[ SECRET POST #3060 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3060 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


02.



__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #437.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[dethtoll]

Yeah, this. Critics tend to go for things that have a veneer of arthouse to them; the average viewing audience simply isn't interested in that and would rather have more straightforward films. Nothing wrong with that, though.

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't say a "veneer of arthouse". I think what they really look for is something substantive, above and beyond typically cinematic fare. They see so many films that yet-another-slasher-flick or by-the-numbers-explodarama no longer hold any particular interest to them. They've seen it a thousand times before.

Critics tend to favour the sort of films which are benefited by rewatching, because they contain enough substance to mull over. It's about thematic depth more than arthousity.