yeah, as much as i respect kermode as a film critic, he sometimes has too rigid opinions on people (Chris columbus in particular), Columbus did a good cinematic job in the first 2 harry potter films, and has directed other decent films, alfonso cuaron did take the direction up a level with Prisoner of Azkaban, and then it went downhill with Mike Newell. That's just my opinion though ,i only liked the first 3 potter films, and the 5th one was ok.
@@juanaltredo2974 haha I knew you'd be passive aggressive. It's fine, I don't mind. No I won't read again thanks I've seen enough. Try to take criticism my friend because it tends to consume people.
@@bonnie3447 I took your criticism and made a valid suggestion that you really should take. There are courses out there to improve reading comprehension, I didn't mean it in a bad way. Seems you came into this conversation with your shields up. I don't mind either. Have a nice year.
Respect to Jason, and in general this spirited debate. I’d like to make one point of difference - I don’t think it’s beneficial or advised for film critics to have any intimacy with film creators. Reason being: audiences don’t have this intimacy either. Audiences, like the critic, don’t have access to backstage or any of the creative process, just what’s presented to them on screen. I believe a film critic is an extension or representative of the audience, a (hopefully informed) reporter on the experience of the film that will play to that same audience. Having a relationship with the creators is a conflict of interest and disconnects the critic from the audience. As for the example of praising an actor despite not knowing that that actor is a talentless hack that was edited around - that doesn’t matter. The audience doesn’t know what exactly the circumstances were that produced the performance, they just know what’s given to them in the film. Let’s say the actor’s “good performance” was pure dumb luck - that’s irrelevant to the audience. People just want to see a good flick.
I agree somewhat with your first point, but the second I cannot agree with; it matters who is responsible, because the judgement is specifically outside of just the film; it tends to make the viewer less likely to see other films made by the people they see as being responsible for a stinker.
Keemode often would say ‘death of narrative cinema’ and now he recommends marvel movies. Let this sink in. And it’s because they are FUN. Lost a lot of respect. But at least he still loves the indie scene
I like what Jason has to say, I think actors are often nothing more than conduits for script/director and feel that this is where people should look at when it comes to poor films. I used to go see films largely depending on who was in them, now I go often guided by who directed instead. Also liked that Jason raises that actors have responsibilities such as children and mortgages, the same concerns that keep others in work where they are not entirely comfortable, not all films can be perfect, though all actors need to try to work. Mark sounds defensive throughout. I generally like Mark's reviewing, though don't get why he needs to go beyond saying how he felt about a film, for him to try picking apart how made when often having little knowledge off baffles me.
"Set visits are the worst thing a critic can do..." "Because you'll know where to attribute blame or success". Jason wins this argument for my money. Love the show etc but like most "critics" Mark doesn't really understand the process by which films are made.
They aren't there to judge the process imo, they are there to judge the finished product, and I agree with Mark that they have to have distance to be able to do that properly, so they aren't influenced by who is or isn't nice to them. Where Mark goes wrong is when he tries to 'guess' why a movie has gone wrong by talking about the process at all.
Ultimately it's not his job, his job is to critique the final product that is presented to audiences and whether it's any good. So yes, when kermode goes off on one about such and such an actor/director he is purely speculating about the reasons for the bad thing he sees on screen. That said I agree with Robert Mckee that the best critics are amateurs, in the sense that they convey whether a film is worth watching, not how wonderfully it was made or the drama involved in production. The story, for instance, is often forgotten, as is the writing and dialogue more generally in the excessive focus on the who is acting/directing. If the story sucks, the movie will suck regardless of the wonderous cinematography or the calibre of acting talent.
I agree with points you make but in a less aggressive way. I remember seeing the film thinking the majority of it was beautifully directed and had managed to do away with the 'cheesy' (or child friendly) aspects of the previous films. However, the last act comes across a bit like a theatrical 'Sherlock Holmes' resolution, with all of the relevant characters in one room and a lot of plotlines and conclusions being dictated at each other. I found it distracting compared to the rest of the film.
Kermode is wrong about Depp. He makes Pirates. I agree with Kermode about Columbus on HP. The first two films were rubbish. Alfonso made the third film great. Yes it was a different book but the feel, the tone was far better than the first two films. Alfonso got better performances out of the actors
What Depp did proved to be massively successful, but that was only due to how many genuinely inane people, around the world, will shell out their hard earned money for trash. Depp was terrible-- his acting was a pantomime of acting-- and many people adored it. Some people adore pineapple on pizza. Some people are weird and will gobble up anything.
@hanshotfirst1138 I tend to side with Isaacs because I do think Kermod can place the blame on the wrong people if a film turns out poorly. An actor might give a poor performance and get the blame when it turned out that way because of the director or a film might be shit because of the script rather than poor acting or a bad director.
The first two Harry Potter films really weren't any good. As for Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow, that's gone too far for me to judge fairly anymore, but admittedly I remember finding it amusing the first time. Then again, I was 15 back then, and when the second movie came out I was 18, and I was already getting somewhat tired of it.
Isaacs' argument is essentially the same that's always levelled at critics: 'it takes a lot of hard work and talent to do this, and you couldn't do it, so wah'. You dont have to be able to create a great piece of art yourself to know what great (or indeed terrible) art is. Criticism is part of the dialogue that aids the making of things worth making.
Listen to this on 0.5 speed, it sounds like two drunk people arguing.
good shout!
Brilliant lmao
omg help
+Stephen Robinson THANKYOU SO MUCH FOR THIS!!!!! XD
At 0.5 speed, every conversation sounds like two drunk people arguing.
This was brilliant. I've never heard two people talk so fast while making good arguments and not being dicks to each other.
this is the greatest moment in the history of Mark Kermode.
Isaacs has been doing a good job listening to Kermode, because as soon as Kermode mentions 'bean counter' he comes up with Chris Colombus.
This is what a repsectful argument sounds like. Mark knows what he's on about as does Jason. I love both of em!
I hated Pirates of the Caribbean, but Depp’s performance was the only thing that kept me from walking out.
Both bring up good points but i think i'm inclined to a agree with Isaacs. Especially about Harry Potter.
yeah, as much as i respect kermode as a film critic, he sometimes has too rigid opinions on people (Chris columbus in particular), Columbus did a good cinematic job in the first 2 harry potter films, and has directed other decent films, alfonso cuaron did take the direction up a level with Prisoner of Azkaban, and then it went downhill with Mike Newell. That's just my opinion though ,i only liked the first 3 potter films, and the 5th one was ok.
I'd like to be biblically acquainted with Jason.
hows possible people dont get this is friendly banter, and call issacs names, when in fact hes a very likeable man
Everyone does get its friendly banter. Nobody needs your flaccid protection.
@@bonnie3447 perhaps your reading comprehension is not what we should expect from an adult, read the comments and hopefully you'll get it
@@juanaltredo2974 haha I knew you'd be passive aggressive. It's fine, I don't mind. No I won't read again thanks I've seen enough. Try to take criticism my friend because it tends to consume people.
@@bonnie3447 I took your criticism and made a valid suggestion that you really should take. There are courses out there to improve reading comprehension, I didn't mean it in a bad way. Seems you came into this conversation with your shields up. I don't mind either. Have a nice year.
@@juanaltredo2974 no I'm finished with you now my friend. I've other things to do but thanks for your thoughts.
even when kermode is wrong he's always kind of right lol
Nah, he really isn't
Some very good verbal sparring here
Please can this be a weekly segment on the show
I like Mark Kermode but he sounds very snobby here lol
you can tell these two were raised around the same hood lol
Chris Columbus' filmmaking is just pedestrian. That's why the third Harry Potter elevated the series. Alfonso Cuarón is a much better filmmaker.
The principle leads were also better at acting by the time they did the 3rd film.
That was worth the entrance fee!
Wow, that was epic. Clash of the Titans.
Ooh, a wee edge to this! Great fun!
Jason! Jason! Jason!
Hello Jason Isaacs
I met Jason Isaacs at Comic Con in NYC. Cool dude.
Respect to Jason, and in general this spirited debate. I’d like to make one point of difference - I don’t think it’s beneficial or advised for film critics to have any intimacy with film creators. Reason being: audiences don’t have this intimacy either. Audiences, like the critic, don’t have access to backstage or any of the creative process, just what’s presented to them on screen. I believe a film critic is an extension or representative of the audience, a (hopefully informed) reporter on the experience of the film that will play to that same audience. Having a relationship with the creators is a conflict of interest and disconnects the critic from the audience.
As for the example of praising an actor despite not knowing that that actor is a talentless hack that was edited around - that doesn’t matter. The audience doesn’t know what exactly the circumstances were that produced the performance, they just know what’s given to them in the film. Let’s say the actor’s “good performance” was pure dumb luck - that’s irrelevant to the audience. People just want to see a good flick.
I agree somewhat with your first point, but the second I cannot agree with; it matters who is responsible, because the judgement is specifically outside of just the film; it tends to make the viewer less likely to see other films made by the people they see as being responsible for a stinker.
😂😂 this is awesome!
Keemode often would say ‘death of narrative cinema’ and now he recommends marvel movies. Let this sink in. And it’s because they are FUN. Lost a lot of respect. But at least he still loves the indie scene
U can tell that they're good mates.
I like what Jason has to say, I think actors are often nothing more than conduits for script/director and feel that this is where people should look at when it comes to poor films. I used to go see films largely depending on who was in them, now I go often guided by who directed instead. Also liked that Jason raises that actors have responsibilities such as children and mortgages, the same concerns that keep others in work where they are not entirely comfortable, not all films can be perfect, though all actors need to try to work. Mark sounds defensive throughout. I generally like Mark's reviewing, though don't get why he needs to go beyond saying how he felt about a film, for him to try picking apart how made when often having little knowledge off baffles me.
The games industry is just like thie…. Creatives vs critics…
I kinda wanna hear if Jason disagrees with Mark’s take on Gore Verbinski now that he’s worked with him on A Cure For Wellness
"Set visits are the worst thing a critic can do..."
"Because you'll know where to attribute blame or success".
Jason wins this argument for my money. Love the show etc but like most "critics" Mark doesn't really understand the process by which films are made.
They aren't there to judge the process imo, they are there to judge the finished product, and I agree with Mark that they have to have distance to be able to do that properly, so they aren't influenced by who is or isn't nice to them.
Where Mark goes wrong is when he tries to 'guess' why a movie has gone wrong by talking about the process at all.
Ultimately it's not his job, his job is to critique the final product that is presented to audiences and whether it's any good. So yes, when kermode goes off on one about such and such an actor/director he is purely speculating about the reasons for the bad thing he sees on screen.
That said I agree with Robert Mckee that the best critics are amateurs, in the sense that they convey whether a film is worth watching, not how wonderfully it was made or the drama involved in production. The story, for instance, is often forgotten, as is the writing and dialogue more generally in the excessive focus on the who is acting/directing. If the story sucks, the movie will suck regardless of the wonderous cinematography or the calibre of acting talent.
I agree with points you make but in a less aggressive way. I remember seeing the film thinking the majority of it was beautifully directed and had managed to do away with the 'cheesy' (or child friendly) aspects of the previous films. However, the last act comes across a bit like a theatrical 'Sherlock Holmes' resolution, with all of the relevant characters in one room and a lot of plotlines and conclusions being dictated at each other. I found it distracting compared to the rest of the film.
"Gore Verbrinski couldn't direct traffic" lol
Jason Isaacs is great in Sweetwater
They were in the same year at the same school... how cool?
Mylah Jov-ov-vitch
Kermode is wrong about Depp. He makes Pirates.
I agree with Kermode about Columbus on HP. The first two films were rubbish. Alfonso made the third film great. Yes it was a different book but the feel, the tone was far better than the first two films. Alfonso got better performances out of the actors
What Depp did proved to be massively successful, but that was only due to how many genuinely inane people, around the world, will shell out their hard earned money for trash. Depp was terrible-- his acting was a pantomime of acting-- and many people adored it. Some people adore pineapple on pizza. Some people are weird and will gobble up anything.
He should be in G.I. Joe 3 movie. As Major Bludd, I guess.
The funniest thing is that a few years later Jason was in a gore vebinski film 😂
Mylah Jovovitch
Go Jason, I do like Mark Kermode but he is way off on Jonny Depp and Split second lol
I lost any respect for Mark Kermode when I found out he was a big fan of those bloody awful Twilight films!
Great fun!
This is typical UK male banter at it's best. Anyone outside UK or not worked in such enviroment (i.e Armed Services will never get it)
Kermode is wrong about Pirates of the Caribbean. Depp's performance is brilliant.
I still don't get the Harry Potter 3 argument but ok.
@hanshotfirst1138
I tend to side with Isaacs because I do think Kermod can place the blame on the wrong people if a film turns out poorly.
An actor might give a poor performance and get the blame when it turned out that way because of the director or a film might be shit because of the script rather than poor acting or a bad director.
All I'm thinking is, God their poor teachers.
100% with Mark
So actors write the script and edit and direct the film?
I think Kermode is way off here.
He can't pronounce "and" without doing that pause and saying "aiiind" so I guess you have Pamela Aiiiinderson....
The first two Harry Potter films really weren't any good. As for Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow, that's gone too far for me to judge fairly anymore, but admittedly I remember finding it amusing the first time. Then again, I was 15 back then, and when the second movie came out I was 18, and I was already getting somewhat tired of it.
Mark is completely right, jason didn't like his little Hollywood friends getting digs
Isaacs is perhaps more likeable but Kermode is right and isaacs is wrong
Nope
I love Kermode, but Jason Isaacs got a lot of good points here
Is this an argument?
It's an english argument.
Mark does constantly pronounce names wrong. I don't specifically remember him saying Mila Jovovitch wrong, but I can easily imagine him doing it.
But Split Second is good!
Jason Isaacs got it wrong on the new Star Trek - not that keen
Karmonde is good...right up until he criticizes a film that you loved.. then you feel that he's full of himself and talks Bllucks
Mark is right about Johnny Depp!
Isaacs' argument is essentially the same that's always levelled at critics: 'it takes a lot of hard work and talent to do this, and you couldn't do it, so wah'. You dont have to be able to create a great piece of art yourself to know what great (or indeed terrible) art is. Criticism is part of the dialogue that aids the making of things worth making.