|
|
Post by mylungswereaching on Jun 16, 2008 22:01:08 GMT -5
I'm talking about general things that critics do that don't make any sense to me.
Several movie critics gave Ironman an ok review but remarked that a flaw of the movie was that it depended on good acting by Robert Downy Jr to succeed. Isn't that the case with any movie? If we took the Godfather and replaced Marlin Brando with Jim Carey, would the movie have been as good?
The movie isn't that good because if the makers had chosen the wrong actors it wouldn't have worked. HUH.
Another complaint is when they say an old movie is bad because it is full of cliches, when the movie their talking about was the first on to do it. For example "Smile you son of a ..." One person complained that Jaws used that tired cliche before killing off the shark. That was the first movie that I remember using the technique.
And lastly, when critics complain about things that are inherent to the genera. For example, Why does every murder mystery have to have a murder? Why does every western have to have horses? Why does a super hero movie have to end with a fight?
|
|
|
|
Post by Trumpy's Magic Snout on Jun 17, 2008 8:37:14 GMT -5
I think most critics are complaining for the sake of it. Personally I always go for the most important thing about a movie, did I enjoy it? Too many seem to forget this simple fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by mystyfan on Jun 17, 2008 10:02:23 GMT -5
Movie critics always rub me the wrong way, much like music critics.. If it isn't an indie movie made in Romania about goat herders and seen by only 7 people in a Amsterdam coffee house , they tip their noses in disgust at it. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE artsy movies like "The Red Violin", "Juno"..etc..etc.. But come on movie critics, dont trash it just because it has a big budget and well known actors.. We ALL need big block buster movie entertainment escapism no matter HOW pretentious we are or pretend to be.. (Much like Mike and the Bots at the coffee shop scene  ) .. So everyone just get off there high "No Country for Old men" was the greatest movie in decades horse, and admit that Die Hard was much more entertaining, and actually had a more lucid and coherent ending to boot . (unlike the formentioned artsy movies movie AND book  )) |
|
|
|
Post by Bix Dugan on Jun 17, 2008 15:54:27 GMT -5
I give
Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back
4 Thumbs UP!
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Jun 17, 2008 19:18:34 GMT -5
I like the website RottenTomatoes.com. If there are bad reviews, you get the best of the quotes.
I also like bloody-disgusting.com. Reviews of horror films by horror fans.
And dvddrive-in.com keeps its pulse on DVD releases.
And the New York Times, because if the movie is bad, the review can be SO funny.
I will read Ebert occasionally, but I think he's gotten soft since his brush with mortality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Jun 18, 2008 14:03:20 GMT -5
I hate it when critics base their review solely on their subjective taste. That's why I've always liked Ebert's explanation of his standard of criticism-
How well does the film accomplish what it sets out to accomplish?
In other words, the genre is not the issue. A film can be a sophomoric comedy relying on fart jokes, but how well does it execute that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain Hygiene on Jun 18, 2008 18:05:47 GMT -5
I agree - reading Ebert's (entertaining) book of scathing reviews, Your Film Sucks, he often references films that he enjoys and rates highly, despite them not being "artsy" films.
In light of that, happy birthday Roger Ebert.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Jun 18, 2008 21:06:00 GMT -5
Siskel always cut a film slack for whatever genre it was.
Have you seen Russ Meyer's Beyond The Valley of the Dolls or Beneath The Valley of The Ultra-Vixens? Ebert scripted both.
|
|
|
|
Post by pups4ever on Jun 20, 2008 2:39:07 GMT -5
One thing I hate is how every single fantasy film and/or film with a medieval-esque battle scene is immediately compared to Lord of the Rings. We know the battle scenes won't be as good! This movie didn't have a gajillion dollars and 8 years at its disposal!
|
|
|
|
Post by mylungswereaching on Jun 21, 2008 13:47:30 GMT -5
Another thing I hate is that sometimes they don't look at movies individually.
A great movie comes out.
There are 10 bad copies.
Another similar movie that has been shopped around for years before the great movie is finally made. Its a very good movie but not as good as the orginal great move.
The movie critic saw all 10 bad copies and automatically gives the new movie a bad rating even though its a very good but not great movie.
Once in a while, the tenth in a series can be one of the best in the series, but they're usually not given a chance to shine on there own.
Moral, if you make a very good movie in a paticular genera, don't release it a few weeks after a great movie and 4 or 5 bad movies were made in the same genera.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote on Jun 22, 2008 6:32:02 GMT -5
That's rarely the fault of the movie makers or the actors. Release dates and distribution are usually determined by the studio, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on Jun 22, 2008 21:22:16 GMT -5
Yes, and if you thought some of the critics should be smacked, you should spend some quality time with the "business" end of show business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hellcat on Jun 24, 2008 10:59:43 GMT -5
I don't like the "socio-political" movie critic who turns every review into a ponderous discussion of The Way We Live Now. To this critic every movie provides some clue about our culture, and it usually tells him that we're going to hell in a handbasket. James Bowman of the American Spectator is especially guilty of this. I don't mind this kind of analysis if it's part of a broader discussion about culture in general. In fact, I enjoy a good cultural analysis. But sometimes all I want to know is: is this particular movie worth spending the $10?
|
|
) .. 
))
