WHY BASH CRITICS?!!

[urbanlegend23]

I have seen manyu posts recently saying things like "I hate Roger Ebert" and "That critics sucks because they like the wrong movies!" It's like saying that you hate them because they have different opinions. But most of you guys respect each others opinion when it comes to movies - so why not so the same respect when it comes to Richard Roeper or Roger Ebert or any online paid critic? The only difference between us and them is that they are paid for it, and I think it sucks that they are dissed because we don't always agree with them.

Give the buggers a chance, dammit.

[JoBlo]

Good points all around. That has always been my main motto with this site as well, "everyone's got an opinion" etc... I do think, however, that some critics, or even "regular folks" do need to be knocked down a peg or two every now and again, when they start taking themselves TOO SERIOUSLY!!

Now I don't know much about this Roeper guy, but from the few times that I have seen him on talk shows, the dude comes off like a TOTAL ASS!! I mean, the guy seems to think his opinion is the "end all, be all" of all film criticism, and I don't care how well you can write...your opinion is just that...ONE OPINION!! He's also very loud, boorish and he seems to think that he's funny... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

Thankfully, most movie critics (and most people in general) understand that their reviews are just a very basic guideline for anyone to read and get something from, but a precious few actually do believe that their words are the real gospel (Ex: "Whoever enjoys this movie probably never finished high school, and likely doesn't know better"-- it's like, FUCK YOU!!).

You can give your opinion, but when you cross the line and degrade others who differ from your own opinion, or believe your opinion to be the one and only one out there (there's always one dude or another who comes in this forum and whines about how my rankings suck because he's chosen 2 reviews of mine which he apparently doesn't agree with), it's like FUCK YOU...you need to be taken down a notch, moochacho... http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Professor Falk]

In a related vein, I've been thinking about this for a few days, so I'll post it here. Have any of you ever had a critic go bad on you? I mean someone who you liked, and who had opinions that you considered valid, and then (for whatever reason), they went south on you? Mine is Stuart Klawans who wrote (and may still, I'm not really sure...) film criticism for The Nation. I was turned on to several films that I really liked by him in his column. (The Double Life of Veronique, Hangin' With the Homeboys, and Mystery Train come immediately to mind. Sometime around 1997, he just really got to be a nuisance. Part of it was the bizarre vendettas he conducted against John Sayles and Spike Lee (suddenly, neither of these men could do a damn thing to suit him...). It also seemed like the more frequently his byline appeared, the worse he got. He just finally seemed to really overdose on irony, which is always a kiss of death. Any similar stories from any other Schmoes?

[Irene Manor]

It's really goofy, because when someone bashes critics for whatever reason, they are making critical remarks, and therefore are being critics themselves -- In turn, when a person bashes a critic, they are bashing themselves at that moment.

Don't throw stones in glass houses.

[A.J. Hakari]

I faced a problem like this with a fellow who came on my message board at my site, logged on as "The True Movie Critic," then launched into this rant about how he/she is a better critic than I am because I "like the movies no one else does." My classmates seem to carry this same attitude. I respect their opinion, and if they consider TOMMY BOY to be the epitome of comedy, then let it be so, but I refuse to take their comments of "You're a bad critic cause you didn't like EXIT WOUNDS." So what if I consider FARGO to be the best film of all time? It's my opinion, just as theirs is that Adam Sandler is a comedy god, but I don't come to their houses, knock on their doors, and tell them that I'm the supreme word on whatever goes down. I've taken lots of crap in my days as a small-time critic, but never once have I ever told someone "You must like this movie, you must hate this movie." I'm just expressing my opinion, and 80% of my readers realize that. It's just the other 20 percent, people like a reader who wrote in "dude or dudette, you really should give dude wheres my car a better rating!," that I end up putting up with most of the time.

[Orpheus Descending]

And to think if folks get this contentious over movies, imagine what occurs over religion or politics or abortion or gun control.. you know important stuff.

Oh wait, nevermind http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[max]

Human beings love to watch and they love to whine. We bash critics because we're jealous. They get paid to do what what we all love to do.

[BitchTits]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by max:
Human beings love to watch and they love to whine. We bash critics because we're jealous. They get paid to do what what we all love to do. </font>

That is so damn far from the truth it is not even funny.

[BitchTits]

BTW, a critic's taste in movies sometimes seem to reflect his overall personality in general. Like art critics and Roeper for example.

[Scrunch]

I totally agree. Everyone is entitled to their views.

I have more respect for people who do give some kind of reasons for their opinion. (As opposed to people who basically just say, "That sucks" without saying why.)

I do have one critic that I can't stand and I've mentioned her before on these forums. The reasons that I don't like her reviews however stem less from her opinion (though we often differ on what's good/bad.) But it comes more from the fact that I don't think she actually pays attention to the movies she is watching. She comes across that she doesn't know anything about the movie or the subject and often sounds like she went into the movie with her opinion set in stone ahead of time. There are also times I swear she stays for 15 minutes and figures she can write a review as if she watched the whole thing. I have no respect for that.

[BitchTits]

The reason why people bash critics is because they represent the absolute worst in people's love for films. They're not even real movie buffs. They are failed journalists who couldn't make it into the real industry. Most of them are snobs. Most of them are pretentious assholes.

A critic has no respect for anybody but himself. To say they didn't like a movie or an actor's performance is one thing. But they have the gull to distastefully insult and make asanine comments on the actors and directors and everybody else involved with the movies they bash. Most critics do this every time they bash a movie.

Many critics don't view movies the way they're supposed to be view. They view every movie under an artistic filter and that to me is just downright ignorant and narrow-minded. When reviewing a movie that was made soley for entertaining the general audience, they rip it apart and nitpick on every tiny little detail they can think of as reasons to bash the movie. When they look at a cheapily made foreign or Indie film, they praise it as the 2nd coming. Not only does this represent their ignorant taste in movies, but their overall personality in general.

[Irene Manor]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BitchTits:

A critic has no respect for anybody but himself. To say they didn't like a movie or an actor's performance is one thing. But they have the gull to distastefully insult and make asanine comments on the actors and directors and everybody else involved with the movies they bash. Most critics do this every time they bash a movie.

Many critics don't view movies the way they're supposed to be view. They view every movie under an artistic filter and that to me is just downright ignorant and narrow-minded. When reviewing a movie that was made soley for entertaining the general audience, they rip it apart and nitpick on every tiny little detail they can think of as reasons to bash the movie. When they look at a cheapily made foreign or Indie film, they praise it as the 2nd coming. Not only does this represent their ignorant taste in movies, but their overall personality in general.</font>


You are being awfully critical there, aren't you?

[inglourious basterd]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BitchTits:

A critic has no respect for anybody but himself. To say they didn't like a movie or an actor's performance is one thing. But they have the gull to distastefully insult and make asanine comments on the actors and directors and everybody else involved with the movies they bash. Most critics do this every time they bash a movie. </font>

Your argument would be stronger if you provided examples.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Many critics don't view movies the way they're supposed to be view. They view every movie under an artistic filter and that to me is just downright ignorant and narrow-minded. When reviewing a movie that was made soley for entertaining the general audience, they rip it apart and nitpick on every tiny little detail they can think of as reasons to bash the movie. </font>

What kind of details are you referring to? I think that every individual critic has the potential to make an asinine comment every now and then.. (see below)


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">When they look at a cheapily made foreign or Indie film, they praise it as the 2nd coming. Not only does this represent their ignorant taste in movies, but their overall personality in general.</font>

This is overly critical. Whats wrong with liking a movie if you have a reason to? (In fact the job of a critic is to write about the reason that they feel the way that they do). Is it hard to accept the fact that they simply have a different taste in art as you? Does that make them an asshole? What is ironic is that if a critic were to read your statement, he would think that you were "ignorant" and "narrow-minded". (I do not necessarily believe that you are either of those things, but I am simply using your words to point out the inverse case to your argument).

I agree that there are some situations where a critic may feel a bit self-important. However, I do not think that this happens in the majority of critics' reviews. We have to remember that, like us, they simply write what they feel and why they feel.

[max]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">They are failed journalists who couldn't make it into the real industry. Most of them are snobs. Most of them are pretentious assholes.</font>

If you bash critics who bash movies, would that make you a failed critic, one who couldn't even make it as a critic after failing to make it into the film industry? You may not be a snob or a pretentious asshole, but you're a total loser.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">[/b]Many critics don't view movies the way they're supposed to be view. They view every movie under an artistic filter and that to me is just downright ignorant and narrow-minded.[/b]</font>

Would viewing every movie solely for their entertainment value be any less ignorant and narrowminded? Why can't art be entertaining? The best movies are those that successfully blend art and commercial entertainment. Like you and me, critics are always looking for that perfect blend.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">When reviewing a movie that was made soley for entertaining the general audience, they rip it apart and nitpick on every tiny little detail they can think of as reasons to bash the movie. When they look at a cheapily made foreign or Indie film, they praise it as the 2nd coming. Not only does this represent their ignorant taste in movies, but their overall personality in general.</font>

We both know that there are as many bad foreign or indie films as there are mainstream movies. Perhaps critics are more critical of mainstream films because they usually represent lazy filmmaking. When a small-budget film fails, it's usually not from a lack of trying. On the other hand, filmmakers with bigger budgets take the shortcut by relying on expensive stunts and big special effects to entertain audiences. Not that stunts and special effects aren't entertaining by themselves, but they could be far more entertaining when combined with original stories and well-written characters. It's the critic's responsibility to point out to audiences what they deserve to get and what the film is actually giving them. I say, most critics are pretty nice guys. They're only looking out for us.

[BitchTits]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If you bash critics who bash movies, would that make you a failed critic, one who couldn't even make it as a critic after failing to make it into the film industry? You may not be a snob or a pretentious asshole, but you're a total loser.</font>

First off, I'm just a regular 16-year old movie buff, I don't plan on becoming a critic and I doubt I will make it into the film industry. So your comment there is useless. And by calling me a loser, well, to me that's going a little bit too far.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Would viewing every movie solely for their entertainment value be any less ignorant and narrowminded? Why can't art be entertaining?</font>

Art and entertainment are two different things. There are films with emotional themes, and deep messages, but they're not really considered art. Is Fight Club "art"? I don't think so. And you seem to assume that I think we should only view movies for the purpose of entertainment. Unlike you, I know when to leave my brain at the door and have a good time, and I know when to pay attention and let a movie connect with you.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The best movies are those that successfully blend art and commercial entertainment. Like you and me, critics are always looking for that perfect blend.</font>

Well, I still think that art and entertainment are two different things and can't really be combined, but nonetheless, not every movie out there is going to achieve your definition of a succesful "blend". You have your successful popcorn films dashed with a slight bit of "art" such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, Jurassic Park, The Matrix, E.T, the Terminator series, etc. But not every director is striving to make a film that will be remembered for generations to come. They're just trying to cash in on the latest summer blockbusters scheme and make movies that'll entertain the audience for their money and that's that. I'm pretty sure that in the next couple of years, nobody will remember Fast and the Furious, or any of the other summer schlock that came out last year.

Mind you, I know what "crappy" popcorn flicks are. Just take a look at Tomb Raider, or Rollerball. And Scorpion King to me looks downright awful.

And there are some "art/popcorn" flicks that are generally popular but I consider overrated. Gladiator, while a good film, when stripped down to its basics is generally nothing more than a film where a guy spends 2 1/2 hours chopping people's heads off and then it throws in a melodramatic ending at the last minute so people will cry and praise it as "art".

[GodMagnus]

There are critics then there are good critics.
The critics are those who think their opinion is the ONLY right answer and those who disagree are stupid. And yes, some critics will call everyone stupid for liking or disliking a movie the critic liked/disliked. It's people like them that ruin movies for everyone.

Then there are good critics. They give their opinion, they don't bash the people for their opinions. The simply tell what they thought and leave it up to you to decide.

We like these critics. The reason we critisize the bad critics is simply because there just plain assholes. They care only about what they think(paid or not) and insult those who differ from them.

[max]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Art and entertainment are two different things.</font>

You're only 16 yrs. old so I have to be more patient with you. Let me give you a basic definition of art. Art is the quality, production, or expression, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Well, I still think that art and entertainment are two different things and can't really be combined, but nonetheless, not every movie out there is going to achieve your definition of a succesful "blend". You have your successful popcorn films dashed with a slight bit of "art" such as Raiders</font>

You're contradicting yourself here. You say you can't combine the two, but you admit that RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is entertainment mixed with art. Anyway, based on the definiton I gave you, art can be entertaining, but not all entertainment can be considered art. I would say that GODFATHER I & II are good examples of the perfect blend of art and commerce. Many would argue that FIGHT CLUB, a film whose artistic qualities you questioned, is a good blend of art and commerce. I'm not a fan. I'd say it's more "artsy" than artistic.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">First off, I'm just a regular 16-year old movie buff, I don't plan on becoming a critic and I doubt I will make it into the film industry. So your comment there is useless. And by calling me a loser, well, to me that's going a little bit too far.</font>

I was merely being facetious. You're no more a loser for bashing critics than critics are "failed journalists" for bashing movies.

[BitchTits]

Who gives a fuck, the most artistic film of all time is Baby Geniuses. A true classic.

[Irene Manor]

I think a better question would be:

Why bash anyone?

[GodMagnus]

Why Not??? http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

I do the best and simplist thing, I don't READ the reviews. I don't care for them. My choices are my own. If I want to see a movie, i'll go, end of story.