>critics are a small minorities of viewers who’s opinions are often so detached from reality and the ideas of the common man
Why do we even bother having critics when shit like picrelated is so common?
>critics are a small minorities of viewers whos opinions are often so detached from reality and the ideas of the common man
I choose which movies to watch based on ratings from critics. Anything above 50% is a pass.
because “regular” viewers are dumber than critics. Armond White’s opinion is more academic and interesting than the opinion of a 19 year old cheerleader
Completely wrong. Critics are worthless pieces of shit who can't create anything. Those who can't create criticize. Those who can't criticize, criticize Hollywood movies
>talking about movies is.....le bad
Critics have a short rep of being people who tell you if the movie is good or not but the reality is that a good critic is simply a good writer who can talk / write about the film in an interesting way and point out interesting things and ideas. French New Wave came out from the circle of former film critics. It's just the majority, especially now, of them are shirt journalists who are complete normalhomosexuals ignorant of cinema or just spew out political talking points.
Both are moronic and immensely unreliable.
But you were spamming the critic score for batshit months ago as proof that it's good and Cinemaphile is a bunch of contrarian nazis
I'm going to say this from a good faith perspective that accounts for the history of art discourse. Critics aren't supposed to be cheerleaders (even though they can and sometimes are under capitalism where they get bought out or incentivized/coerced to err towards the benefit of shit works). Critics, being critical, in their best sense are examining works in terms of a historical discourse. This is how the relativity of rating can be justified at all beyond an arbitrary "I like it" or "I don't like it". If it seems detached from reality it's because popular consciousness itself is often detached from the reality of history. Instead popular consciousness is often molded by whatever lowest common denominator social processes are conditioning people: popular media, popular news, popular criticism, social media etc. If there's a chasm between critical and popular perspectives, it's usually on this account.
The average person just wants to know if they should invest their time and money on watching a movie. They don't need a film study lecture, though there is a place for that kind of thing, it's not in mass market film reviews.
Just never pay attention to critics. They are always wrong.
Bunch of fart smelling narcissistic dickbags.
The critics are usually right.
this. Best way to pick a movie to watch is High critic score, low audience score.
Can’t tell if you’re trolling or actually moronic. How’s your wife doing, Armond?
what's moronic about that? If you're actually into movies and have some taste beyond capeshit and other normie craps you will agree with critics score most of the time.
no, most "film critics" are stuck up their own asses and will hype up whichever generic LBQT/affirmative action movie is propped up by the media at the moment
chud cope
half of the problem is you get homosexual YouTubers, bloggers and radon ecelebs lumped into the critics basket
Usually they just don’t takes popcorn films seriously
morbius is actually shit
stop thinking internet memes are cool you fricking moronic child
>Why do we even bother having critics
I don't give one single shit about reviewers these days and distrust them on principle
It's like the episode of KOTH when Bobby learns what is actually funny and becomes a classical clown
I HATE critics. They don't even like film, or music, or art. They think they can't allow themselves to truly love a piece of art, that's why they can't create anything. Musicians, filmmakers, actors, painters, etc. really love art and most of them talk about their influences and how they develop their own styles. The average movie "critic" is a worthless hack who only wants to destroy. They do have a role in all of this, through their abject and absolute incompetence and idiocy they make creators even more valuable just by sheer contrast.
"the common man" is a classless moron, look at what's trending on youtube. That's your common man
Film critics belong to a small subculture with their own attitudes and opinions. All media people hang out and share the same attitudes and opinions. And so they like different things. It's not surprising.
I watch a movie based on it's synopsis and maybe the cast/director.
The only "opinion" that matters to me is mine
because audiences will saying anything is good
Rotten tomatoes is almost always right, except for Disney homosexual movies that pay their way to a higher score or Black persontanny mutt movies.
AlloCiné reviews are rarely wrong, though.
Frog critics are based and unbiased.
For comparison.
And this is what gets 5 stars according to french critics. El Topo, Persona (Bergman) or Raging Bull also have 5/5 for instance.
>El Topo, Persona (Bergman) or Raging Bull also have 5/5 for instance
Wow. Basic b***h "approved" cinema. Showing some real individuality there, France.
epic post. I too don't like widely acclaimed things
here's the correct comparison
note that the other poster doesn't actually watch films, it's just a narrative he's trying to push due to communist beliefs
I thought this was panned by US critics, my bad.
Anyways, it's weird how certain movies like Star Wars (any Star Wars), Spielberg slop or Marvel bullshit get such high ratings while kinos like The house that Jack built or some foreign kinos like Que Dios nos perdone or Sputnik are underrated.
>https://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=245109.html
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_house_that_jack_built_2018
>https://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=240866.html
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/may_god_forgive_us
>https://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=282171.html
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sputnik_2020
Once again, the scores are almost exactly the same. This is more commie propaganda posting
Since when is France communist you absolute homosexual mutt?
Sputnik got rave reviews and was a major streaming success.
Star Wars original trilogy was revolutionary. It was the first sci-fi film of such scale and combined it with fantasy and adventure genres in a way not seen before on a big screen. Anything similar was only in books and comics before (Dune and Valerian). It solidified the concept of a blockbuster which Spielberg created with Jaws too. It is also arguable the first "event" franchise. Never before were sequels and pretty much support very content surrounding a film so hyped up. Everything was a huge fricking thing.
The prequels are panned hard.
Marvel and sequels are just paid reviews.
I think anything which is politically or morally sensitive (in either direction) causes wild differences in critic/audience scores.
In both cases, (most) critics put their own personal politics ahead of their job. They're even more sensitive than normies.
While true, this has been accentuated lately. Back when the mainstream was conservacuck, critics weren't afraid of praising "not ok" movies like Cronenberg 's Crash or even Pulp Fiction that was booed at Cannes but won the Palme d'or.
Nowadays, the mainstream narrative and the art world are both progressives, so they auto censor themselves.
With Disney it's more of a case of paid critics, but not only. Disney always puts something advertised as "revolutionary" in the woke scale in every movie, so the problems are intertwined.
All in all, the conclusion is that artists and their clout, which includes critics, function better as contrarians and in the opposition. They're there to challenge the status quo. In a few decades I expect the art world to become way more reactionary because the new waves of artists will only be able to exist and make noise by going against the mainstream. Being a fascist might become "cool" again soon.
>Mainstream was conservative
That never happened, it's just leftwingers moved further to the left into insane territories so they don't make anything creative anymore just bad faith schlock that watches like an audible Ben garrison comic
reminder that 8mm got absolutely dogshit reviews from "critics" because they were too upset by the concept (they were personally offended because they all engaged in snuff)
modern critics are same as modern journalists, just cogs in the machine. they don't really evaluate art, they just write whatever is politically correct. and media will publish their opinion not what audience thinks. and average viewer will read the review and like or dislike the movie based on it.
>they don't really evaluate art, they just write whatever is politically correct
This is the main issue. You have to remember, even though they may be a "critic", it's still a job. And if they voice any opinions outside of what is deemed acceptable, they can frankly just tank their career flat out. So they stick to the narrative and are too afraid to stray. That's why you get so many odd rating scenarios. The critics judge something based on how social acceptable and woke it is, and the average viewer just cares about if the damn show is enjoyable or not.
>they don't really evaluate art, they just write whatever is politically correct.
sauce?
both seasons are shit
Season one was worth watching. Season two was not. Poe was an interesting side characteri s1, but featured so heavily in s2 that he became insufferable.
You can never trust S2 reviews of niche shows. You get massive selection bias. Critics have limited time to watch things, if they've reviewed S2 it's because they're already a fan (or it's a hugely popular series, something that wasn't the case here).
Try reading the reviews instead of reactionary screeching at an arbitrary number. You might actually gain a new perspective about why people disliked it, and you'll notice that critics actually like certain things about it.
Users get shit wrong just as often as critics do.
sometimes the common man is a moron. Tried out the terminal list because of this "critics hate it but viewers love it so it must be based!" shilling thats been spreading on this board and the show fricking stinks.
My father thinks it's ''really really good''.
He's autistic
>He's autistic
and he still managed to married? so you're telling me theres a chance?
Aspie, so he's one of those ''high functioning'' autismos.
Nowadays the critic score is all that matters. The audience score is manipulated by bots and bad faith actors and genuine morons. The critics might be biased but you know they're humans giving an honest opinion. I've yet to see a movie where the critics hated it and the audience loved it and I liked it too, whereas the opposite is often true.
>I've yet to see a movie where the critics hated it and the audience loved it and I liked it too
Natural Born Killers was panned but is a cult classic now, have you seen in? Did you like it? I like it.
>I've yet to see a movie where the critics hated it and the audience loved it and I liked it too
most cult classics in general are panned by critics
realistically this movie is a 6/10 at best that we like because we watched it 40 times in a stream 10 years ago with a bunch of other morons from Cinemaphile
i agree but I couldnt be assed to find a better example
Jackass
>israelites hate it
>the people love it
The Uncharted Effect.
yeah, just like Rise of the Skywalker
This shit was the most fricking generic adventure film possible it's so unremarkable it's just a chore to get through.
It also feels nothing like Uncharted and is clearly miscast. Nromalhomosexuals gobbled it up because it's tailor made for as wide of an audience as possible.
I'm glad someone else said it.. I watched it for free and I barely made it through 15 minutes
>people
Snoys aren't people
>movie that looks like obvious shit to everyone but Tom Holland fangirls and the sorts of people who just like being reminded of stories they're already familiar with
Butterfly Effect is a better example because it's very trashy but is undeniably entertaining.
It was fun. I didn’t even know it was based off a game.
>critics are humans giving an honest opinion
And why can't they be manipulated (and bought) like regular viewers?
This post said it the best:
>reality is that a good critic is simply a good writer who can talk / write about the film in an interesting way and point out interesting things and ideas
For some reason many people don't seem to understand (or care for) what critics are trying to do. They just see some kind of dumb "us versus them" scenario. And that's just so very... american.
>3.7/10-IMBD
>88% of users liked this movie
who's we homosexual i don't have any critics
This one's weird. I'd say both critics and audience are wrong on this one.
It's a reasonable film, not outstanding (pisses me off when time travel films needlessly break their own rules). Doesn't deserve slating or high praise.
All of you morons miss the big picture. Rotten shillmatos isn't a scoring site. It doesn't tell if a movie is a 7/10 sleeper or a 1/10 dogshit. It has a thumbs up and a thumbs down. If people generally liked a movie it gets a popcorn if they generally didn't it gets a splatter. A movie could have 99% popcorn and it could all be 6/10 ratings in peoples minds and it would like like the best movie of all time according to that website.
It's such a shit site for reviewing because paid shills don't even have to do any real work to give a perceived value to a movie that might not even be that highly rated by actual viewers.
Why do you act like this is 34/100 rating for the movie?
It's kinda shitty. It overuses the frick out ot 90s visual gimmick cliches. The high concept also boils down to very basic sentimental bullshit. But it is entertaining in how borderline insane it gets with the main character basically killing himself at birth which is major stupid on several levels but also really entertaining. There have been many high concept or just kinda "artsy" movies at the 90s to 2000s. Requiem for a Dream and The Butterfly Effect are similar average examples of such films which both kinda feel like glorified PSA's but are carried by the visual aspect. Charlie Kaufman Spike Jonze / Gondry collaborations are probably the best examples of such movies on the other hand. Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind all fantastic. The worst offenders of the period would probably be Revolver and another Aronofsky flick The Fountain. Revolver us utter nonsense with dialogue obviously written by a guy with a mind of a teenager who tried himself in philosophy. Ritchie couldn't carry. The Fountain is sentimental sappy new age bullshit on sappy new age bullshit and frankly I find it visually ugly, utter overuse of CGI, it's graphomaniac and overblown.
I have a critic in my local paper that aligns with my views. I don't care what some they/then pink hair thinks about the gender balance of a movie.
northman
89%-critics
64%-audience
the critics kinda forgot to be israeli and the audiences something something also da joooz
btw, it's a myth that critics and audiences don't agree with each other. Just go to rotten tomateos and most of the movies have similar scores.
try reading the critics, then your truth will come
my truth is that this "critics" dont deserve air and have no purpose in life
The more movies you watch, the more you agree with critics. That simple.
ok pleb
both are wrong
Reminder that RT froze the audience score at 86%. After 50k reviews, it hasn't changed since.
Source: Youtube
a movie can suck and still be fun to watch, is this really that hard to understand? look at fight club, dude.