Peter Stanley’s review published on Letterboxd:
If we are to take some of the character's feelings as representing the filmmaker's view, there were some attitudes that came through this film that I couldn't go along with. Although as a satire it avoids overtly stating anything and so invokes the shield of plausible deniability.
They are as follows:
- Theatre is better and more worthy than film.
I find the theatre to be a great workshop for actors but the results have never impressed me as much as films have. An archaic art form with more limits than benefits. It is also just as susceptible to turning out mainstream mediocrity as film.
- Critics are really really important to the success of a piece of work.
The critical adulation this film has received, makes me wonder if the critics enjoyed this overstating of their importance, along with the gentle ribbing.
- Films are just superhero fluff these days and something should be done about that.
Almost every major actor in this film has had a significant role in a superhero film. Intentional no doubt, but I wonder if the cast were as sardonic behind the scenes of their respective blockbusters. They are free to take their pay cheques and fund whatever film they like. I felt this film seemed overly interested in the superhero phenomena to truly be offering an alternative, i.e. having it both ways.
Anyway, just my thoughts.