The Avengers The Avengers Critics Reviews Thread - Part 2

[04nbod]

A movie critic is a movie critic is a movie critic. What you are asking for is the equivalent of sending a journalist with a clear agenda on an assignment.

Is that really what you want?

But that is what they are doing. They are sending people who they know will tend toward the negative in most of these cases rather then be open to going either way.

Just look at what RT has chosen to highlight:

Really, who cares about another battle? We know how this is going to end.

If you're not much of a Marvel Comics person but just want to get an early start on your mindless summer moviegoing, well, I guess this picture is no stupider than anything else.

To watch another comic book transformed into another blockbuster is to "marvel" at much and to feel nothing - that's a safer bet than the converse, perhaps, which may explain the genre's popularity.

All translate into 'I don't like this kind of movie anyway'.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But that is what they are doing. They are sending people who they know will tend toward the negative in most of these cases rather then be open to going either way.

In what way? I assume we are talking about specific publications. Can I have an example? Because if they are writing for their readership, I am not sure what the problem here is.

I am all for disagreeing, but complaining? That is like looking for fair and balance thoughts on Obama on Fox News. You know what you are going to get.

 

[Sharkboy]

What would be the point of having only superhero film fans review these films. I tell you, the fanboy mentality really does baffle me at times.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What would be the point of having only superhero film fans review these films. I tell you, the fanboy mentality really does baffle me at times.

For a 100% on RT of course.

I read Ebert and that is pretty much it. I don't agree with him all of the time, but I know what I am getting with him.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Constant derogatory use of the word fanboy bothers me at times. People need to stop doing it.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Pfft. Typical fanboy response.

 

[craigdbfan]

She's not saying for only superhero film fans to review these movies. Sending someone who hates the genre outright isn't a good candidate as they've already made up their minds. Why not send someone who doesn't care about genres and is versatile in their taste?

The movie would get much more of a fair shot that way.

 

[Suzanne78]

It's not necessarily having just superhero fans review superhero films, but at the very least, making sure a critic leaves their personal baggage with the genre - and in the case of that Jeff Wells character, the actors - at home and review the film on its merits, the film that is onscreen, right in front of them. In some of these reviews, it felt like the critic is commenting on the culture and critiquing what they assume is the idiocy of the fans of the genre, or the franchise in total, rather than critiqung the movie itself.

In that respect, TA is getting the short end from some of these critics.

Also, what the heck is wrong with being a fanboy or fangirl? We're all hardcore fans of somethiing or we wouldn't take time out and post on messageboards like these, with Avengers quotes ot Batman links in our sigs and superheroes in our avis. I'm never insulted to be called a fan of something I love.

 

[marcvader]

She's not saying for only superhero film fans to review these movies. Sending someone who hates the genre outright isn't a good candidate as they've already made up their minds. Why not send someone who doesn't care about genres and is versatile in their taste?

The movie would get much more of a fair shot that way.

Exactly. Why the **** would you send someone who can't stand Chinese food to review a Chinese restaurant?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

She's not saying for only superhero film fans to review these movies. Sending someone who hates the genre outright isn't a good candidate as they've already made up their minds. Why not send someone who doesn't care about genres and is versatile in their taste?

The movie would get much more of a fair shot that way.

What publication are we speaking of?

 

[04nbod]

In what way? I assume we are talking about specific publications. Can I have an example? Because if they are writing for their readership, I am not sure what the problem here is.

I am all for disagreeing, but complaining? That is like looking for fair and balance thoughts on Obama on Fox News. You know what you are going to get.

Look at the examples I provided. Those are 3 of the 8 bad reviews on RT and they are so skewed they can be disregarded. If you don't like superhero movies/action movies what is the point?

What would be the point of having only superhero film fans review these films. I tell you, the fanboy mentality really does baffle me at times.

That is probably the other extreme to avoid.

I read Ebert and that is pretty much it. I don't agree with him all of the time, but I know what I am getting with him.

The extremly bitter lamentation that he used to be a serious critic of serious movies and now he has to review Green Lantern?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's not necessarily having just superhero fans review superhero films, but at the very least, making sure a critic leaves their personal baggage with the genre - and in the case of that Jeff Wells character, the actors - at home and review the film on its merits. In some of these reviews, it feels like the critic is commenting on the culture and critiquing the idiocy of the fans of the genre, or the franchise in total, rather than critiqung the movie itself.

In that respect, TA is getting the short end from some of these critics.

There is no such thing as leaving personal baggage behind when reviewing something imo. It is the whole reason why you read a writer.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Look at the examples I provided. Those are 3 of the 8 bad reviews on RT and they are so skewed they can be disregarded. If you don't like superhero movies/action movies what is the point?



That is probably the other extreme to avoid.



The extremly bitter lamentation that he used to be a serious critic of serious movies and now he has to review Green Lantern?

I just skimmed his review, and didn't see that, but even so, if it is true, would you rather he lied?

 

[Suzanne78]

There is no such thing as leaving personal baggage behind when reviewing something imo. It is the whole reason why you read a writer.

But when I read a review, I don't want those biases seeping into the reviewer's experiences. I want a fairly considered piece in which the critic evaluates the work itself. They can include a writeup about whatever hangups they had before viewing the movie, but evaluate the film separately from those, especially if the hamngups are about an actor's personal/political beliefs and the supposed hive mind of the fanbase. Those are completely absurd to pan a movie on.

For the record, I'm not lumping every negative review of this movie into the category. Mostly, I'm talking about that second negative review that landed at RT, the Cole Smithey review, Jeff Wells and the Salon review. Those seem to be more of a commentary of the culture of these movies and bait to get site hits rather than legit attempts at reviewing the movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But when I read a review, I don't want those biases seeping into the reviewer's experiences. I want a fairly considered piece in which the critic evaluates the work itself. They can include a writeup about whatever hangups they had before viewing the movie, but evaluate the film separately from those, especially if the hamngups are about an actor's personal/political beliefs and the supposed hive mind of the fanbase. Those are completely absurd to pan a movie on.

But then who judges what is a fair critical evaluation? Bias is inherent.

If the writer is so far from your ideal, why read them? Why even take what they say into consideration? I am sure there are people out there who won't see this because SLJ is black or because the movie has a character named Captain America. Do I really care about what they think on this subject?

Or are we all going to be honest and just say we really care about that percentage score? t:

 

[Suzanne78]

But then who judges what is a fair critical evaluation? Bias is inherent.

If the writer is so far from your ideal, why read them? Why even take what they say into consideration? I am sure there are people out there who won't see this because SLJ is black or because the movie has a character named Captain America. Do I really care about what they think on this subject?

Or are we all going to be honest and just say we really care about that percentage score? t:

I do have a list of critics I trust for certain movies, specific to genres or Oscar bait. Mostly when I'm on the fence about going to see a movie in the theater or waiting until its on DVD. With movies I care about, such as Avengers, I do what all of us are doing right now and pick apart each review because I do think that the reviews, particularly those of the top critics are ones that'll help the legs of the movie. I guess I expect better, or at least not such narrow thinking from certain critics when theit names are attached to a top publication, and I'm disappointed when biases are inserted unreasonably into their evaluation.

 

[Mjölnir]

For my part I just find it extremely boring to read some review something from a genre he's saying that he hates. It doesn't matter what he's reviewing, I know I'm not going to get much out of it. I've read plenty of such reviews and none have been good.

It becomes extra pathetic when such a reviewer can't handle that other people like what he doesn't like and makes jabs against the target audience. There are several things I would never want to watch and I'll never waste neither my own, nor anyone else's, time with writing a review about that if I should ever find myself watching it.

I don't care much when it comes to meta scores though.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Is it not bias to pick apart their reviews on the films you care about alone? You want this film to do well, right there is a problem in evaluation.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

This is my problem with the fanboy base, when they like a movie and the critics don't the critics are evil when the hate a movie and the critics don't the critics are evil. The critics can never win with fanboys because their complaints about the reviews are almost solely dependent upon their feelings about the film or anticipation level.

How about criticizing some of the good reviews that engage in hyperbole or is that type of criticism off limits because this is a fanboy product?

I guess the complaints are human nature, nobody wants some one to rain on their parade if they love or think that they will love something.

 

[Shadowlord X]

I said earlier in the thread that this is like having a racist judge rule on a case involving a minority. I dont think its out of line to expect the same impartiality from movie critics. Or for 'rulings' to be consistent. And like the law, we have precedent with movie reviews. How can somebody give Green Lantern a positive review and not Avengers? Which by all accounts is better in every single way. The inconsistency is baffling to me how critics trash this and give positive reviews to Conan the Barbarian, Step Up 3D, TF3, The Change Up, and all of these other trainwrecks! Not even giving Avengers any points for being daring or a brand new concept to cinema. These agendas are childish.

Good analogy.

 

[Shadowlord X]

This might be one of those movies that tests the relevancy of critics. If you hate a movie the general audience loves, you shouldn't be reviewing movies for the general audience. End of story. Some critics - the Village Voice for instance - are read by more niche (i.e. pretentious) crowds. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Ragging on a mainstream hit is, in its own way, playing to the readership, thus fair enough. But, seriously, mainstream critics hating on something the audience adores = time to find a new critic.

Interesting concept, and it's probably very very correct.

When a critic is reviewing a movie now he or she should make it clear who they are reviewing it for.

I had the same issue with all the bad reviews for Smurfs...which went on to gross more than $500 million WW and it's target audience, kids, loved it.

 

[yads]

http://www.canada.com/entertainment...s+movie+loud+silly+violent/6550170/story.html

According to this, Canada is getting an 89 minute cut of the movie.

 

[sgaana]

But that is what they are doing. They are sending people who they know will tend toward the negative in most of these cases rather then be open to going either way.

Just look at what RT has chosen to highlight:

(quotes)


All translate into 'I don't like this kind of movie anyway'.

I've been wondering -- does RT select the pull-quotes, or does the reviewer indicate what should be used for the quote the same way they indicate whether it should be positive or negative?

At any rate -- one advantage of those particular pull-quotes is that it puts it right out there in the blurb for you that these ARE critics who are biased against the genre as a whole. So a moviegoer, and person who likes this type of movie, and who is using RT to get a sense of the film and who is only skimming the quotes rather than reading the reviews CAN just quickly dismiss those negatives as probably not having substance that concerns them.

 

[TomPiltoff]

This is my problem with the fanboy base, when they like a movie and the critics don't the critics are evil when the hate a movie and the critics don't the critics are evil. The critics can never win with fanboys because their complaints about the reviews are almost solely dependent upon their feelings about the film or anticipation level.

How about criticizing some of the good reviews that engage in hyperbole or is that type of criticism off limits because this is a fanboy product?

I guess the complaints are human nature, nobody wants some one to rain on their parade if they love or think that they will love something.

Agreed. The lack of self-awareness when it comes to these things can be really off-putting.

 

[kaijunexus]

I know we all want this to have a 100% on RT and can't fathom a single critic disliking it, but the fact of the matter is, the Avengers is a film that doesn't even need reviews. The public is psyched about it by word of mouth and advertisements alone, and it's going to make insane amounts of money.

The critics are irrelevant for this film, and I think most of them know it.