So many of today’s wannabe blockbusters are nothing more than the blotted stain of self-consciously woke onanism. The camouflage for such dreck is a false gravitas grafted onto any revisionist work that aggressively and egotistically asks its audience to consider subaltern “uncomfortable truths” that, it turns out, are as unreliable as they are hamfistedly delivered.
It’s as if today’s more “serious” filmmakers have been huffing their own mannered, predictable farts for so long that they’ve subtly begun bottling and branding them, then selling them off to the faux intellectuals they cater to as an expensive, exclusive scent.
Hanks has grown fat on his own successes. It’s not that he’s a bad actor (unlike, say, Robin Williams in every serious role he ever attempted); rather, he’s become, as you suggest, a caricature of himself -- an actor who shows you he’s acting in order to be appreciated for having acted reasonably well, despite his early work as the transgender stalker of Donna Dixon. That is to say, his whole career seems like a rehabilitation project cooked up for him by a bald Ritchie Cunningham in a baseball cap. His fame is rigged.
I haven’t seen the movie myself, but now I’m tempted to watch it just so I can hate it on more than merely principle.
It's a bit like Magic Mike in how it turns women into drooling zombies, if my wife is any indication. Though Magic Mike was much better of course.
Been a fan of yours forever; your They/Them review is better than anything here IMO. You're a true pioneer of gonzo journalism.
I was mocking myself a bit with the 80k word vocabulary thing. Given your casual use of subaltern I'd put you at over 100k. So jelly. My brain is full not even gonna look it up. Don't use it again.
Now *that’s* a review!
So many of today’s wannabe blockbusters are nothing more than the blotted stain of self-consciously woke onanism. The camouflage for such dreck is a false gravitas grafted onto any revisionist work that aggressively and egotistically asks its audience to consider subaltern “uncomfortable truths” that, it turns out, are as unreliable as they are hamfistedly delivered.
It’s as if today’s more “serious” filmmakers have been huffing their own mannered, predictable farts for so long that they’ve subtly begun bottling and branding them, then selling them off to the faux intellectuals they cater to as an expensive, exclusive scent.
Hanks has grown fat on his own successes. It’s not that he’s a bad actor (unlike, say, Robin Williams in every serious role he ever attempted); rather, he’s become, as you suggest, a caricature of himself -- an actor who shows you he’s acting in order to be appreciated for having acted reasonably well, despite his early work as the transgender stalker of Donna Dixon. That is to say, his whole career seems like a rehabilitation project cooked up for him by a bald Ritchie Cunningham in a baseball cap. His fame is rigged.
I haven’t seen the movie myself, but now I’m tempted to watch it just so I can hate it on more than merely principle.
Nice job!
It's a bit like Magic Mike in how it turns women into drooling zombies, if my wife is any indication. Though Magic Mike was much better of course.
Been a fan of yours forever; your They/Them review is better than anything here IMO. You're a true pioneer of gonzo journalism.
I was mocking myself a bit with the 80k word vocabulary thing. Given your casual use of subaltern I'd put you at over 100k. So jelly. My brain is full not even gonna look it up. Don't use it again.