Are Critics Messing with Us?

[-Arya-]

I know Armond White is...

He must be. I'm baffled by most of his reviews, if you can even call them that. Most of the time he throws insults to the filmmakers.

 

[Jack O Lantern]

What would real Ninja Turtles do?

That's not a ridiculas question. Stan Lee asked the quuestion, If you were a superhero what would life be like in the real world? And we got Spider-Man. If you took the Ninja Turtles and placed them in the "real" world how would they fit in? Would they exist only to fight crime and eat pizza?

I haven't seen Transformers or GI Joe so I can't judge them personally but I would imagine that their problem with those films is likely to do with the death of narrative cinema. It'ssomething a critic in the UK, Mark Kermode, talks about all the time. Big action movies more from one interchangeable set peice to another with nothing in between. The action set peices should be driven by the narrative, if you look at the action/adventure movies that do get good reviews it's because the narrative is what matters.

 

[Hound55]

This is why I put a "Go see it if you liked..." box in what I've written.

Yes, I'm going to deconstruct a film but I don't want to alienate people who are various levels of "fanboy". So it still has a value by comparing it to works already in the market.

 

[Catman]

And come on Catman. You're complaining that ciritics gives out bad reviews. If critics couldnt give out bad reviews to movies they didnt like just because they saw it for free, they would be dishonest, and the job would be completely pointless.

I never said that critics shouldn't give bad reviews. I never said that critics will like every movie they see just cause they saw it for free. What I did say was that critics sometimes seem to exaggerate. The Siskel & Ebert reviews of the Ninja Turtle movies are a perfect example of that. They took ridiculously silly movies very seriously. And they even seemed offended by them. They were acting like if someone punched them in the face and then called their mother a ****e. But why? Because they're just messing with us. They can't go on TV and say, "it's a dumb kids movie. Thumbs down." No, they have to spend 5 minutes exaggerating so people don't get bored.

What would real Ninja Turtles do?

That's not a ridiculas question. Stan Lee asked the quuestion, If you were a superhero what would life be like in the real world? And we got Spider-Man.

You can't compare Spider-Man to TMNT. Spider-Man is a human with superpowers. TMNT are 4 mutated Turtles. So, in the case of TMNT all you can do is use your imagination. While with Spidey you can actually put yourself in the scenario since he is human. You can actually ask yourself, "what would I do in this situation." But TMNT...they're friggin Turtles, man. It's like asking what a real Bugs Bunny would do.

 

[terry78]

A real Ninja Turtle would probably kill all humans on sight and be extremely nightmarish.

 

[Catman]

Isn't the point of Ninja to kill people? So, I don't get why Siskel & Ebert (as well as other critics) seemed so concerned about the violence. The Turtles never actually killed anyone. Shouldn't that be admired? 4 Ninjas not killing anyone. Yes, they solve their problems with violence but what superhero doesn't? Name one superhero who didn't solve his problems with violence. It's such a dumb argument in their part. And, again, it's them messing with us. I can't understand how Siskel & Ebert would make such dumb arguments in the first place. It's clear they just wanted to piss off some fanboys for ratings. It's like when Ebert gave a bad review to the first Spider-Man movie for the dumbest reasons. Even Roeper was like, "what are you, an idiot?" These people gotta get their ratings somehow.

 

[WeaponXProject]

As much as I don't consider myself a puppet I will admit that I listen to critics but you have to gage what they are saying. Most of the good one's tell their true opinions. I like that but I do think they exaggerate films they hate.


Most highly reviewed films are more my favorite than let's say TF2 or Resident Evil whatever.

I think it would be clearer if we brought up certain movies that were highly reviewed that we didn't like or low reviewed movies we liked and what was said.
Clearly their voice doesn't deter...TF2 is probably going to make 800 million dollars or might have so their voice doesn't matter. At the same time, money doesn't make a film. I am not a fan of TF2 or movies similar to that. Incoherent stories, overdone f/x and ridiculous comedy mixed with the trying to be epic appeal caused the movie to fail for me. Robot heaven? Really?

 

[Crook]

I never said that critics shouldn't give bad reviews. I never said that critics will like every movie they see just cause they saw it for free. What I did say was that critics sometimes seem to exaggerate. The Siskel & Ebert reviews of the Ninja Turtle movies are a perfect example of that. They took ridiculously silly movies very seriously. And they even seemed offended by them. They were acting like if someone punched them in the face and then called their mother a ****e. But why? Because they're just messing with us. They can't go on TV and say, "it's a dumb kids movie. Thumbs down." No, they have to spend 5 minutes exaggerating so people don't get bored.



You can't compare Spider-Man to TMNT. Spider-Man is a human with superpowers. TMNT are 4 mutated Turtles. So, in the case of TMNT all you can do is use your imagination. While with Spidey you can actually put yourself in the scenario since he is human. You can actually ask yourself, "what would I do in this situation." But TMNT...they're friggin Turtles, man. It's like asking what a real Bugs Bunny would do.

What the...

Way to insult people's intelligence, lol. Whether or not the characters are within our species is irrelevant, as the audience always gravitates to the humane traits. ET and Wall-E being good examples.

 

[Crook]

I never said that critics shouldn't give bad reviews. I never said that critics will like every movie they see just cause they saw it for free. What I did say was that critics sometimes seem to exaggerate. The Siskel & Ebert reviews of the Ninja Turtle movies are a perfect example of that. They took ridiculously silly movies very seriously. And they even seemed offended by them. They were acting like if someone punched them in the face and then called their mother a ****e. But why? Because they're just messing with us. They can't go on TV and say, "it's a dumb kids movie. Thumbs down." No, they have to spend 5 minutes exaggerating so people don't get bored.



You can't compare Spider-Man to TMNT. Spider-Man is a human with superpowers. TMNT are 4 mutated Turtles. So, in the case of TMNT all you can do is use your imagination. While with Spidey you can actually put yourself in the scenario since he is human. You can actually ask yourself, "what would I do in this situation." But TMNT...they're friggin Turtles, man. It's like asking what a real Bugs Bunny would do.

What the...

Way to insult people's intelligence, lol. Whether or not the characters are within our species is irrelevant, as the audience always gravitates to the humane traits. ET and Wall-E being good examples.

 

[DarKJediKnight]

True, it's just that some people expect too much for these type of films.

The difference to me with JOE and TF2, was that Joe just was one thing. It meant to be mindless stupid fun. It displayed it being a toy kids movie with nothing but stupid scenarios that little boys love. It brought out the little kid in me.

TF2 tried to be too accessible. Bay tried a little too hard. But I dug the first TF. Because of its silliness and I dug the characters. Maybe it's just how it clicks with you.

Guys, you should listen to Crook and Doctor Jones.

 

[Laderlappen]

I never said that critics shouldn't give bad reviews. I never said that critics will like every movie they see just cause they saw it for free. What I did say was that critics sometimes seem to exaggerate. The Siskel & Ebert reviews of the Ninja Turtle movies are a perfect example of that. They took ridiculously silly movies very seriously. And they even seemed offended by them. They were acting like if someone punched them in the face and then called their mother a ****e. But why? Because they're just messing with us. They can't go on TV and say, "it's a dumb kids movie. Thumbs down." No, they have to spend 5 minutes exaggerating so people don't get bored.

Thats just how they sound(to you, I dont see any problem with it). Its a silly movie, cant they still dislike it? Cant they still feel it could have been made better? If I wanted to listen to them review a movie, I would want to hear what they had to say about. It shouldnt be treated differently because its "silly". When one reviews a movie they should explain what was good about it and what was bad about. If they would just say "it's a dumb kids movie. Thumbs down." I would be very unsatisfied. First of all its a bad and stupid review. Second, that is nothing what they said. They didnt give it a bad review because it was a kids movie. It takes a few minutes to review a movie. The whole point of the show is to talk about new movies and whats bad and good about them.

 

[8wid]

Critics are just idiots...

 

[Episode29]

Critics are just idiots...

Jesus. Way to add to the argument, slick.

 

[Laderlappen]

Calling somebody an idiot because of their opinion on movies is very immature

 

[Catman]

Its a silly movie, cant they still dislike it?

I never said they couldn't dislike it. And if they did that would be fine. But they didn't. They hated the movie (which is different from simply disliking it) and felt a need to attack the fanbase. In their review for the first movie they spend like 5 minutes trying to figure out why people liked it. They spend more time doing that then actually reviewing it. Then in the review for the third movie, which is the link I provided in the original post, Ebert looked into the camera and said, "I hope when fans grow up their tastes do as well." Was that really necessary? Did he really need to insult TMNT fans? No. But why did he do it? Ratings. So, the question has to be asked. Was he serious or just messing with us? I think it's the latter because simply doing reviews won't get you ratings. That's what seperates a well-known critic from one most people have never heard of. They know how to get under the skin of readers/viewers.

When one reviews a movie they should explain what was good about it and what was bad about. If they would just say "it's a dumb kids movie. Thumbs down." I would be very unsatisfied.

I didn't actually mean for them to say two sentences. Obviously they have to explain themselves. What I meant was that they could have simply reviewed the movie. But they didn't. They had to add exaggerations to make their review more...interesting.

 

[Batman713]

Armond White is actually one of the most reliable critics. Any movie that he rates as rotten on RT is actually fresh (with a few surprising exceptions).

 

[Max J Power]

Ah the invisible fanboy/critic war continues. One side continues to complain over the internet that they hate critics because they gave a bad review for a movie where they got the costume for their favorite character just right. The other side well continues not to give a **** and goes about there merry way writing about movies for money.

Critic-I didn't like Spider-Man 3 here are my reasons why

Guy on internet- WHAT? Go watch some art movie ass. Gawd I hate critics.

The internet is two-faced when it comes to critics. When it goes against their opinion they will verbally thrash critics to end with the critic continuing not to give a **** and collecting a pay check. While if they agree with them they will hold the critic up to high heavens praising, "Look, my opinion has been justified!"

But when it comes down to it, it's all opinion. So don't feel threaten when a movie you liked is despised by critics.

I couldn't have put it better.

Critics' purpose is to examine the entertainment and artistic quality of a movie. They're not, in most cases, going to like a movie that lacks the real qualities of filmmaking just because it "wasn't supposed to be serious."

 

[Rishi]

Ebert often makes joke reviews out of ****** movies. Which Ninja Turtles 3 was

The first one was a masterpiece though, I can't understand why they didn't like it

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Don't take life too seriously or you'll never get out alive. Write that down.

And anyone who doesn't like the first Ninja Turtles movie deserves a kicking.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I think this article sums up perfectly how we ( the general audience) look at movies and how critics look at movies.


http://www.observer.com/2009/movies...tween-critics-and-audiences-grows-even-bigger

Critics and Audiences Keeps Growing


Reason No. 68 why the disconnect between film critics and moviegoers is bigger than ever: The elitism of the old guard. Over the course of the past week, well known and nominally intelligent film critics Roger Ebert and A.O. Scott both wrote that the decline of the film industry is in direct proportion to the increasing stupidity of the audience. (Jeffrey Wells, hysterical blogger and all around curmudgeon, had written the same thing previously, albeit in more breathlessly hyperbolic terms.) Apparently, if you thought the culture war was reserved for political campaigns and Fox News talking heads, you were mistaken.

Of course, the funny thing is that these critics are waging this culture war on what seems like the entire population of the United States. Their consternation lies mostly with the wild success of two movies: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The latter, with close to $400 million in total grosses is one of the worst reviewed movies in the history of Hollywood to reach such lofty financial heights; the former was famously left unscreened for major film critics and scored a $54 million opening over this past weekend despite that fact. To Messrs. Scott and Ebert, the thinking seems to be that if crappy movies are making big bucks, the audience—particularly the young and impressionable—are to blame. (Mr. Ebert has even gone so far as to say that film critics are more “evolved” than regular moviegoers; this from the man who gave Knowing four-stars [Editor's Note: Some of us here also think that Knowing is pretty awesome.]). What other reason could there be for the perceived “failures” of ostensibly highbrow films like Public Enemies and The Hurt Locker, two critically beloved summer entries that have supposedly underwhelmed? Never mind that Public Enemies is actually kind of successful (Michael Mann’s gangland epic has grossed $94 million to date) and The Hurt Locker hasn’t been shown in more than 535 theaters at any point this summer (by contrast, G.I. Joe opened in over 4,000 theaters). The real reason Hollywood continues to put out a crappy product is because of you! This is all your fault.

And therein lies the problem: It’s not your fault! Was it your fault when Slumdog Millionaire grossed well over $100 million, or when Up and Star Trek, two of the best reviewed movies of the year, grossed over $250 million, each? Sure some great movies (like The Hurt Locker) will inevitably fall through the cracks, but most of the time, we audience members do see the good movies, if we’re given the opportunity. Of course, we see the crap movies too. That’s issue with these film critics: Somewhere along the way they forgot that people just fundamentally like going to the movies. This has nothing to do with intellect—or lack thereof—but a wish to escape the rigors of daily life for a couple of hours. The person who paid to see G.I. Joe this weekend isn’t necessarily dumb, just like the one who paid to see The Hurt Locker isn’t necessarily a Rhodes scholar. It’s time to separate the quality of the films from their paying audiences. The sooner film critics do this, the better.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I just think critics are there to analyze and pick apart movies. Therefore, they are going to come across more flaws n all that.

Whereas we, fans of movies, just watch the movie and judge it on face value in the main part.

I appreciate films with underlying messages and message sending visuals and all that stuff. But I mean, all I really care about is if I'm entertained in some way.

I notice with some critics they seem to make it less enjoyable for themselves. I guarantee if a lot of them just say down and watch a film, took it at face value, they'd enjoy it a hell of a lot more. All this picking apart and analyzing MUST get in the way of enjoyment sometimes. And I think that isn't how films should be watched.

 

[TheFuture]

I don't think they are "messing" with us. I think some are irrational and will go out of their way to find flaws. However for the most part I wouldn't expect a critic to give every film a glowing reference just because he should be "thankful" to have such an undemanding job physically. Lets face it, I wouldn't envy anyone who has to endure endless trudge such as your typical Katherine Heigl rom-com and then have to write a 2000+ word review.

Still though, it's a job I'd love.

 

[Road Warrior]

I notice with some critics they seem to make it less enjoyable for themselves. I guarantee if a lot of them just say down and watch a film, took it at face value, they'd enjoy it a hell of a lot more. All this picking apart and analyzing MUST get in the way of enjoyment sometimes. And I think that isn't how films should be watched.

Good point. In addition, the purpose of a critic is to serve the audience not themselve. Someone like Roger Ebert has no reason to review the TMNT movies. If he has no knowledge of the franchise then stay away. Let someone who does take over. That person is who fans want to listen to because he or she knows what we want out of the movie. And that person would have told us that TMNT 1 was good, TMNT 2 was okay, and TMNT 3 was garbage. Unlike Ebert who trashed all movies because he couldn't understand the appeal.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea Ebert does piss me off sometimes. Like with the Wolverine review. Now I know a lot of people hate that film but my problem was this. He just didn't understand the character AT ALL. He was literally like "What's appealing about a guy who is indestructible?" Which is pretty ignorant. Yea the guy can't die, but he can still feel all that physical and mental pain. Imagine not being able to actually die but getting "killed" multiple times. Like actually feeling the pain. That's gotta do something to ya. Ebert just didn't seem to understand that at all. And because he didn't get the character and thought a film about a indestructible man was stupid, he didn't put any effort into the review and wasn't impartial.

He shouldn't of even bothered reviewing it.

 

[Doctor Jones]

With Ebert I sometimes agree with him completely or I don't at all. Frankly he's been doingt his so long he doesn't even have to write what's good or bad about a movie. Ebert's reasoning is hokey sometimes but it's funny in a good way.

I thought the same Ace, now the movie sucked, but Wolverine is an emotionally torn character who really has had bad luck. I love the irony of a guy who is indeed indestrctible but emotionally he is not. That's Logan.