[ad_1]
Ghostbusters: Afterlife reviewed by Mark Kermode
[ad_2]
View Reddit by markanthonyadams – View Source
[ad_1]
Ghostbusters: Afterlife reviewed by Mark Kermode
[ad_2]
View Reddit by markanthonyadams – View Source
The second that Kermode heard Reitman’s comment – “for the fans” – you know that he already had written his review.
And it’s evident that CharlesĀ BramescoĀ deserved a partial credit for this review, too.
This is a recurring problem with Kermode. He is too fixated on THE DISCOURSE often at the expense of his own feelings and thoughts.
There have been too many times in which he’s shamelessly appropriated the talking points of others and simply regurgitated them without processing them in a deeper way.
This is also evident in his comical about-turn on “Prometheus”.
At first, he tried to display his auteur-worshipping credentials by propping up that terrible film with Scott’s talking points:
>”as Ridley Scott said, it suggests towards “Alien” but we are not there yet. We are at least two movies away. I think that’s fine. I think that should put paid to a lot problems thatĀ some peopleĀ have” .
He also assured his audience:
>”what Ridley Scott is trying to do is to somehow put together a backstory” and “I’ve always liked “Prometheus”. Many of you never did. Have you changed your mindĀ *now*?”
When Kermode realised that it was more fashionable to dismiss Scott, he claimed that he never understood the power of “Alien” and disregarded the very notion of prequels :
>”I love “Alien” and I don’t want anything undermining the simplicity of “Alien”!”
Sometimes the opposite of a stupid idea isn’t a smart one. It can be another stupid idea.
His argument for propping up “Prometheus” is the very one that he used to tear it down. The film hadn’t changed. It was always terrible. His simply chose to regurgitate another set of messaging.
I know this sounds simple but a response to the film should be … to the film. Not to Film Twitter, the filmmakers or whoever else he believes will give him brownie points.