Barack Obama is back in the bush

Finally saw a hi-res image yesterday. I think it does look like Mrs. Obama, but unsmiling.

Art criticism is art criticism and largely nonsense unanchored to anything but itself, but what people "like" and what they "don't like;" what they find "accessible" and what they don't are no kind of criteria either.

 

Along these lines, I have come to hate the Academy Awards, as well as the giving of "stars" for movies, even though I know it's been going on for generations. I love that the New York Times' critics don't give stars, though I suspect it frustrates some people. Rotten Tomatoes is a blight.

 

Sneak preview of Donald Trump's official portrait

 

I get your point...and I disagree. I think the star system has helped movies like, say, John Wick get the credit they deserve despite being genre exercises. When you have to put a grade, you’re forced, in a sense, to justify that grade, and you can’t use language to deify whatever you choose.

It also gives value to bad art. Or art that aims to be good and falls short. And it also helps to understand there’s good and great art. In art and book criticism, the bad art is just stuff that doesn’t get reviewed.

For example: if an art critic had to grade the Wiley and Sherald pieces, Wiley’s would almost surely win. And then you’d have to have a discussion about why, and how, and then you’d have counter-arguments that argued Sherald’s was better, and so on. And that’s interesting. As it is, art critics gush in praise of almost all things. They’re homers for art.

the NYT can get away with not grading its movie reviews because others do.

 

Contra Alma: It's harder and harder to find movie and TV critics who don't effuse over everything they see.

They've all turned into Peter Travers. Ie, blurbists, working in sentence fragments.

10 tomatoes up!

 

I do use Rotten Tomatoes to figure out which goofy comedy or fun date movie we might like. (And the point about a movie like John Wick is so spot on by Alma. There are genre movies I would've never in a million years watched but because it garnered so much support on the site I tried and love) It's near useless for weightier movies and documentaries, however. Every year now there's a movie acclaimed "the highest rated movie on the Tomato Meter evah!" And I usually do enjoy those movies that get that designation, but it's become a gimmick.

As for modern critics, most younger ones now seem to value a movie that tries. The actual execution, the actual ability to evoke emotion or tell a great story has been devalued. It's enough for younger critics that a movie tried to be thoughtful or audacious, even if it failed to get there.

I feel so old typing that, but it's become a pet peeve over the last year or so.

 

The problem is that damn near anyone can make a movie that gets, say, 90 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. It's why so many kids' movies do so well there. They are mostly unobjectionable. What is difficult is making, say, a 70-80 percent grown-up movie that some people love.

 

That’s true of TV critics.

It’s not true of movie critics.

I go by metacritic more than I do RT, but 50 shades freed is the equivalent of a D on there. Many of the movies are Cs.

 

Barack’s portrait looks ridiculous. One giant thumb down!

 

It's so rare to make a bad children's animated movie now, I actually enjoy when one is a dud. Like, I want to know how it happens. Use talking animals, one far too optimistic and one far too pessimistic. Create Minion-like characters for slapstick. A redeemable bad guy, preferably with an accent, who has a sympathetic sidekick. Some sort of journey is involved. Rinse. Wash. Repeat four times with sequels.

HOW DO YOU MESS THAT UP? HOW?

 

I like it. Three snaps in a Z formation.

 

I really don’t see the extra finger thing.