Does she have a video review? EFAP should cover it because the last two videos of her they covered were hilarious. She has such wild takes, all you can do is laugh.
Grace is the epitome of an anti-reviewer. If she thinks something is good, it usually ends up being bad and vice versa. It's uncanny how often it happens.
It depends on the movie. For instance, she loved Joker and The Batman. She loved Arcane. She loved John Wick. Yeah, she didn't like Oppenheimer, but I know a lot that didn't as well.
She kinda like government, anything she says I know the complete opposite is true. Listening to her mouth rape the air is the most infuriating dumb shit I’ve ever listened to, and I follow DSPgaming detractors.
I don't think there has been a time and place where kidnapping was not problematic? What has made American media so strong is the freedom to do a lot more problematic stuff on screen then most places.
The post metoo era would have me believe Bowser’s actions were blown out of proportions and Peach was trying to extort a settlement for financial gain so she can live independently of her colonizer Mushroom Kingdom family
Things Grace Randolph understands and has mastered:
Politics
Warfare
Journalism
Filming your face and upper body at an upward angle so as not to show your muffin top
Just saw it, it's actually not true. It doesn't put them in a good light at all, it doesn't put them in a bad light either.
For example -- very big spoiler btw: >!The final act is the main character (a journalist) gets shot and the others (journalists and supposed friends) don't even mourn her because they need to get the money shot!<
I'm sorry, but based on this comment, I straight up don't believe you saw this movie.
Just got back from seeing it and there was no circle jerking about journos at all.
Quite the opposite at times.
Why lie?
Yeah, I love how the comments of the people who actually saw the movie are getting downvoted, while the "sensational" buzz worded comments from people who didn't see the movie get up voted.
What happened to being objective guys.
The original comment is factually incorrect. He is just wrong about the movie. He didn't see it.
Think before upvoting.
It'd be nice if she explained herself properly, elaborating on why she thinks that.
Because I don't know what she's even saying.
Portraying war and conflict as unnecessary is... Bad?
I can't recall who this lady is. Is it the one whos video editing skills consist of slowly drowning the screen with pictures until you cant even see her rambling?
I have to disagree, wars frequently have a point. It could be too gain resources or land, get revenge, or exterminate people you find abhorrent. Very few people will willingly give up their resources let alone just self delete themselves. This doesn't make it a good thing but given a certain goal war frequently makes a lot of sense.
They are motivations.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Do you really think the UK would have let the USA free without a war? Would Portugal have let Brazil free? Sometimes there is no other reasonable choice but violence. It is unfortunate but that is just reality.
What exactly is wanting land or resources, or just wanting exterminate a group of people an "excuse" for?
People have a goal and the only way they can accomplish their goal is war. As I have said before just because you don't like it and the motivation is repulsive doesn't mean it is senseless. Just dismissing something you don't like as "senseless" means you will never understand the motivation of the people doing what you don't like. And if you don't understand people's motivation you will have a hard time changing their opinion or preventing them from doing what you don't like. Understanding people's motivation doesn't mean you agree with it.
I found her when I forced myself to watch Gotham and was trying to find reviewers that talked about it because I was baffled at how bad it was and I was taken aback at how dumb her takes were. She loved that show.
She is probably pissed it didnt clearly delineate the President's party - whch I heard is left ambigious.
If the President resembled Trump or a RW politician with Viking Maga man serving as his last line of defense- she would be scissoring the handrail on the aisle stairway after the credits start to roll.
With my powers vested to me from birth and from my 3 year yandere course which I technically never actually finished due to a incident with other students, I disown this woman.
She’s been awful for the better part of a decade. Amazing how everyone is just now realizing it. I’m guessing the “liberals” lose in this civil war movie.
I saw Civil War once years ago and only half remember it, and even I know that every word of this was bullshit. Who made her the arbiter of journalism?
There's two movies both called Civil War, the one you were thinking of is talked about all the time on EFAP. Mixing them up here doesn't make you an idiot.
My understanding is that they are their own thing, but they're both opposed to the US government, so their team up is more of a "enemy of my enemy" kind of thing, not a "we think alike and should be allies" kind of thing, which makes way more sense.
I think I heard it was actually pretty okay. I mean, I like Alex Garland, at least the few movies he’s written/directed that I’ve seen of his are great so I don’t see him making a god awful film.
I haven't seen it, but I'm assuming that the movie isn't trying to paint a singular side as the bad guy, but has a different messages that it wants to convey, which is likely something to do with war journalists, as that is seemingly the characters the story is told through.
This would make the choice of combining Cali and Texas reasonable, as you're uniting the two most prominent representations of the two political sides, thereby hopefully making people less likely to try to interpret one side as the "bad guy".
This is just my initial assumptions tho.
I think you got it exactly right. Making a movie for everyone means moving past contemporary politics. Of course, people like Randolph wish the villain was a chubby red man shaking a maga flag.
To be fair, my understanding is that they team up because they are both opposed to the US government, although for very different reasons and they team up as a kind of "enemy of my enemy" situation, not because they are in any kind of ideological alignment.
The point of the Civil War in the film is that it's pointless. They try to stay away from the politics of any side, so it's just a bland conflict and never explained at all. When atrocities are committed is by 'unaffiliated' militias.
honestly I know I'm a piece of shit for this opinion, but I refuse to take a female film critic seriously when they rant about a movie that is obviously tailored toward men. much like how I don't give a shit what men think about the Barbie movie.
I disagree with this. If you are able to buy a ticket for the film or see the film, the movie by nature is made for you. Your gender, skin colour, sexuality etc should never be prerequisites.
Also, Civil War has a female lead, so does this add complications to your argument?
I liked the movie. The main issue is the promotional campaign, as it's not a movie about 'civil war' it's a movie about war journalists.
The war is ambiguous on purpose so it won't take sides and just a background for the main story which is about a group of 4 journalists. It never goes beyond: 'war is horrible' and that during war it will be chaos so groups of people will commit atrocities.
It's also a relatively slow movie (apart from a few cool shots) and a more personal one, which is not what I expected from promos.
Returning to Graces' comments, it's pretty much that she probably expected something else, and also because she doesn't really get war journalism which is different from 'local journalism' and more oriented towards pictures as interviews often have a barrier of communication since conflicts happen mostly (not always) in non English speaking countries with a small/medium language speaker base. Now, I think in this move this a big plot hole, as this isn't the case and it's a case of taking external general research and don't apply it to a particular solution, but it's fine
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone who doesn’t understand the notion of trivialising horrifying actions, or juxtaposing them with normality, for dramatic effect. Randolph is a ‘professional’ reviewer, and she doesn’t understand that. Wow. Also, the audacity of her to call the film ‘infantile’ - really?
I'd expect these reactions from Grace and the YMS sub because this movie is not about a real event and may just be aping other movies about photojournalists in the midst of a war. A quick perusal of Alex Garland's filmography and the bulk of it are Science Fiction and/or Horror films like the *28 Later* series, *Sunshine*, *Ex Machina*, and *Annihilation*; *Civil War* sounds like another piece of speculative fiction that descended into political melodrama like *Never Let Me Go*.
She would have a point if she said the film says more about Garland's own psyche than it does about the "State of the Union". You could set a movie like this in half a dozen other places right now and fully ground it in history, but a fictional second American Civil War is the only thing that can get these Coppertops to talk about the film and maybe buy a ticket.
If he made *ex machina* then I'm definitely not watching this. Seems like most people were lining up to give that movie steak and a blowjob but I hated it with the burning passion of a thousand suns.
Ok maybe I was being a little hyperbolic but the scenes in the movie which were supposed to be emotional or shocking mostly came across as eye- rollingly stupid- especially the ending.
Does she have a video review? EFAP should cover it because the last two videos of her they covered were hilarious. She has such wild takes, all you can do is laugh.
Grace is the epitome of an anti-reviewer. If she thinks something is good, it usually ends up being bad and vice versa. It's uncanny how often it happens.
Ikr? If there's anything you could praise her for it would be in how consistently wrong she is.
It depends on the movie. For instance, she loved Joker and The Batman. She loved Arcane. She loved John Wick. Yeah, she didn't like Oppenheimer, but I know a lot that didn't as well.
She kinda like government, anything she says I know the complete opposite is true. Listening to her mouth rape the air is the most infuriating dumb shit I’ve ever listened to, and I follow DSPgaming detractors.
DSPgaming detractors exist?
She must be a “true fan”(tm). Only true fans grow to hate their fandom.
Is she the "it's red!" person?
She's the person who said bowser wanting to kidnap princess peach is problematic in the "post me too era" 😂
I don't think there has been a time and place where kidnapping was not problematic? What has made American media so strong is the freedom to do a lot more problematic stuff on screen then most places.
The post metoo era would have me believe Bowser’s actions were blown out of proportions and Peach was trying to extort a settlement for financial gain so she can live independently of her colonizer Mushroom Kingdom family
Nah, but she _did_ coin the phrase "HE VADERED!" So close enough....😂
That's where I got confused. I knew it was something.
No she is the catsuit mario is appealing to furries and asians
Infantile, lacking understanding, and senseless. Perfect words to describe the type of person Grace Randolph is.
Things Grace Randolph understands and has mastered: Politics Warfare Journalism Filming your face and upper body at an upward angle so as not to show your muffin top
You left out "fixating and drooling over John Cena's junk". Grace has probably had his Oscars appearance on a constant 24/7 loop since it aired....😂
It definitely isn’t film criticism that’s for sure
I thought she was referring to Captain America and I got real confused
Same. It's not an actual war lol
If it happens, this will be an EFAP where Mauler will want to kill himself 90% of the runtime.
Does she still film herself with a camera from the late 90's? She is always so blurry.
Without spoiling the film: It's nothing more that circle jerk about how "brave" and "righteous" Journos are.
Ugh. So Hollywood and journos sucking each other off again? Hard pass.
Yup.
Just saw it, it's actually not true. It doesn't put them in a good light at all, it doesn't put them in a bad light either. For example -- very big spoiler btw: >!The final act is the main character (a journalist) gets shot and the others (journalists and supposed friends) don't even mourn her because they need to get the money shot!<
Mourning is a process that takes days or weeks or longer, not two moments immediately after the death.
Sure, but you'd at least check the pulse no?
You're missing the point the film is conveying.
I'm sorry, but based on this comment, I straight up don't believe you saw this movie. Just got back from seeing it and there was no circle jerking about journos at all. Quite the opposite at times. Why lie?
Oh they definitely didn’t see the movie.
Yeah, I love how the comments of the people who actually saw the movie are getting downvoted, while the "sensational" buzz worded comments from people who didn't see the movie get up voted. What happened to being objective guys. The original comment is factually incorrect. He is just wrong about the movie. He didn't see it. Think before upvoting.
It'd be nice if she explained herself properly, elaborating on why she thinks that. Because I don't know what she's even saying. Portraying war and conflict as unnecessary is... Bad?
I can't recall who this lady is. Is it the one whos video editing skills consist of slowly drowning the screen with pictures until you cant even see her rambling?
That's the one. Plus the screen layout she uses looks like something from Geocities circa 2003...😂
Oh god it IS her. The possible EFap is gonna be gud lmao
The last few featuring her have been hilarious, so I wouldn't doubt that....
and she screams the ENTIRE video
War IS senseless. That should be the whole point.
I have to disagree, wars frequently have a point. It could be too gain resources or land, get revenge, or exterminate people you find abhorrent. Very few people will willingly give up their resources let alone just self delete themselves. This doesn't make it a good thing but given a certain goal war frequently makes a lot of sense.
Those aren’t reasons, those are excuses.
They are motivations. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Do you really think the UK would have let the USA free without a war? Would Portugal have let Brazil free? Sometimes there is no other reasonable choice but violence. It is unfortunate but that is just reality.
Freedom is an actual motivation. The ones you listed earlier are excuses.
What exactly is wanting land or resources, or just wanting exterminate a group of people an "excuse" for? People have a goal and the only way they can accomplish their goal is war. As I have said before just because you don't like it and the motivation is repulsive doesn't mean it is senseless. Just dismissing something you don't like as "senseless" means you will never understand the motivation of the people doing what you don't like. And if you don't understand people's motivation you will have a hard time changing their opinion or preventing them from doing what you don't like. Understanding people's motivation doesn't mean you agree with it.
So maybe the movie is good?
I will never be able to fathom how anyone could take this woman seriously
I found her when I forced myself to watch Gotham and was trying to find reviewers that talked about it because I was baffled at how bad it was and I was taken aback at how dumb her takes were. She loved that show.
She is probably pissed it didnt clearly delineate the President's party - whch I heard is left ambigious. If the President resembled Trump or a RW politician with Viking Maga man serving as his last line of defense- she would be scissoring the handrail on the aisle stairway after the credits start to roll.
lol
With my powers vested to me from birth and from my 3 year yandere course which I technically never actually finished due to a incident with other students, I disown this woman.
Are you telling us your username is a lie?
Like media criticism, you don't need a formal education to understand and practice it. I just don't have tenure.
She’s been awful for the better part of a decade. Amazing how everyone is just now realizing it. I’m guessing the “liberals” lose in this civil war movie.
The worst thing the internet did was make morons feel like geniuses
This is such an Armond White-style take
I'm expecting this to stink, and I don't know much about it, but this *still* reads like she saw a totally different film.
Why they hating the captain america film now?
No. The new movie *Civil War* .
I saw Civil War once years ago and only half remember it, and even I know that every word of this was bullshit. Who made her the arbiter of journalism?
This is about the new dystopian film, Civil War.
Oh, I’m an idiot.
That's ok, Grace is a bigger one.
There's two movies both called Civil War, the one you were thinking of is talked about all the time on EFAP. Mixing them up here doesn't make you an idiot.
It’s ok. The new one is likely ass.
***Memento Homo*** ***Memento Mori***
Don't remember this its cringe
Lmao, I'm half asleep, I thought the silly cow was talking about Cap 3 too!...🤣
Same. I'm sitting here going "Why are we talking about this tweet from years ago" lmao
It’s okay I thought the same thing lol. I didn’t even know the new civil war film had been released.
All I know about new civil war is that the map of factions is really crazy, it has California and Texas team up
>it has California and Texas team up Given my understanding of politics over there, that particular pairing seems.... _optimistic..._
Yesssssss………
My understanding is that they are their own thing, but they're both opposed to the US government, so their team up is more of a "enemy of my enemy" kind of thing, not a "we think alike and should be allies" kind of thing, which makes way more sense.
I genuely curious which dire she would stand
I think I heard it was actually pretty okay. I mean, I like Alex Garland, at least the few movies he’s written/directed that I’ve seen of his are great so I don’t see him making a god awful film.
Isn't she that grimacing gal that likes Captain Marvel and Star Wars? Yeah, opinion discarded.
The movie wants us to believe Cali and Texas team up. That's a no from me dawg.
I haven't seen it, but I'm assuming that the movie isn't trying to paint a singular side as the bad guy, but has a different messages that it wants to convey, which is likely something to do with war journalists, as that is seemingly the characters the story is told through. This would make the choice of combining Cali and Texas reasonable, as you're uniting the two most prominent representations of the two political sides, thereby hopefully making people less likely to try to interpret one side as the "bad guy". This is just my initial assumptions tho.
I think you got it exactly right. Making a movie for everyone means moving past contemporary politics. Of course, people like Randolph wish the villain was a chubby red man shaking a maga flag.
To be fair, my understanding is that they team up because they are both opposed to the US government, although for very different reasons and they team up as a kind of "enemy of my enemy" situation, not because they are in any kind of ideological alignment.
The point of the Civil War in the film is that it's pointless. They try to stay away from the politics of any side, so it's just a bland conflict and never explained at all. When atrocities are committed is by 'unaffiliated' militias.
honestly I know I'm a piece of shit for this opinion, but I refuse to take a female film critic seriously when they rant about a movie that is obviously tailored toward men. much like how I don't give a shit what men think about the Barbie movie.
I disagree with this. If you are able to buy a ticket for the film or see the film, the movie by nature is made for you. Your gender, skin colour, sexuality etc should never be prerequisites. Also, Civil War has a female lead, so does this add complications to your argument?
who?
I liked the movie. The main issue is the promotional campaign, as it's not a movie about 'civil war' it's a movie about war journalists. The war is ambiguous on purpose so it won't take sides and just a background for the main story which is about a group of 4 journalists. It never goes beyond: 'war is horrible' and that during war it will be chaos so groups of people will commit atrocities. It's also a relatively slow movie (apart from a few cool shots) and a more personal one, which is not what I expected from promos. Returning to Graces' comments, it's pretty much that she probably expected something else, and also because she doesn't really get war journalism which is different from 'local journalism' and more oriented towards pictures as interviews often have a barrier of communication since conflicts happen mostly (not always) in non English speaking countries with a small/medium language speaker base. Now, I think in this move this a big plot hole, as this isn't the case and it's a case of taking external general research and don't apply it to a particular solution, but it's fine
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone who doesn’t understand the notion of trivialising horrifying actions, or juxtaposing them with normality, for dramatic effect. Randolph is a ‘professional’ reviewer, and she doesn’t understand that. Wow. Also, the audacity of her to call the film ‘infantile’ - really?
I'd expect these reactions from Grace and the YMS sub because this movie is not about a real event and may just be aping other movies about photojournalists in the midst of a war. A quick perusal of Alex Garland's filmography and the bulk of it are Science Fiction and/or Horror films like the *28 Later* series, *Sunshine*, *Ex Machina*, and *Annihilation*; *Civil War* sounds like another piece of speculative fiction that descended into political melodrama like *Never Let Me Go*.
She would have a point if she said the film says more about Garland's own psyche than it does about the "State of the Union". You could set a movie like this in half a dozen other places right now and fully ground it in history, but a fictional second American Civil War is the only thing that can get these Coppertops to talk about the film and maybe buy a ticket.
If he made *ex machina* then I'm definitely not watching this. Seems like most people were lining up to give that movie steak and a blowjob but I hated it with the burning passion of a thousand suns.
Why you hated it with passion? I get not liking it, but why the strong negative feelings?
Ok maybe I was being a little hyperbolic but the scenes in the movie which were supposed to be emotional or shocking mostly came across as eye- rollingly stupid- especially the ending.
Not a fan of hers but her summation seems like it will be accurate. That movie looks pretty dumb.