I've rarely read a review saying I hated this movie but it's really good.
sounds backwards but that's the way taste works. I for example hate a lot of food dishes but there's mostly good.
flim taste shouldn't work any differently. Yet you won't see critics doing so, it's there opinion put out there for everyone, I suppose that's fair but the then it really comes down to "well, do I have the same tastes as this person" which kinda defeats the purpose, because if a film is good it should be a matter of any trained critic saying so and thats it as opposed to let me find one that probably has my taste.
so yes, reviews these days read like an essay along the lines of "I like this, I don't like this" except they don't present it that way.
especially the genre sites(aintitocool...etc)
They aren't a united committee working in tandom to define good taste. Some liked RotF, some thought it was mediocre, some despised it. Don't slander an entire population of professionals simply because you don't agree with some of their member's opinions.
no, there just people that watch movies, like you and I, except because of their position and perhaps job training, if you collect a large amount of their opinions a film can be known as "bad" or "good" before it ever reaches the public(who is was made for)
I'm not in any means slandering an entire population, just the bad ones I assumed that was implied.
A few, sure. Rex Reed, Armond White, Alex Billingdon... Most? Get over yourself and do a little more reading and expand your horizons. Having spent a considerable amount of time with the Vancouver film critics circle, I'd say they are far less cynical and vengeance-seeking than internet fanboys. I can't think of a single one of the members I've encountered who've been "corrupted by their false sense of influence". That's just immature talk for "Waaa! Why won't they validate my taste in cruddy blockbusters!". I doubt you were as ready to string 'em up when the reviews for Star Trek, Iron Man, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Spiderman 2, X2, etc. were coming in.
I unfortunately have read plenty, perhaps I've put a lot of faith into the wrong people. (no more Devin F for me)
I can see alot being less vengeance seeking then internet fanboys, probably the ones that aren't internet fanboys turned reviewers...
it's not just them that leave a bad taste in my mouth personally
yet still, I remember reading a review by ebert(or someone like him) for a bay film when I was younger and it said something along the lines of
"It's quite possible I have never before seen a film that held so much contempt for everyone and everything -- for its audience, for its characters, even for the medium itself."
when I seen it with two different audiences they were laughing and clapping at the end of it all. I found myself asking, "well do these people understand that this film hates them?"
it hates the medium itself...
I personally find that line of thinking very self important, because the medium is not definable thing.
anyways I digress it sounds like we're referring to two different groups of people.
as far as my reaction to the critics that liked the other genre films
I didn't have much to say no, but now that I'm asked sure
those films fall into what they think this season of films should be. In a way ""Waaa! Why won't they validate my taste in cruddy blockbusters!" is right except it's more like
I can see that there's room for all types of films why is it these critics can't?
because they can't turn off their brains?
well then, lets go check out the review for the Hangover, that didn't seem (to me anyway) like a thinking mans film.
my taste in cruddy blockbuster?
the movie is doing well, better then most of the ones you mentioned and yet you define it as my taste in a blockbuster?
That's their opinion. Word to the wise, 30-40+ year old professional journalists may not share the same sense of humour as you.
then what's the point of even printing? so we know what they think
In regards to those particular criticisms, I felt they both are very true in regards to RotF. And I ain't an old out-of-touch critic.
I feel the same way at a dane cook comedy show, it's not for me, yet he's a wildly successful comedian... who knows we might agree on some of the things you find funny and some other things not, the idea of a self important opinion just seems lost on me
not sure where I said anything about "old"
They usually attend pre-screenings. Not with an audience.
I guess that keeps them honest.
Oh, by the way, there was plenty of laughter during Rush Hour 3, Paul Blart and Wild Hogs as well.
yea and i'm sure many critics let us know not to laugh during those as well.
It's not a critic's job to base their critism around an audience's potential reaction. They watched the film, layed out their thoughts, wrote their review, and moved on to the next film.
that's just it, not all filmmakers make films for critics, they sometimes make films for the audience.
And, for the gazillionth time, record-setting ticket sales don't equal masterpiece. If that was the case, every major summer blockbuster would be sweeping the awards. Plus, I doubt you'd be throwing down this defense over Twilight's massive weekend haul.
and for the 6th time bad reviews don't equal a bad film.
when it comes to twilight, I'm glad you brought it up.
I would love to see a critic standing out side the theater door greet ever girl as she walks out and tell her she didn't like the experience.
cause that's what it seems they're doing.
how dare something be successful without their approval..
all jokes aside that was my point in all this, I've never said anything about ticket sales equaling good art
it equals an enjoyable movie
the same way the massive sales of ice cream don't equal "good food"
all I said was among a tirade of critics mostly saying the same things
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_revenge_of_the_fallen/
the audience reactions seem to prove otherwise, what is funny, what is entertaining?
and most importantly, what is worth an individual's money? the praise of someone somewhere that you don't know telling you so?
it's a system in place to protect the general public from money hungry executives and that's good, but on a case by case basis it fails
but hey, that's my "critical" opinion
a few reviews I feel like pointing out
"Michael Bay is an abstract artist... all of that hardware flying around the screen...are simply blobs of light and shadow...like paint spattered on a canvas by Jackson Pollack."
-Steve Biodrowski
the pollack reference seems fitting for he got the same treatment..
"Put in your earplugs and grab the aspirin. Enjoyable for the only the easiest to please 10-year-old boys; this deafening, tiresome epic is a skull-splitting hot mess for everyone else. "
-Diva Velez
I've been called worse things, funny enough the series was intended for 10 year old boys so perhaps all is well
"Sure it could have been a little more critic-friendly, a little more intellectual, maybe even a little less silly, but Michael Bay is first and foremost an entertainer and in my opinion he once again gets the job done. "
-Danny Minton
intent.
