Anyone else just not respect critics?
I'm not really talking about critics who put a lot of emphasis on jokes or something, at that point you're an entertainer and I'm alright with that. But a pure, true blue critic... what's the point? You're just some dude giving their opinions on movies and shit? Any person on the globe can do that, what makes your opinions special? The opinion of the guy who stocks shelves at walmart is just as valid and legitimate as the opinion of a career critic, yet only one is treated like an all knowing god.
>The opinion of the guy who stocks shelves at walmart is just as valid and legitimate as the opinion of a career critic
I completely agree with you, OP. They're like redditors, because they think writing a lot gives their opinions more value. If someone writes a lot, and I don't read any of it, did it matter? No, and that's how I feel about critics. It's why I don't understand why movie reviewers (Youtube ones) get mentioned on Cinemaphile. I think you need to be an npc to understand.
I would trust the reviews of a random guy off the street more than I would a """film critic.""" I mean, just look at the trash that gets praised during awards season.
But how am I supposed to know what to think if I don't watch critics?
nah I disagree, a good critic can express their excitement about something they liked and intelligently articulate why they disliked something in a way that helps educate others to engage with media in a more sophisticated way. I definitely remember Roger Ebert's movie reviews helping me to think about what works and what doesn't work when it comes to storytelling and constructing a movie. I really miss that guy.
Really loved this show, it's a shame there hasn't been much like it since
>I definitely remember Roger Ebert's movie reviews helping me to think about what works and what doesn't work when it comes to storytelling and constructing a movie
If that's true, then why doesn't he have any movies? If he knows what works, why didn't he make one?
He wrote a movie for Russ Meyer in the 60s
Thanks for not even naming the movie. Is it because nobody watched, because critics don't matter? I think that may have been the case.
Critics are good when they are good. The idea is not to take what they say as gospel, but rather to appreciate the writer's voice. If they don't speak to then they aren't the writer for you. Read Pauline Kael if you want to see what possible within the confines of film criticism. She had this great one once about Merryl Streep saying, "She makes a career out of seeming to overcome being miscast." A line like that rang so true for me that I couldn't watch another performance by her without thinking about it.
>If they don't speak to then they aren't the writer for you
The only writer that has ever spoken to me was Cinemaphile. Nu Cinemaphile not so much, because I don't know who any of you are, but Cinemaphile in the past had stuff worth reading. I don't care about critics. To me, a critic and a Cinemaphilener have equal value.
That's moronic. Most of the people on this website are teenagers and gooning invalids.
Yes, well, I was here on this website when it was different. I'll be here when you're all gone, too; I promise you. Please reply to someone else now. I need to go read the garbage appearing in other threads.
Those people are still here if you know your timezones and weekdays.
Didnt Meryl get harvested?
Yeah Eberts movie was “in the Valley of the Dolls” or something, and it was shit. Just some trash softcore porn-type crap.
I always found this argument to be quite silly, you put your work out there for anyone to react to, not just those who also make films.
>you put your work out there for anyone to react to
What work? These homosexuals are professional opinion havers; They don't make anything.
reading comprehension not your strong suit?
Oh, that's hilarious. Reply again after I've filtered this thread, camp it like a homosexual, or check your other threads (all filtered), or open a thread I'll have filtered. You NPCs should really post less, unless you want to speak to each other, which I doubt.
next time you should just close out your web browser and walk away from the computer instead of whatever that was
And yet I can guarantee you aren't a chef but have criticized meals before.
moron.
Kermode hates Jared Leto so I can't hate him
he’s a coward, he was with Herzog when Herzog got shot by a BB gun, and he cried, pissed his pants got down on the ground and tried to dig tunnel to China with his fingers, screaming for his mom to save him
I lost all respect for and faith in film critics when I saw that Black Panther had a better critic’s score overall in Rotten Tomatoes than Citizen Kane
Modern film criticism is really awful. It's been handed over to a bunch of unserious people that don't think all that vigorously about film. Rotten Tomatoes is pointless. I mean when you think about it, there's hundreds of reviews for a single movie, each from a specific publication, but how many of those publications are worth reading in their own right. The New Yorker and The New York Times are understandable, but the second you're weighing the opinions of an IGN movie critic then the entire thing is worthless. Armond White, some New York Times journalists, Sean Fennessey on occasion, and Bret Easton Ellis on his podcast are the only people who I've been keeping track of recently. Sites with score aggregators from users like imdb and letterboxd are good sometimes too.
Blackmail was massively overrated while Cottage on Dartmoor was overlooked.
CotD shits on Blackmail and completely mogs it.
I used to watch Kermode regularly a while ago and he's honestly a great critic that does his job properly and actually proves why critics should exist. He recommended Blue Ruin when it was new which I hadn't heard of and loved, he talked about this one terrible Keanu Reeves movie that had been completely recut and re-titled and because of that I checked out the original cut when it came on tv randomly one time (it was okay,) stuff like that. Kermode actually does his job as a critic, I disagree with him on a ton of stuff but goddamn he actually puts in the work and the hours and he helps me be aware of movies I might not have even known existed.
His worse sin is shitting on Boorman. Exorcist 2 rules.
No. It does not rule.
I think Kermode was OK like... 20+ years ago, now he's just a c**t.
He has been a c**t for a while, it's almost as if he had a stroke, simultaneously lost his passion and gained a giant stick up his ass.
I have no problem with the profession itself. What I do have a problem with is critics inflating their praise of a film if it meets certain diversity quotas or checks off "social justice" boxes.
If the film is directed by (or stars) a woman or POC, there's no point in even looking at the RT score.
It’s bizarre because when I was younger I thought critics were different from modern critics and were more obedtive, but read through old reviews, they ALWAYS had their personal political opinions and ideologies override their idea of whether a movie was good or not
Roger Ebert is like the king of critics and he dismissed whole genres because any violence towards women was bad to him. He said Star Wars A New Hope suffered from lack of diversity.
Reading his reviews of stuff like A Clockwork Orange is painful.
One thing I think is important for reviewers is the ability to reassess films in the future. Not just because they had an unpopular take but to see it again and consider if perhaps they missed merits and misunderstood certain aspects
Likewise, unless you’re an extremely targeted critics, like say, a critic who focuses on Horror movies. You need to be able to assess films based on whether the target audience would enjoy them even if you personally don’t, I would not enjoy a lot of kids movies or romance movies etc, but I would probably be able to know if they’re “good” or not most of the time
Ebert wasn't ever taken seriously by the intelligentsia.
He was certainly majorly influential though. The intelligentsia is hardly who the public listens to regarding movies
Once you notice Chewbacca didn't get a medal you can't stop noticing it.
>Roger Ebert is like the king of critics and he dismissed whole genres because any violence towards women was bad to him
He gave the assrape kino movie Irreversible a positive review.
Kermode is a pussy. He walked out during a showing of Bad Boy Bubby because a cat died in the movie.
i love Kermode. He has weird tendencies like giving any low budget movie about music a 10/10 or a non-sequel horror movie is the best movie ever made.
on the other hand he also brings up movies that get overlooked in the past and the contrarian in him gives a convincing argument that the film is good i.e. Exorcist 3
Once you understand a critic's biases and tastes, you can find them very informative and useful.
Bazza was an excellent critic, he could give you enough information to make an informed choice, regardless of his opinion, and he had a dry wit. He could be pompous at times but he was generally very based.
Seconding Bazza here. His ultimate philosophy was, “those are my thoughts. If you like this movie then I’m happy for you because ultimately you’ve had a nice time”. He was great.
Mark Lamarr has let himself go.
Kermode was good till TDS broke him hard
I don't even respect my own opinion, let alone some other c**ts
The second a critic disagrees with me I stop liking that critic.