward to seeing the movie, I promised a friend who I'd wait to go see it with them and now I'm thinking about saying fark it and going anyway.
 
2012-05-04 12:39:58 PM  
I went to a midnight showing last night, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
 
2012-05-04 12:41:01 PM  

Mentat: Marshmallow Jones: Asking for a movie to have some thought behind it beyond blowing shiat up is now considered 'pretentious' - which is a good indicator of teh stoopid of the movie going public.

There are plenty of movies being made that don't involve blowing shiat up. What's pretentious is whining about the fact that some movies do involve blowing shiat up. Not every movie has to be Citizen Kane. If you don't like The Avengers, don't pay money to see it.


There are good action movies and bad action movies though. Example: The Dark Knight vs. Transformers 2.
 
2012-05-04 12:43:40 PM  
Am I the only one that read all of SLJ's tweets in his voice?

/oh Gods, the whole thread is in his voice now..
 
2012-05-04 12:54:55 PM  

Unoriginal_Username: Am I the only one that read all of SLJ's tweets in his voice?

/oh Gods, the whole thread is in his voice now..


Did your brain compensate for the lack of mutherfarkers and add those too?
 
2012-05-04 12:55:05 PM  

Marshmallow Jones: Mr.Tangent: This is why movie reviewers should be classified into genres and stick to them. How many more scathing reviews of the dumb action movies do we need to read by pretentious arthouse twats. We get it, you think you're smart.

Actually the question is how many more dumb action movies do we need to be made. Asking for a movie to have some thought behind it beyond blowing shiat up is now considered 'pretentious' - which is a good indicator of teh stoopid of the movie going public. Hell if i was in Hollywod, I'd be pushing for a movie called 'Blowing Shiat Up Man', a superhero who does nothing but blow shiat up and wears a costume while spewing recycled one-liners. It'd make a billion dollars with the 'turn your brain off' crowd - as if they ever have theirs on in the first place.


All I'm saying is if you don't like it or know you won't like it don't watch it, it's pretty simple. Thanks for showing how smart you are.
 
2012-05-04 01:03:37 PM  

Mr.Tangent: Marshmallow Jones: Mr.Tangent: This is why movie reviewers should be classified into genres and stick to them. How many more scathing reviews of the dumb action movies do we need to read by pretentious arthouse twats. We get it, you think you're smart.

Actually the question is how many more dumb action movies do we need to be made. Asking for a movie to have some thought behind it beyond blowing shiat up is now considered 'pretentious' - which is a good indicator of teh stoopid of the movie going public. Hell if i was in Hollywod, I'd be pushing for a movie called 'Blowing Shiat Up Man', a superhero who does nothing but blow shiat up and wears a costume while spewing recycled one-liners. It'd make a billion dollars with the 'turn your brain off' crowd - as if they ever have theirs on in the first place.

All I'm saying is if you don't like it or know you won't like it don't watch it, it's pretty simple. Thanks for showing how smart you are.


You sure hate smart people.
 
2012-05-04 01:09:40 PM  

Wayne 985: Mentat: Marshmallow Jones: Asking for a movie to have some thought behind it beyond blowing shiat up is now considered 'pretentious' - which is a good indicator of teh stoopid of the movie going public.

There are plenty of movies being made that don't involve blowing shiat up. What's pretentious is whining about the fact that some movies do involve blowing shiat up. Not every movie has to be Citizen Kane. If you don't like The Avengers, don't pay money to see it.

There are good action movies and bad action movies though. Example: The Dark Knight vs. Transformers 2.


You can say that about any genre. I've seen critically acclaimed art house flicks that were total shiat. That's just the nature of filmmaking. Jiro Dreams of Sushi is never going to make what your average superhero movie makes and that's why more superhero movies are made.
 
2012-05-04 01:12:29 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: You sure hate smart people.


I hate everyone, discrimination is for bigots.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report