I read ny times, sf chron, and wsj reviews so far this morning - the latter two had it actually good or good side of mixed. a.o. scott's review
Posted by
b. (aka starrynit)
Feb 13 '15, 11:14
|
was a tougher one to process -- as I've found can happen with him an unfortunate lot about more popular offerings, I don't think he was fully objective going in, and his review matched what he expected (example: his comments about dornan were the harshest of any I've seen so far, like the worst interpretations possible, and I'd bet he already had the model, as in balsa wood, comparisons in his head in advance); but, even though he said it's a terrible film, he said it could be enjoyable for people to see. there is no grade that fits that; but his, obviously, would be bad.
(not that I have ever thought it was going to be oscar-worthy, heh; but, youngest kid of 7 here, I'm all about the fair. ;p)
|