Movies - What do you think about movie critics?

ROCKSTAR · 07-31-2005, 10:11 PM

I've wanted to start a thread like this for a while but like I've said before, I'm a little paranoid about opening too many threads.

Anyway...

I read a very interesting argument (and in my opinion right on) about movie critics and the fan reaction that they can create by shaping expectations and opinions probably even before you even watch a movie. Some people bash movies they haven't even seen, even arranging public demonstrations where half of the participants admit they haven't seen the film they're protesting against.

What I quote below is the opening of DVDTalk's review of Alexander's DVD, arriving August 2nd. I do not wish to dwell on the movie's reputation, I just want to see if any of you are interested in sharing your opinion on movie critics. Also if you agree or disagree with what I quoted below.

Quote:

It's a disturbing trend, but every year certain movies become fashionable to disparage, regardless of whether they are actually any good or not. Bandwagons are formed and critics are compelled to jump on for fear of losing the public's trust. What credibility will you have once you're labeled as the guy who didn't badmouth Beyond the Sea, or The Brown Bunny, or Alexander? Are the movies really that bad? Does it matter? Their awfulness soon achieves a sort of mythic proportion, and through the power of suggestion myth becomes reality. Audiences are turned away, scoffing at the very notion that anyone could want to see a movie they "know" to be bad, and those that actually buy a ticket do so in anticipation of picking apart every little flaw so that they can tell their friends, "Yes, I really did see that piece of trash, and just let me tell you how terrible it was".

It always starts with negative industry buzz. A production goes over budget or over schedule. Audience reaction to the first trailer isn't as excited as hoped. Details of the script leak out and a false controversy is created to justify an impression that the movie's going to bomb. And then it does. Oliver Stone's epic recreation of the life of Alexander the Great thus became one of the biggest financial disappointments of 2004, less than a quarter of its $150 million budget earned back at the U.S. box office. The critics, having braced themselves in advance by writing positively scathing diatribes against it, sat back and smugly declared, "I told you so". Even Roger Ebert, whose initial review of the movie, though negative overall, was more balanced than most in assessing its strengths and weaknesses, jumped on that bandwagon to declare it the #1 Worst Picture of the Year in his annual wrap-up. The worst picture of the year? In a year that gave us Catwoman, Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid, The Stepford Wives, and Little Black Book, we're supposed to believe that Alexander was the worst that came out in 2004? Could Mr. Ebert possibly be overcompensating for getting caught with his pants down as the only critic in the world who said nice things about Gigli the year before?

Oh, how much fun it is to watch the mighty fall. Oliver Stone has two directing Oscars on his shelf and once was a powerful force in Hollywood, but boy do people just hate him. They hate his politics, they hate his arrogant attitude, they hate his deliberately bombastic movies, and they pounce like tigers at the first opportunity to declare him washed up. Alexander was exactly that opportunity. A labor of love that the filmmaker spent years developing and quite a lot of money bringing to the screen, the project nonetheless seemed an incongruous fit for Stone, having no connection at all with his pet obsessions of American politics or the Vietnam war. Once word spread of some questionable casting decisions and a rumor that the movie would feature hours of footage of Colin Farrell having gay sex with little boys, that was all it took to drive the nails in the coffin.

rest here

Anyone?

taressa05 · 07-31-2005, 10:40 PM

I have to agree with pretty much everything in that article. I think a lot of times people do listen to the critics' viewpoints and won't even go see it to form their own opinion about the movie in question. Maybe it's just that people feel like the critics are getting paid to view movies and give their opinions about them, and since they're the professionals they would know better than us. I know I've been guilty myself of not going to see movies that have received bad reviews, but in my defense it was Gigli and I think it's fair to say the critics were dead on with that one.

I do try and stay away from the trap of relying solely on the critics and not giving a movie a fair chance. I often find that I like movies that the critics claim are complete crap, while things that receive rave reviews are movies that I just simply cannot like no matter how many times I watch them. However, I feel like it's true that the public lets the select few people who have the status of movie critics dictate their opinion on what to see and what not to see, when they should rely on their own taste. You never know what movie may actually become a favorite of yours if you just give it a chance.

I have to agree about Alexander not being the worst movie of last year. There may not have been bigger financial duds than that, but there certainly were crappier movies in terms of storyline.

Cereal Killer · 08-01-2005, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taressa05

I do try and stay away from the trap of relying solely on the critics and not giving a movie a fair chance. I often find that I like movies that the critics claim are complete crap, while things that receive rave reviews are movies that I just simply cannot like no matter how many times I watch them.

Me too! It's almost like if the critics don't like it, I know I will and vice versa.

Well, not of course in every case but I don't listen to critics very much. Of course if a film has been bashed in the media, I have my doubts of going to see it but that's mainly cos I don't have unlimited amounts of money and I have to think carefully of what I spend it on.

But usually if I'm interested enough in a film, I'll go see it, I don't care about the critics' opinion, I want to have one of my own.

Besides, I thought Alexander was good. I don't understand the bashing.

UnsilentMajorty · 08-01-2005, 07:03 AM

The reality is most people in America are not as smart or independent as they like to claim to be and are in fact sheep and don't really want to think and want others to decide things for them. It is a sad state of affairs, but look around you and this applies not just to entertainment, but other vital things like politics and world affairs.

A movie critic's job is to review a film. However, because they are a journalist part of the problem is they also have to sell newspapers, or generate ratings/website hits so like most Yellow Journalists, they will create controversy just to get the public interested in their review compared to others. If that means bashing a film then they will do it because what do they have to lose?

Also, thanks to the internet and the age of mass communication good or bad word-of-mouth about a film/TV show/song/book etc. can spread like wildfire within minutes. Rumors become "fact" and facts often are made of embellishments by the various parties relaying them (Go to the Spoilers Board for examples of this in action). This all adds up to too many people having opinions when the only real one that counts is yours and whether you paid for/to see the entertainment yourself and what you thought of the final product.

mukooh · 08-01-2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Also, thanks to the internet and the age of mass communication good or bad word-of-mouth about a film/TV show/song/book etc. can spread like wildfire within minutes. Rumors become "fact" and facts often are made of embellishments by the various parties relaying them (Go to the Spoilers Board for examples of this in action). This all adds up to too many people having opinions when the only real one that counts is yours and whether you paid for/to see the entertainment yourself and what you thought of the final product.

in agreement...

in the end....all of us who watch films are critics....we know what we like or we don't like.........and we spread the word....bad word of mouth from one person to the next can make a break a film.........the only difference between myself and a professional film critic is that their paid for it and i'm not...

Dark Half Undine · 08-01-2005, 08:46 AM

I feel that critics have this overinflated sense of self-importance, and frankly they might be right in that attitude given how people just wander around going: "Well Roger Egbert said it was bad."

The truth is human beings are social creatures and they do rely heavily on the opinions and advice of others. Sometimes this can be a good thing, such as a daughter relying on the advice of her mother that walking around in a dark parking lot at 3am is a bad idea. She doesn't need to try it out, she listens to the advice and thinks:"Hey that's practical."

But where other's opinions are something I worry about is with individual thought. People really do give up their right to individual thought because it may be easier to just rely on someone else's. It also makes you feel part of a group. It happens often, to you perhaps or others you have known that when you are in a large group of friends and a percentage of them say "Well this movie sucks" someone finds themself agreeing even if they may feel completely different. Now of course that isn't everyone, and in fact I know I really don't like when I can see people giving up their own opinion to not appear contradictory to the masses. Yeah yeah call me uppity but I have a big mouth and always tell people "No I don't like that" even if I am the odd man out. I'm sure there are many of you here who also don't like to compromise your opinions either. And isn't it the worst when you have someone like that in a group and they are even more obvious cause they change their opinion in the middle of a conversation because no one is agreeing with them...bleh. That is another downfall of people, they are terrified of standing alone. It is very lonely and I don't disagree that it is simpler to be agreeable. But at what cost?

And don't you notice that it is the negative comments that always tend to spread faster than the positive ones? People are so ready to believe that something isn't worth their time than actually just going to find out.

So yeah I don't really like critics, or rather I don't like relying on critics and what they think. And while there is nothing wrong with finding out what others think, to me there is definitely something wrong about giving up how you feel for the easier road of sharing negativity. Being positive is the bigger challenge.

jthorton17 · 08-01-2005, 10:11 AM

I think if you can find a critic that you tend to agree with they can be a great resource. While the write of the article seems to think that you probably won't be able to find a critic that you agree with because they don't form opinions of their own now and just follow trends, I think it's possible. If you can find like a local guy that you tend to agree with, then by all means, follow him or her. I've done it before myself, found a critic in my local paper that I agree with and I usually follow him. While his reviews aren't the end all be all of my movie watching, they do factor into whether or not I go to see a movie, especially at $10 a pop.

BrookeandLucas · 08-01-2005, 12:13 PM

I never agree with the critics cause they always rate my movies bad and the movies I hate get good reviews. I think people should make their own descins then follow the critics. I think we should decide for our own opinions if a movie is good or if it sucks.

first_daywalker · 08-01-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrookeandLucas

I never agree with the critics cause they always rate my movies bad and the movies I hate get good reviews. I think people should make their own descins then follow the critics. I think we should decide for our own opinions if a movie is good or if it sucks.

totally agree with you, but i think that critics have bad taste too, they always like movies like amelie and they think that every teenmovie is crap, i hate movies like amelie

jthorton17 · 08-02-2005, 06:15 AM

Yeah, I guess you make a point though, but the whole point of critics is that you don't have to pay to see the movie if you don't want to. They are, in theory a money saving tool, at least that's what I use them for. If they don't like a movie, I'm very unlikely to go see it, but if they do, it's more likely I'll pay. The whole point is that we can't go and see and make opinions about every movie that comes out. That's why critics exist.

ROCKSTAR · 08-11-2005, 11:42 PM

Wow, a thread in which I agree with everyone!

Tonight I read a review that gave a movie 2 stars out of 5 because it was a rip off of every movie about older women with younger men... Thing is I haven't seen every single movie about the subject, I'm not a film student or a critic and the more reviews I read, the happier I am to be just a regular movie fan.

Critics are always bitter about how bad movies are, etc. But that's because maybe they've seen too many movies, read too much into them, think everything should have serious depth, etc.

I have the luxury of ignorance and maybe that allows me enjoy movies like 28 days and St. Elmo's Fire.

**ds44** · 08-12-2005, 05:35 AM

One thing that always sticks out in my mind is the fact that critics are people who get paid to watch movies for a living. I remember being in college(was a journalism major) and taking my first arts reporting class. The professor went on and on about not showing that you liked the film to much because it would damage your reputation as critic. The emphasis according to my teacher is on the critical. in other words, you are not really a critic unless you are critical of what you are viewing. So, I tend to put it down to posturing. These people need to justify what they are doing by trying to discern art from the mass of junk out there. In the end what they say is just their opinion. Fans won't always agree and I worry about the influence that they can have. But, movies that are critically acclaimed are not always liked by most people. I tend to fall in the middle. I tend to agree many times with critics but only to a degree. I enjoy fluff but it doesn't change the fact that its still fluff. I hope I'm making sense here.

UnsilentMajorty · 08-12-2005, 06:58 AM

A lot of the time movie critics are failed screenwriters, or others who tried to get into the movie industry themselves at one time.

I think this plays a huge part in their bias as they do see it as a way to "get even" with the industry that rejected them. For example, Roger Ebert wrote "Valley of the Dolls" -- A schlocky '70s B-Movie about Hollywood's decadence and corruption -- Yet he sits there and says films like "Independence Day" are "pure corn ball". If that isn't the kettle calling the pot black...

**Quarterley** · 08-12-2005, 09:06 AM

I go to www.mrqe.com all the time to read movie reviews. Some reviewers are good, some are crap. Although there are some really good reviewers out there who actually got some points to support their views (not just the bitter parts, but when they praise a movie too), I still wouldn't see or not see a movie solely based on what critics say. I am my own critic.

Often, a movie that I thought was really great, the critics would think it's crap or only so-so, or the other way around...I thought it was crap and they thought it was at least 3 stars. I think besides personal preference, part of it could also be due to the difference in the way a critic sees a movie and how a regular viewer sees a movie. They would look into a whole lot more stuff from analyzing the director's history to picking up minor faults. For most of us, we would still notice stupid plotlines or bad acting too, but at the end of day, we just ask ourselves if we enjoyed it or not.

I often don't agree with Ebert. The thing is, sometimes I feel like he is only saying a movie is good or is bad just because he thinks this is the kind of rating he should give or that most critics would give.

For example, his review for Mulholland Drive, he clearly didn't get the movie and was much confused, but he gave it four stars anyway. The so-called reasons he gave for supporting it to be a good movie were very vague and unconvincing. The reasons were very random and didn't really reflect any insight at all. It was almost like he was thinking "I must give this movie 4 stars. But what reasons should I give? Err...how about I like it cuz it's like a weird dream? Yeah, people would buy that."

ROCKSTAR · 12-11-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quarterley (View Post)

I often don't agree with Ebert. The thing is, sometimes I feel like he is only saying a movie is good or is bad just because he thinks this is the kind of rating he should give or that most critics would give.

For example, his review for Mulholland Drive, he clearly didn't get the movie and was much confused, but he gave it four stars anyway. The so-called reasons he gave for supporting it to be a good movie were very vague and unconvincing. The reasons were very random and didn't really reflect any insight at all. It was almost like he was thinking "I must give this movie 4 stars. But what reasons should I give? Err...how about I like it cuz it's like a weird dream? Yeah, people would buy that."

I understand this.

I have to say that I love Roger Ebert's reviews, even if I don't agree with his ratings.

A very interesting read:

Quote:

Do Film Critics Know Anything?
by: Richard Corliss

By the time I'd got back to my office I had realized that we critics may give these awards to the winners, but we give them for ourselves. In fact, we're essentially passing notes to one another, admiring our connoisseurship at the risk of ignoring the vast audience that sees movies and the smaller one that reads us.

Forum Affiliates
The Room Fansite, Daily Marvel, Geek the Geek, FYeah Female Leads, Female Directed Films, Sidney Prescottz, Daily Iron Family
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page


Fan Forum > General Discussion > Movies > What do you think about movie critics?