Another "W" review

[javasaurus]

Yesterday (maybe two days ago?) I pointed to Ebert's review of the new Oliver Stone movie, "W" -- a film that explores various aspects of the current president's life. Ebert found it to be a more accurate representation than some of Stone's other movies, and gave it 4 (of 4) stars.

Today, however, I read Ann Hornaday's review from Washington Post's webpage, and her response was not at all similar. She likens the movie to an extended SNL skit, and says "it's a scattershot attempt at stylized portraiture that plays like a half-baked editorial cartoon."

Needless to say, she didn't give it four stars.

Comments

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

I don't read reviews in the Post, but I do read the reviews in Express (the little version of Post that they give away for free at Metro stations) and the reviewers who write there, whom I assume are the same group for the newspaper itself, are the most humorless bunch of pretentiousness gems that I have ever seen. And that's me being gentle. They did not like Stardust; they did not like The Dark Knight; they try so hard not to like stuff like that or anything that is not an art movie that I have discovered new horizons to my limits of eye-rolling. So any review from the Post, I now take with an entire box of salt, although of course that is not to say they might be right about this one.

I think I will make up my mind after seeing the consensus on rottentomatoes.com.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

I firmly believe that the movie critics at the post think that it is their God Given Quest to Criticize ALL Movies with Excessive Use of Aggrandized Word Usage.

Personally, I tend to find Arch Campbell's reviews (which are *gasp* reviews) more useful in determining what I want to see. The old Post Family Filmgoer was also useful.