"Movie Critics Suck!!!"

[gyro_44]

No, that's not my rant.

My rant is about people who say it. When someone sees and enjoys a movie that has not received a good critical reception or whatever, they will often feel the need to say "Wow, that was good! Critics sure are idiots!"

My point is that this is generalizing to a ridiculous extent. Saying "I hate movie critics" is sort of like saying "French people are assholes" or "politicians are morons!" Well, that last one might be a bad example...

There are dozens upon dozens of movie critics. I'll be the first to tell you that a good deal of them are humorless tight-wads who often forget to enjoy themselves at a movie because they went to film school, and you feel like telling them to loosen up a bit. But there are plenty of critics worth reading. Putting them all in one boat in tremendously stupid.

If you don't like Roger Ebert, maybe try Peter Travers.

If you hate Owen Gleiberman, why not Joblo.

People speak of critics as if they are one body. They're not. Just like moviegoers, everyone has a different opinion.

Next time you say, "Boy, the critics sure were wrong about that one!", stop and think about that.

Sidenote: Perhaps there is a bias here, because I'm a (wannabe) critic myself. :D

[Reigh Kaufman]

For the most part, movie critics do suck due to the fact that they have no objectivity, impinging their taste on their reviews. The good ones, the ones who know how to analyse and then inform, are worth their weight in gold and can usually be found in the employ of Sight & Sound magazine...

Actually, apart from Barry Norman (ex-presenter of Film in the UK and movie critic), Mark Kermode (part irritating bumlick, part insightful genius) and Kim Newman (who I would refer to more if he were not primarily a horror movie critic), I never really respond to anyone on a personal level, instead seeking out my own opinions. Still, if you can do the job without bias, gyro, I say good luck to you. In five years time, perhaps we'll be starting hateful threads about you...

Ah, well, you can dream;)

[The TZA]

I get what you're saying, but basically it all comes down to a rant against all forms of generalizing. This is something that all humans do, whether conciously or not. Have you checked the other rants on here? All old people smell. All children are loud. All teenagers are obnoxious. People don't mean ALL, but it's easier than just saying "A large percentage of [so and so] piss me off because they're assholes".

That said, I think a lot of film critics DO suck, but then a lot seem reasonable. I enjoy reading what JoBlo has to say because 90% of the time I agree with his reviews, whereas the guy in my local paper has the most ridiculous movie tastes I've ever seen. I generalize and say ALL film critics are assholes, but obviously I don't mean it.

It does irk me somewhat when every review I read for a film is glowing with praise, but then it turns out to suck balls (e.g. (and you probably know what's coming) the LOTR films) and that pisses me off and makes me hate critics. And again when all I read is shitty write ups but I love the film (e.g. Freddy v Jason, Freddy Got Fingered, and perhaps any other film with Fred in the title) it winds me up too.

I vent my anger by unjustly slamming the entire profession, instead of just directing my rage at the one or two critics that I actually read.

[BorderEevilIII]

Well critics do suck and very often do or don't know what they are talking about when reviewing a movie. It makes me think if they were actually there or talking out of their asses. I just saw Scary Movie 3 which was awright but could have been better. I do admit that SM3 was no winning formula but I just didnt agree w/ this critic. Then the critic coins the term "painfully serious" when it mentions "Ghost" which Zucker directed. :confused: Uhhh this painfully serious movie made bank at the box office that year. I spit on you Mr. Critic!:mad:

Scary Movie 3 review (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/24/DD139574.DTL&type=movies)

[randythetool]

If you want a critic who will like anything, and basically make a mockery of the entire film world, your best bet is Gene Shalit.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by randythetool
If you want a critic who will like anything, and basically make a mockery of the entire film world, your best bet is Gene Shalit.
LOL, you're right. Kevin Thomas of the L.A. Times is another one. He raved about the 1998 version of "Godzilla".

I hear you, BorderEevil, when you say you disagreed with that critic over "Scary Movie 3". But does that mean the critic sucked just because you disagreed with him? There are other critics who liked the movie... you might want to read their two cents.

Lots of "critics" are just like regular moviegoers... they are just writers and most get paid to put their opinions into words. And they have probably been doing it for a long time, and see a lot of movies. It's a profession, and to slam it, like I said, is a gross generalization.

....of course, like TZA said, it all comes down to generalization anyway.

[JurassicMik]

The only critics that suck are the ones who write bad reviews and don't make their points clear.

[jackson13]

The only critic I can say 'I hate' is Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly. Her reviews flat out suck. She is always bitter in them, and shes spoiled so many movies and key points that its mind boggling she still has a job.


I have a subcription, and I always read Owens reviews, and scan over hers for fear of getting a movie ruined.


Other than that, I like pretty much every critic.

[Rated R]

Originally posted by randythetool
If you want a critic who will like anything, and basically make a mockery of the entire film world, your best bet is Gene Shalit.

Let's not forget Joel Siegel, a man who's name will appear on the shittiest of movie covers saying it's one of the 1300 movies on his top ten list of the year...

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by Rated R
Let's not forget Joel Siegel, a man who's name will appear on the shittiest of movie covers saying it's one of the 1300 movies on his top ten list of the year...

Oh so he's a bad critic because he likes movies that you consider "shitty" you think he's a bad critic? Ooookay.

Personally I like Joel Siegel. He comes off as a likeable guy who loves movies to me.

I personally don't think there is such a thing as a bad critic. It's just opinions people.

And the only reviews from Lisa Schwarzbaum I've read that give away key plot points have spoilers a good couple of times to warn people from reading it.

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Rated R
Let's not forget Joel Siegel, a man who's name will appear on the shittiest of movie covers saying it's one of the 1300 movies on his top ten list of the year...

Agreed. Joel Siegel is a quote whore. He does nothing but give good reviews to everything just for publicity.

[deatheater]

One critic i despise its Harry Knowles of aint it cool news.This guy cannot write a review!He barely talks about the movie while injecting bathroom humor taken to the extreme......or placing his life story in as well..............then he has his team of bozos like Quint and robo something....................I have been near him before.In Austin.The guy has the WORST B.O ever!HAs the nappiest hair and runs around in a wheel chair because of his weight problem.The guy always gives RAVE reviews to movies that no one has scene.Guys like Ebert or someone of higher statue not going to world primeres while every one is "Jumping"for Ol Knowles to see what they has completed.The guy is a liar.Well.....enough ranting.(see an example read his Charlie Angels review........)

[AceD]

Yes, critics "suck" as movie reviewers, but (in the general sense) they do not suck at it any more than you or I do. You can ask for objectivity, but they how is one to reiview a movie? There is nary a movie out there that SOMEONE doesn't love, and even for most bad movies there are large groups of people that love it. So to ask for complete objectivity would be to ask Ebert or Travers or whoever to give eiter zero stars or four stars to every film. The best critics, I think, are the ones that describe just enough of the plot so that you understand the basic premise, then they tell you what they did or did not like about it. Then, by posing certain qustions, they try tell you whether or not you will like it. I'm not trying to suck up to the mod here, but JoBlo does and EXCELLENT job of this.

For example (this is made up)

"So anyway, see Xmovie if you like this, don't see Xmovie if you don't like this"

I'm not sure if that made sense, but what I'm trying to say is that I love how JoBlo doesn't automatically assume that everyone will fall in line with his tastes, as a lot of critics do. Many critics come across as if they would scoff at you if you told them you enjoyed a movie they didn't like. Certainly, we are all entitled to our opinions.

A critic I don't really like is James Bernadelli....I think he used to be good and objective but since Ebert started kissing his butt he's become a little cynical on movies and doesn't seem to praise any that highly anymore.

I don't always agree with Ebert, but by reading his reviews weekly I can tell by reading one whether or not I will like the film, whether he did or not. He doesn't come from our perspective, he goes from his, but he does this consistently. And he never seems to fall into the "get on the poster" mode that Kevin Thomas and Joel Siegel do....seriously, why do those guys even write a whole review? Why not just put "Powerful" or "One of the best films of the year!" and be done with it?

[The TZA]

Originally posted by deatheater
One critic i despise its Harry Knowles of aint it cool news.This guy cannot write a review!He barely talks about the movie while injecting bathroom humor taken to the extreme......or placing his life story in as well..............then he has his team of bozos like Quint and robo something....................I have been near him before.In Austin.The guy has the WORST B.O ever!HAs the nappiest hair and runs around in a wheel chair because of his weight problem.The guy always gives RAVE reviews to movies that no one has scene.Guys like Ebert or someone of higher statue not going to world primeres while every one is "Jumping"for Ol Knowles to see what they has completed.The guy is a liar.Well.....enough ranting.(see an example read his Charlie Angels review........)


LOL delicious, I completely agree. I got banned from his site a few years ago because I posted that Bollywood films were shit and he said I was being racist. But then I heard that everyone gets banned from that mess of a forum for stupid reasons. Fat turd, what a bitch. He was hilarious in The Faculty though because he sounds like a girl and you know he was ejaculating his fat milkshake into his pants during the scene with Salma SEX ON LEGS WHEEEEEEE Hayek. Jackass. Rant over.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by AceD
A critic I don't really like is James Bernadelli....I think he used to be good and objective but since Ebert started kissing his butt he's become a little cynical on movies and doesn't seem to praise any that highly anymore.


RE:

Berardinelli still gives very high score to movies he loves. Personally I think he is easily one of the most trustworthy critics around. Always gives good arguments to back up his opinions. Just like JoBlo.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by The TZA
He was hilarious in The Faculty though because he sounds like a girl and you know he was ejaculating his fat milkshake into his pants during the scene with Salma SEX ON LEGS WHEEEEEEE Hayek. Jackass. Rant over.
You know, he sorta stuck out like a sore, fat thumb in "The Faculty". I didn't even know who he was at the time and I saw a very large, redheaded monster of a man as a teacher on the staff. Weird. But anyway, the "Harry Knowles sucks" rant has probably been done before. ;)

I guess one of the main points I was trying to get across when I started this rant can be summed up by the critical reaction of "The Matrix Revolutions". Over at rotten tomatoes it's at 34%. OUCH.

But some of these critics are onliners just like JoBlo, and are fans just like some of us. Christopher Null from filmcritic.com loved the first two movies, was an admitted fan, and shat all over "Revolutions". And I don't think I know a bigger fanboy (or in this case fangirl) than MaryAnn Johannsen, aka The Flick Filosopher. She wrote that she found "Revolutions" to be a "crushing disappointment" and I really believed her. She was probably counting down the days until its release (she's the same about Lord of the Rings). And these are CRITICS, so I don't want to lump them in with the other humorless pricks who have it as a deskjob and see it as nothing more. I'm sure there are many others just like MaryAnn on Rotten Tomatoes too.

So when I hear that "the critics don't appreciate these movies like the fans"... well, that's not always true. Sometimes the critics are the fans too.