![]() It’s no wonder we still coalesce around the usual tentpoles: We can depend on them to be, at minimum, satisfyingly distracting.Įither way, it’s a tough market for originality, and an even tougher market for work that’s challenging. The glut of new content online, in theaters, and on whichever screen functions as your TV, paired with the typical working person’s lack of time and essential hunger for escapism, can make it hard to advocate for anything that feels like a risk. Plenty were also good-but among smaller movies, by the time word travels about what’s “good,” and by the time what’s good is available to the broadest possible audience, there’s a chance we’ve all already moved on to the next “must-watch” thing. ![]() ![]() Scott told Variety that this was “because of the increasing volume of new films released each year.” In late 2013, Scott tallied up the number of releases the paper reviewed that year: a frightening 900. Just two years ago, The New York Times, which had traditionally reviewed every movie with a New York opening, announced that it could no longer make that guarantee. But it’s also been, for some time, an era of too many movies, and often for some of the same reasons: an influx of original content from platforms like Netflix, a diversifying sense of what “movie” even means, and so on. We think of this as an era of peak TV- and it is. ![]() The worst part about reviewing movies is: There are so many movies. More to see means more to recommend, at least in theory. The best thing about reviewing movies is: There are so many movies. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |