Friday, November 16, 2007

Computers Stealing Jobs from Real Monsters

I've long contended that the Washington Post's Stephen Hunter is perhaps the worst film writer on the planet. I believe his review of Beowulf, a movie I'm not even interested in seeing, absolutely clinches the top spot and is the best example yet of why Mr. Hunter should stick to pulp fiction.

Hunter spends the first five (five!) paragraphs of his review explaining all about this new "motion capture technology" all the kids are talking about, and then goes on to disparage the technique, boldly stating that no matter how convincing the animated fictional monsters are, they'll never be as nuanced or as emotive as... um... real monsters? I don't think I get it.

King Kong was unavailable for comment.

EDIT. I just noticed this, too, from the review:

When the original was assembled (written? collected? sung? chanted?) around the embers back in the good ol' 700s or so...


"Or so?" How long does it take to look up when Beowulf was immortalized? Oh, about 10 seconds on Wikipedia:

Its creation dates to between the 8th and the 10th century, the only surviving manuscript dating to circa 1010.

10 comments:

Mike Billips said...

Meh. Nothing wrong with that review that couldn't be helped by some stern editing. Cut it in half, and you might have something.

At least he's not 100 percent wrong about every movie, like Roger Ebert.

dguzman said...

It's unfair labor practices like these that lead to monster union strikes! And believe me, an out-of-work, bored monster is a naughty monster.

Princess Sparkle Pony said...

Mike, that's why I dislike his reviews so much, because the first half is always the Stephen Hunter Show.

Anonymous said...

Bravo Princess! -- This minor film critic (what's his name again) represents (in the artistic field) the worst of what the Washington Post (once an honorable newspaper) has become.

Distributorcap said...

well it sort follows that idiots are stealing jobs from real secretarys of state

Mike Billips said...

Yeah, I never did see why he got promoted from the Baltimore paper (about his Peter Principle level of talent) to the WP. Maybe it was his having a couple of best-sellers.

I have a slight prejudice toward him because a) he's an affable, beer-drinking bloke who REALLY enjoys barbecue (I had lunch with him once when he was on a book tour) and b) he writes rippin' good gun-porn thrillers (guilty pleasure).

Reminds me; I need to get the latest one at the library.

Lulu Maude said...

Perky, disgusting in both genders, looks especially bad coming from a man. And this review is nothing less than perky.

Inaudible Nonsense said...

Hmm... As a Chicagoan, I have to defend the good name of Roger Ebert who is one of the best darn movie reviewers out there. I pretty much only read him, Edelstein at New York magazine and Dana Stevens at Slate. There the only ones that I can trust, sometimes A.O. Scott, but after the NYT's pushed out Elvis Mitchell the whole team over their is sort of dead to me.

Princess Sparkle Pony said...

I have a lot of respect for Roger Ebert. I frequently disagree with him, but he's an excellent film writer. He also cowrote the funniest film ever made, the beloved Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

Daddy Cool said...

I couldn't agree more. Hunter is ridiculous. I stopped reading after a series of Hunter chest-beating pieces. Yes, yes, you're so manly tell me about the movie.