#CRITIC

[officerbiscuit]

"But tonight, may I simply hold you? I want nothing more. Just let me comfort you, for once" 💙💚 THIS took longer then expected but I had to join everyone's lovely rendition of this moment because it just hit the mark SO WELL ❤️

[artist-issues]

Disney doesn't need to change "the formula." That's the last thing that Wish proves.

What Wish proves is that "the formula" only works when you know why the ingredients are in it, and you use them the correct way.

The Princess Character is meant to wish for only half of the movie's message, and go through an adventure that teaches her what the other half is; what her dream was missing. Ariel dreamed of understanding but she was missing love. Tiana dreamed of achieving her goals but she was missing faith. Jasmine dreamed of freedom but she was missing trust. Belle dreamed of adventure but she was missing being understood.

The Villain is meant to highlight the opposite of the movie's message. Jafar gets what he wants through trickery and manipulation; that's the opposite of Aladdin's "truth will set you free" message, and he gets imprisoned in a lamp. Scar thinks being a King is having his way all the time and can't learn from his past of living in Mufasa's shadow; that's the opposite of The Lion King's "Let the past remind you of your responsibility to selflessness." Gaston loves only himself and is always obsessed with appearances; that's the opposite of Beauty & the Beast's "true love is found within a heart of self-sacrifice." That's what makes them such good villains. (and that clear direction is what drives good villain songs, since Magnifico's is what everyone is talking about)

The sidekick is supposed to compare/contrast with the main character's qualities. Abu is a greedy thief, which is what everyone in Agrabah thinks Aladdin is; when he scolds Abu and teaches him selflessness, it shows us who Aladdin actually is. Flounder is easily frightened and looks at the glass half-full; when Ariel coaxes him and leads by example, we see her bravery and positivity reflected in Flounder's tiny character arc. Timon & Pumbaa do whatever they want all day just like young Simba always dreamed of; when Simba goes to live with them, he finds that "getting his way all the time" makes him forget who he really is and feel empty.

The setting is supposed to show off the characters and highlight the movie's message. Rapunzel's tower is designed to be pretty on the inside because of her influence; if it were too dark and prison-shaped, we'd wonder why she didn't work up the courage to leave sooner. Just like how Quasimodo has made his corner of the bell-tower beautiful, too; they're taught the world is cruel and they're not strong enough for it, but they make their own worlds beautiful enough to hint that that's wrong right from the start. Ariel's grotto is shaped like a tower with no roof so that she only has one window to the forbidden Surface, and it's the light that comes from that forbidden world into her dark grotto which literally makes her able to see human things differently. Tiana's apartment has no interesting features except her father's picture, a perfectly made bed, a drawer with no extra outfits but stuffed with tip money, and only two dresses; both of which are for work.

None of that is happening in Wish, because they didn't know why the formula ingredients are there. Disney needs to understand and return to the formula the right way; forgetting it was what got them here.

Asha learns nothing to add to her dream, unless you count "the power to grant wishes is in me." Which you shouldn't, because we didn't even know she was confused about that until the animals sang a song that was completely off-topic and she had the chance to jump in and sing "I'm a Star!"

Magnifico does not demonstrate the opposite of Wish's message effectively because his character has nothing to do with a philosophy against making wishes, and everything to do with power. (He is the strongest character in the film. But because the message and core concept of what wishes are are so bad, that's not saying much.)

Valentino, and Asha's friends, do not highlight anything about her character through compare/contrast. Valentino is brave and all over the place. Her friends are seven-dwarfs parodies. Happy, Doc, Sneezy, Dopey, Bashful, Sleepy, Grumpy. None of that contrasts with Asha's vague characterization of "cares too much." None of it compares to that characterization, either.

The setting is empty. There are no interesting details that teach you something about any of the characters. None in Asha's home, none in the neat-and-tidy one-dimensional forest, none in the Rosas square, and none in the bland, empty castle. Magnifico's study is the closest anything gets; there's a loose concept that all of Asha's friends have to work together to open the roof, and take a leap of faith to weigh the pulley system down. Unfortunately, none of these characters is shown struggling to work together, OR to take leaps of faith, at all, before this point.

The ingredients of the formula are in Wish. They're just not being used correctly. This is how not to use the formula; it's not the formulas fault. If it ain't broke. They should never have let people convince them to try and fix it.

[glitchphotography]

"The Art Critic is Game": (Deluxe Paint IV, 2024) [ cw: flashing ]

[yourdailyqueer]

Rashida Renée

Gender: Transgender woman

Sexuality: Queer

DOB: N/A

Ethnicity: African American

Occupation: Journalist, fashion critic, blogger

[luwe21]

Monsters: The Story of Lyle and Erik Menendez Story

The show was chaotic. Not shade the actors involved, of course, but it was a charade of what really happened.

After the brothers killed their parents, they went on a spending spree, it was true, and they were seen at a basketball game. In a way, this card is proof of what the brothers were capable of. They brutally killed their parents and then sat at a game completely relaxed and unexcited.

The portrayal of the two brothers was a grotesque caricature of their real-life counterparts. In particular, Lyle was portrayed as the typical toxic male stereotype of the spoiled rich boy and Erik as the typical weak, soft gay stereotype. None of this is true. It is sad that we still need the stereotypes to portray men. And the incest was unnecessary. What Lyle did to Erik on the show was a behavioral problem, not incest. Young children explore their own bodies and those of others, so-called "doctor" play. But normal play should never involve penetration. This is the problematic and borderline behavior of young children who may have been molested, raped or abused by their caregivers and should always be evaluated or treated by professionals. The choice of actors was also very deliberate. Of course, they couldn't be ordinary people, they had to be male models. As with Dahmers Story, fans are attracted to the actors and forget that this are real life crimes.

Erik gives a good and thoughtful answer to the chaos of a show. "Why is truth not enough?" The truth is already a spectacle. Two young men kill their rich and famous parents for unknown reasons. Then they spent a lot of money and "celebrated" until they were caught and sent to prison.

Violence is never the answer. But isn't that also true for their parents? Were they left with no choice but to kill their parents? Sadly, it seems that even today, there is often no chance of justice for victims of the rich and powerful. Some celebrities are even victims and have not gotten justice either.

This needs to be corrected. Man beings can be victims and can be oppressed. This is a fundamental truth that is not yet represented in some legal systems. Rape doesn't have to involve penetration to be rape.

I am appalled by Pam Bozanich's statements and her still hardened stance on the crime. She believes to this day that the brother's fabricated the abuse and molestation to avoid the death penalty and that it is still "just for money".

All I know from my love of true crime is that nobody would kill their parents like that just for money.

Nobody would disfigure their parents with multiple gunshots if it wasn't deeply personal.

And I also know that juries are reluctant and too "proud" to retry a case.

The case is complicated and involves a lot of factors that can't be proven 100% and is based on personal statements rather than concrete evidence.

The show hasn't helped at all. Except make Ryan Murphy and Netflix richer and spread misinformation. Maybe it helps a little to shine a light on the brothers, but not much.

[deafening-enthusiastic-dreamer]

Family By Choice

She is so adorable and talented, I have seen her in so many dramas lately, she is doing a great job.

Father- Daughter duo I didn't think I needed, but love anyway.

Feeling a chaotic vibe- Just how I want it to be... I am genuinely excited for this.

Going to be a fun ride!

[nesiacha]

I already talk about horrible movie about the frev. Today I will make a critic about the bad points about a good movie with a very good historical accuracy that I really like but it’s also important to criticize good historical films even if we liked them as a whole (I must say that I liked them personally and I continue to do so) . Firstly, even if it may not have been the intention, because it was not the theme of the show as the writers had planned several themes with the people, including the Night of Varennes, I didn't like that the politicians were seen prominently while the people were too much in the background (minor criticism because the show was discontinued after the success of 'La Terreur et la Vertu,' so maybe they intended to do it later).

Next, the women of the French Revolution are too sidelined, and Lucile Desmoulins is portrayed more as simply worried for Camille Desmoulins without showing Lucile's political side, which accentuates the sexism. Camille Desmoulins is depicted as more naive than he actually was, in my opinion, perhaps to absolve or infantilize him, I don't know.

I would have liked it if we briefly mentioned the retaking of Lyon by Couthon, even just in passing. We have 4 representatives of the indulgent faction (Fabre d'Eglantine, Danton, Camille Desmoulins, and Philppeaux) compared to only 2 on the Hebertist side (Hébert and Chaumette). We only mention Vincent, Ronsin, and Momoro briefly, but I would have liked them to have the same amount of screen time. We should also see their trials and the fact that they were going to the guillotine instead of that, the topic is quickly dismissed.

Moreover, although Castelot and Decaux had a very good debate that I invite everyone to watch, there's something that bothers me. It is said that the CSP (Committee of Public Safety) is at fault for parodying justice against the indulgent, but as usual, we forget the parody done to the Hebertists and also forget that done to the Enragés like Jacques Roux when the CSP, the CSG (Committee of General Security), and the Convention relentlessly attacked him illegally to the point where he committed suicide. Double standard once again, and the parody of justice is justified a bit too much for my taste (which also executed many innocents like Lucile Desmoulins, Marie Françoise Goupil, even Chaumette who had, however, refused the insurrection of Hébert, Gobel, etc)...

Then to say that Barère is acting in good faith from Decaux's point of view? No seriously, I don't buy Barère's whitewashing, he's generally a weathervane (the only time the show mentions it from this side is when Danton says that Barère is for the tipping scale).

Another point is that I found Robespierre a bit too naive at times. In real life, he knows that deep down Danton is a dubious character, but he thinks that the Hebertist wave is more dangerous. It's a political calculation until he realizes that he underestimated the indulgent movement and will opt for a middle policy. There he is almost surprised by some of Danton's movements.

Finally, the end of 'La Terreur et la Vertu' is not bad and very emotionnal; there is an explanation that Saint Just did not move during the insurrection. But personally, I think that our five deputies certainly had scruples regarding the legality of the Convention, as has been said repeatedly, but they mainly hesitated because of it. If they were 100% against not moving against the Convention due to legality, they would have said so. My theory is that they felt exhausted and confused because 17 out of 49 sections had risen, which was a significant number but not enough to justify an uprising, not to mention they were at least somewhat legalistic.

Finally, I would have liked an explanation of why Hanriot was so loyal to Robespierre (we know this if we research the character a little, but a line or two of mention wouldn't have cost much), but I'm glad he wasn't demonized. Far from me the idea of wanting to put this excellent film on trial, but as I said earlier, it is also necessary to see the negative aspects of this film to have a better improvement of the content (although today it regresses even more).

I would have liked it if we also briefly saw Tinville refuse to prosecute Fleuriot Lescot; it would have added a little more humanity to his character (although I don't like Tinville at all, I find that he is always too caricatured to be believable. Fortunately, the TV movie shows his "human" side, but not enough).

The only problem is that I have the impression that they are telling the false message that the execution of Robespierre and his colleagues marks the end of the social revolution when in reality the coup de grace was not done for me. that with the execution of Romme and his friends (the episode of the execution of the Hébertists, Cordeliers, indulgents and of Robespierre and his colleagues was above all only a continuation of weakening between 'internal struggle') and the end of the frev was only after Bonaparte coup d'etat . After seeing that the show was suddenly stopped, perhaps the writers intended to rectify it.

A small gratuitous jab nonetheless from a line in a TV movie: Barras: You will take Robespierre and Saint Just.

Me: Wow, and does Couthon count for nothing, I guess? The poor has just been royally ignored."

[viejospellejos]

Su padre es el crítico de cocina de Ratatouille

[picsfortheday]

[selh0ve]

How I feel after purchasing a pack and realizing we can only pick one color for the outfit:

[indeedgoodman]

[madame-helen]

[thesmallestpotatto]

Was the movie nonsense or are you just unwilling to think about it a second longer than it takes the credits to roll?

[criticcritiquing]

Pace gallery

[yourdailyqueer]

Caroline Spurgeon (deceased)

Gender: Female

Sexuality: Lesbian

DOB: 24 October 1869 

RIP: 24 October 1942

Ethnicity: White - English

Occupation: Professor, literary critic

Note: First female university professor in London, the second in England. She was the first female professor of English Literature. First woman to be awarded a chair at the University of London, and only the third in Britain.