Are Critics Messing with Us?

[Nivek]

Now that we can review movies on imdb, pro critics are completely irrelevant.

I have never gone to IMDB.com for any film review, have no interest in those opinions.

 

[lou2099]

I have never gone to IMDB.com for any film review, have no interest in those opinions.

But my point is that they, we are not getting paid to review them there. They're the ones who matter in the long run.

 

[ALP]

I love watching Ebert and Siskel reviews and Ebert and Roeper. Their viedos are great and sometimes funny. I loved their review for War of the Worlds, they kept bickering back and forth about the tripods lol

 

[Evil Twin]

sometimes critics get it right, many times they don't. I rarely read professional reviews but both The Village Voice and The New York Times hold interest because of their blatant pretentiousness.

Now that we can review movies on imdb, pro critics are completely irrelevant.

Until amateur critcs learn to write, pro critics will never be completely irrelevant. "Inception rulz!" says nothing insightful or interesting about a movie, even if it is broadly true.

I like this quote from Pauline Kael: "No one should trust any critic who does not take the art form he is writing about seriously enough to write a decent paragraph. I simply do not trust the observations of people who write sloppily or in illiterate hyperbole."

Reviews are a starting point for discussion. Not a club to beat people into a sense of conformity. Not a proof of affirmation of one's own opinion. They're an opinion/argument by an individual.

And critics are absolutely vital for movies that don't depend on a massive advertising budget. 500 Days of Summer, Winter's Bone, The Kids are Alright, etc. absolutely depend on reviews to get people into theaters in the first place to spread word of mouth.

 

[lou2099]

Until amateur critcs learn to write, pro critics will never be completely irrelevant. "Inception rulz!" says nothing insightful or interesting about a movie, even if it is broadly true.

Not all of the reviews on imdb are like that. For every "Twilight sux" there are plenty more insightful, educated opinions that are worthy of any professional critic. I'd written many myself.

 

[Prison Mike]

I don't get how they're "messing with us"? They're just giving their opinions. You can take it or leave it. It doesn't really matter. If you really want to see a movie then you'll probably see it with or without a critic's approval. I mean, I read a lot of people's opinions on these boards and I think they suck. Doesn't mean mine is any more valid than yours, though.

 

[:eek:]

Personally I find it funny how some people thinks a certain critic sucks because the critic have different taste, but if the critic share someone's taste in movies, then it is a good critic.

 

[Laderlappen]

But my point is that they, we are not getting paid to review them there. They're the ones who matter in the long run.

Why do they matter more?

 

[Evil Twin]

There's a long history of amateur criticism in all fields of art. But, I'd hardly say that the amateur critic matters more. Well written criticism matters more than poorly written/argued criticism. Period. A piece of criticism isn't de facto good/bad because it agrees/disagrees with my own opinion. It's good or bad based on the quality/merits of its writing/arguments.

I think it's really telling in the critics who have no sense of history of film. "What's great about a silent/black and white film?" probably does represent the majority view, especially for a certain age range. Does that make it the "correct" opinion? Or the opinion "that matters"?

Is it really any wonder that a middle aged critic is going to see the world and film differently than a teenaged/college aged viewer?

The idea that there's any sort of thing as a "definitive" opinion on film is an idea that needs to die. There's no such thing.

 

[Sentinel X]

I guess I'm one of the few that actually like critics (in general, although some are very annoying and hypocritical.) By the way, no, I'm not a blind follower that watches anything critics approve of. I like critics because if I'm going to spend my money and my time to watch a film, I'd like to enjoy it.

Also a good critic tells you why he/she thought a movie was good or bad instead of just going "OMG!! That was soooo awesome!11!!" or "Worst movie ever!!". A good critic gives you enough information where you can make the decision yourself. Seriously, nobody is forcing you to "listen" to critics and thats not their intentions anyways. Just hear what they say and if you still want to(or don't) watch a movie...then watch it! Its really that simple.

 

[Laderlappen]

^Critics are alright. People get the idea that critics only like serious art-films to make them look cool and above everyone else. This is very untrue. Many so called fun films can get great reviews if they are well made and dark oscar bait can get bad reviews. They are not like the oscar that cant take some genres like comedy or sci-fi seriously. And the point of critics is to give you an idea of how good a movie is. And often they are right imo.

 

[GhostPoet]

People actually care what critics say? They seem to have the worst taste in movies.

 

[lou2099]

^Critics are alright. People get the idea that critics only like serious art-films to make them look cool and above everyone else..

Read the aforementioned Village Voice and NY Times reviewers for proof of this.

 

[Watchman]

People actually care what critics say? They seem to have the worst taste in movies.

Critics are a hive mind collective that enjoy bad films?

 

[Watchman]

Also, I find people who hate film critics are the ones pissed off because they panned movies that are based in nostalgia for a toy product or adaptation. It's the same argument every time, they don't like 'fun movies' or movies where you have to turn your brain off. Only "arty" movies. Which I call bull**** on and find it hypocritical. Most of these people wouldn't give these "arty" movies a chance and would rather turn their brains off most of the time. Personally, I can't wait for the Expendables and Machete but I'm also excited for Tree of Life and Enter the Void.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Personally I find it funny how some people thinks a certain critic sucks because the critic have different taste, but if the critic share someone's taste in movies, then it is a good critic.

This. My favourite critics are not ones that I necessarily agree with, but ones that are entertaining and ones from which I can generally determine whether I will like a film or not based on what the critic had to say about it, regardless of whether he liked it or not. I disagree with AO Scott most of the time, but he is still a good critic and greatly knowledgeable about film whereas someone like Ben Lyons is just a hack. Star ratings are only for people too lazy to read the reviews. I don't pay attention to them at all.

 

[Laderlappen]

Read the aforementioned Village Voice and NY Times reviewers for proof of this.

Sure there are probably some exceptions but only a very small group are like that.

 

[GhostPoet]

for me, I have no problem with critics having their own taste. That's fine.

My thing is though...if you don't like...say...sci-fi. Then don't freaking review a sci-fi movie. If you dont' like big, dumb action flicks...then don't review them!
I think critics should stay within the genre's they enjoy and more importantly, know about.

It would be like having me review the latest Football game...and I hate football. It makes NO sense.

 

[Dark Victory]

Armond White loved Transformers 2 more than Inceptin and loved the Clash of the Titans remake more than The Lord of the Rings...

I don't know what to make of this. If White likes your film, I don't know if that's a good or bad thing.

Anyone should be able to tell that he's about the last writer who should be considered legit. All of his blurbs are sensationalism, offering no explanation of his vies.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

for me, I have no problem with critics having their own taste. That's fine.

My thing is though...if you don't like...say...sci-fi. Then don't freaking review a sci-fi movie. If you dont' like big, dumb action flicks...then don't review them!
I think critics should stay within the genre's they enjoy and more importantly, know about.

It would be like having me review the latest Football game...and I hate football. It makes NO sense.

They don't have a choice. It is their job. They review what they are told to review by their employer.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Critics don't just like "artsy films. They only review good films. Star Trek has a 94% on RT, TDK, SM2, hell, Pixar films are family films and critics eat that **** up. There's plenty of mainstream films that get great reviews.

 

[Mace Dolex]

Siskel & Ebert were always fun to hear them dissagreeing and usually I'll agree with critics when it comes to reviewing crap movies like the Date/Epic/Disaster movies.

 

[Evil Twin]

More to the point, having a critic that has a broad range of tastes is often more reflective of a newspaper readership than having a critic with a niche taste. One should expect a critic for the Wall Street Journal to have different expectations and tastes towards, say, a horror film than a critic for Fangoria.

 

[Cinemaman]

Aren't critics supposed to be just and not care about what is the genre of the films they are reviewing?

I mean, if they are real professionals, genres shouldn't matter as much as the story and its portrayal in the movies. For instance, I don't like the majority of romantic films and rarely care about coming of age flicks, but still I consider The Secretary and 500 Days of Summer as simply great films.

Moreover, nowadays there are many contemporary films, the stories of which aren't based on genres or associated formulas, but rely more on their creative freedom. Example? Inception. The film has no clear, specific, primary genre and it still succeeds in achieving its goals.

 

[Dark Victory]

People actually care what critics say? They seem to have the worst taste in movies.

Pot calling the kettle black?