critics

[Saeltari]

The majority of movie ctitics seem to have an intense belief that they are actually literary critics. They seem to be out of touch with entertainment, enjoying only putrid drek that is akin to medicine; some people may think it is good for you but mostly it just tastes horrible.
An opinion is good, but if you are not enjoying the movies why would you be a critic?
Out of all the movies I have seen I think I agreed with a critic maybe twice. Do people really value their opinions when choosing to see a movie?

 

[littlemissattitude]

Do people really value their opinions when choosing to see a movie?

Depends on who the critic is and what I know about how that individual feels about certain kinds of films. I will read critics, but I won't let them turn me off of a movie if I want to see it. On the other hand, I'll go see a movie sometimes that I wasn't planning on seeing if it gets a lot of good reviews.

 

[speedingslug]

I like good old Johnathan Wross !
He's straight talking and speaks his mind.

 

[ravenus]

Well some of the polarity between critics and audiences is IMO due to the aspect that while people are willing to give books, painting, sculpture etc. the benefit of being considered as art forms that may sometimes not be the most obvious, movies bear the burdern of being, if you will excuse me, everybody's bitch. If a painting proves elusive, a person is likely to think "Well, maybe I can't get what's about or maybe this painting isn't for me" while with a movie the person is more likely to think "This movie sucks and whoever made it is out of touch with what movies SHOULD be"

The truth of the matter is that the so-called mainstream movies are getting more and more dumbed down and obvious all the time, the public willing to spend less time absorbing subtleties or, heavens, being "forced to think" by a "movie" (somehow even the phonetics of that term suggest a necessarily less cerebral experience than a book or a painting, while "film" is more accomodating) of all things. The role of a critic thus becomes difficult, because he is not only supposed to reflect public taste but with the help of his greater experience also inform and enlighten it. Otherwise why bother with a critic's opinion, you might just ask your friends and neighbors.

I have no problems with popcorn movies but entertainment shouldn't necessarily mean leaving yor brains at the door.

 

[j d worthington]

Well, I was going to jump in here, but Ravenus said pretty much what I'd intended to say, except for one thing: The time when a critic is best at doing "literary" style criticism on film, is when he (or she) takes a good film and finds new aspects to enjoy in the film. A thought-provoking review can sometimes make someone take a second look at a film, and even find that they really like a film they had dismissed before. But deliberately picking obscurantist films or dry "high-brow" just because it is such (as with the films of Kenneth Anger, for instance) is simply snobbish elitism of the worst -- and most inspissated -- kind.

 

[Saeltari]

....
I have no problems with popcorn movies but entertainment shouldn't necessarily mean leaving yor brains at the door.

Entertainment doesn't mean leaving your brains at the door, however if you want intellectualism, you want to be inspired, moved and brought to a new level of enlightenment... read a book or go experience some life.
Movies are meant to give those who can't or don't want to exercise their brains the chance to escape, to live vicariously. In general, television and movies tend to suck the thoughts right out of your brain, sending them twirling away into an oblivion where they fade into unfulfilled opportunities. The whole point of the type of entertainment that movies or tv represent is that they don't really require your brain to be in much more than first gear.
Having said that I want to state that I do enjoy movies and some tv, but I know going in, a brain is not really required.
Many critics seem to take the idea that a movie must require you to use your brain for it to be worth anything, they seem to miss the whole point of the movie and television system. The images have already been chosen for you and then presented to you. If I want to expand my awareness, a movie will not be my first choice. If I want to be entertained while putting my mind in neutral then a movie is it.
Agree? Disagree?

 

[Cobolt]

Saeltari

totally disagree, sorry but there is tv out there, Lost is one example whereby you need your brain in gear to follow the plots, there are talented writers out there whose objective is to make you think. Entertainment can also be intelligent if done correctly.

Films are different, X Men, Blade etc which are pure "leave brain at home" films but there are those where you leave the film asking questions. Bladerunner is one example.

As for critics, they tend to be biased, if they hate Sci-Fi then whats the point in them watching the movie, thay cannot provide a true comment on the film. the same goes for any genre. I tend not to read critics anymore as they have in the pst caused me not to see a film, only to watch it on DVD and regret not getting the Cinema experience.

 

[ravenus]

@Saeltari:

Putting it mildly, you're talking utter unmitigated crock. Film is as much of a legitimiate medium of expression as any other, with as much of a right to produce a work of art as any other medium. Just because YOU have out of thin air conceived this notion that films should only constitute empty easy pleasures, don't blame the film-makers or the critics for it. I stopped watching TV almost a decade ago when I saw that hardly any program shown at the times convenient for me to watch TV was anything even halfways engaging.

In any case what is your problem really? The mjority of films and TV programs that are made cater perfectly to your requirement. Obviously, and to me sadly, whichever critic is trying to persuade the public to cultivate a taste for more stimulating cinema, isn't having any success at it.

 

[j d worthington]

While despising mindless films with a passion, I would say there's room for both. (Neither do I like much of the pulp fiction of the 20s, 30s, and 40s that has justifiably fallen by the wayside, such as Seabury Quinn, to pick a single example; it can be fun, but it's not something you can go back to and enjoy again.) A lot of people -- my roommate, for example -- like "dumb comedies"; the stupider, the better. Me, I'd rather have my teeth drilled without anaesthesia. But as far as movies (or television) having, in some way, to be this way, or even (with movies) through the majority of their history predominantly aimed at this goal, that's nonsense. Citizen Kane, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Haunting (1963), Casablanca, The Killing Fields, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, Last Year at Marienbad, The Golem, Metropolis, The Big Parade, City Lights, The General, Bringing Baby Home (a slapstick, but very intelligent, comedy), Jacob's Ladder, Pink Floyd's The Wall..... not to mention things like The Others, Ringu, Cries and Whispers, The Seventh Seal, Fannie and Alexander, Solaris (Tarkovsky is what I'm thinking of here) ... all of these are entertaining films, and don't even begin to scratch the surface of the number of such films out there throughout the history of cinema; and each is a textured film one can visit time and again and be enriched by as much as any book or symphony or sculpture or painting. (And I say this as someone who is almost excessively wedded to the printed word. At one point -- before having, for various reasons, to sell a huge chunk of my library, I had well over 7000 books, all but a handful of which I'd read.)

So, no. This is as valid an art form as any other, and has many bright while entertaining people in it as well. There may be more idiots in this than in, say, published books (though a good sampling of bestsellers from any period would tend to cast doubt on that), but there is no reason why it must be so inherently.

 

[ravenus]

True, like with every other medium, there's space for the easily entertaining and for the engaging at a different level stuff. And of course easily entertaining will always be in a huge majority. It's the other stuff that needs active encouragement if it's to atleast keep its fringe existence and not be consigned to oblivion.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Critics are supposed to criticize: to evaluate, analyze, make intelligent and informed judgements. That's what the word means; that's the job description. They aren't there to provide advertizing copy for the studios (although their praise is often used that way) and they aren't there to make us feel better about our own tastes and choices.

A competent critic not only gives an opinion, but gives reasons for that opinion. What the rest of us do with that information is up to us. When I read a review, I consider the source. Does this reviewer tend to like the same things I like (and for the same reasons)? When they say something like, "this movie is historically accurate" would they know historical accuracy if it hit them in the head? (In most cases, no.) Are they huge fans of an actor I find unbearable -- or do they always say horrible things about an actor whose performances I've always found excellent? Where I know that the local reviewers and I usually disagree, I'm going to take anything they say on these points with a grain of salt.


And what the critic chooses to praise or disparage can make a difference in whether I decide to see the movie or not, regardless of how he or she actually rates it. If reviewers praise the movie for its realistic and unrelenting depiction of brutal violence -- I'm staying home, even if the movie gets five stars across the board. If reviewers are bored because the characters in an adaptation of a novel by Dickens are too Victorian to appeal to contemporary audiences and the story too complicated and rambling, I might very well ignore their tepid two star reviews, because I happen to like 19th century novels just the way they are and don't care to see them modernized.

It's not the critics' function to tell me what I'll like (or what I'm supposed to like); just to say what they think and why. It's only when they rationalize their opinions with (in my view) faulty logic, misinformation, or ill-informed preconceptions that I get annoyed. Otherwise, they're welcome to their opinions, even if I disagree.

 

[Saeltari]

@Saeltari:

Putting it mildly, you're talking utter unmitigated crock. Film is as much of a legitimiate medium of expression as any other, with as much of a right to produce a work of art as any other medium. Just because YOU have out of thin air conceived this notion that films should only constitute empty easy pleasures, don't blame the film-makers or the critics for it. I stopped watching TV almost a decade ago when I saw that hardly any program shown at the times convenient for me to watch TV was anything even halfways engaging....

I did not mean to give the impression that film or tv is not a valid medium of expression, they certainly are. Every opinion is also valid, even if only to the person stating it, even a critics.
However, I do stand by my point that film and tv is not as mind intensive as other entertainment activities. The reason I say that is because, the images are already created for you. In film and tv more than half the equation is already filled in for everyone. Yes, the specific film or program may require you to think to understand it, but once more, half the coloring book is already filled in for you.
Again, I didn't state that it constitutes empty easy pleasures, my point is that much of the criteria that many critics try and use to value or devalue a movie is invalid or innapropriate for the medium. That does not mean all critics do so, just seemingly the vast majority. I often wonder, what they are really thinking.
I am not saying film or tv is bad. Like you I really don't watch much television, but I do enjoy films quite a bit.
Still disagree? Agree?

 

[Saeltari]

....As for critics, they tend to be biased, if they hate Sci-Fi then whats the point in them watching the movie, thay cannot provide a true comment on the film. the same goes for any genre. I tend not to read critics anymore as they have in the pst caused me not to see a film, only to watch it on DVD and regret not getting the Cinema experience.

I certainly agree with you here.

 

[Thadlerian]

In film and tv more than half the equation is already filled in for everyone. Yes, the specific film or program may require you to think to understand it, but once more, half the coloring book is already filled in for you.

I disagree. You could just as well say that half the equation is filled in when reading a book; you usually get to know what at least one of the characters think. In a movie, you have to find that out by analyzing dialogue and body/facial expressions, as well as context.

 

[Saeltari]

Critics are supposed to criticize: to evaluate, analyze, make intelligent and informed judgements. That's what the word means; that's the job description. They aren't there to provide advertizing copy for the studios (although their praise is often used that way) and they aren't there to make us feel better about our own tastes and choices....
It's not the critics' function to tell me what I'll like (or what I'm supposed to like); just to say what they think and why. It's only when they rationalize their opinions with (in my view) faulty logic, misinformation, or ill-informed preconceptions that I get annoyed. Otherwise, they're welcome to their opinions, even if I disagree.

Your job description is the ideal, I haven't really found one that lived up to it. Bringing up my other point, they tend to treat each film as if it must equal the standards of a literary treasure, they often seem misinformed about what a film is really supposed to be or to do. I think that most critics are often using the standards of another medium when they review a movie.
I agree with your last point.

 

[Saeltari]

I disagree. You could just as well say that half the equation is filled in when reading a book; you usually get to know what at least one of the characters think. In a movie, you have to find that out by analyzing dialogue and body/facial expressions, as well as context.

True, but a book is more of a paint by numbers or a coloring book where you have to stay within the lines. It still requires more imagination and activity on your part. However a movie is more like a coloring book that somebody has already half colored in for you.

 

[j d worthington]

Again, I'll have to take issue with this. A painting (or a sculpture, for that matter) is something where "all" the picture is colored in ... yet art of this nature can be both enriching and challenging, and can have a different effect on one each time one looks at it. Any form of art consists of the artist trying to convey an abstract of what they see in whatever situation they depict. There are no ways to do "the entire picture" because no one sees the entire picture... All we see are what each particular mind abstracts from the substance of reality. Therefore, any effort to depict that can be, but is not necessarily art. What makes it art is a combination of honesty in trying to present that abstract and what it means to the artist, combined with great talent and skill, and conscientious effort and much practice, and a good eye to begin with. The problem with so much of the "popcorn" movies is that they are not honest about human emotions -- and, let's face it, for all the sturm-und-drang in life, no few things about it are absolutely hilarious, when you think about it, so there's no lack of room for humor. They're entertainment, but not art. Nothing wrong with that, but confusing the two muddies what we're trying to say to each other here, I think. The closer any artist, be it painter, writer, sculptor, director, what-have-you, comes to an honest presentation of life with as full a presentation of genuinely human character and emotions as they possibly can, the better the work is in whatever medium; and such great works actually satisfy much more richly than those that go for the quick belly-laugh. They are what can enrich and be visited again and again. The other is pabulum. It's hokum. Again, it's an honest enough trade to just entertain, but it is not something that should be confused with art ... nor is pretentious crap that's presented as art just by being obscurantist, difficult, or just downright bad. Fun these things can be, certainly. And for anyone who enjoys them, more power to them. As said, I think there's room for all sorts of things. But I do think that a conscientious critic's job is to try to separate the wheat from the chaff here, and to give a head's-up to anyone who might be inclined that there really is something out there that's more worthwile than the latest installment of Freddie-Meets-Jason-Meets-The-Girl-Next-Door-On-A-Road-Trip.

And there have been such critics. You may not agree with them, but they are out there -- they're just seldom published in the high-circulation newspapers, because editors in general, just as producers often do, tend to "dumb down", to deliberately go for the lowest common denominator, to support their subscription/sales needs and keep their particular job from going down the drain. But if you look outside the mainstream media, you can find plenty of thoughful, conscientious critics who do their level best to give honest, insightful, thought-provoking reviews that are not only intended to warn away from bad films, but to help viewers find new levels to enjoy good films.

 

[dustinzgirl]

Personally, I have had little use for critics. I've never read them, watched them, or had any interest for them. I just read and watch whatever seems to be interesting. I'm always looking out for new sci fi/fantasy story plots, and some regurgitated ones that are pretty decent (Dr. Who, Battlestar)....The new ones are harder and harder to find. Besides, some of my fav movies were never well liked by anyone but me: Conan, Red Sonja, Warrior and the Sorcoress, Lady Hawke and Flesh and Blood---there is a theme to those movies I love, I suppose. But, few people other than me ever really loved them.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Funny you should mention Ladyhawke -- I was all agog to see it when it first came out because our local newspaper published such a rave review.

I think it's too easy to judge all critics on the basis of (in most cases, certainly in mine) the very small number of them whose work we have sampled. Unless we are film buffs, like ravenus and Foxbat, and actively seek out movie criticism. Mostly, I just read what is printed in the newspapers that come to the house. (We get two, and it's fun to compare what the different reviewers have to say, because the Chron and the Argus almost never agree.) If I am very, very interested, I'll look up reviews online, at some place like Rotten Tomatoes, but by the time I exert myself to do that my mind's usually pretty well made-up that I'm going.

In the SF Bay area (it must be those initials!), the critics are generally quite favorable to SF and Fantasy movies. From what other people say, it appears this is not true everywhere, but I can at least vouch for the fact that not all movie reviewers dislike films in those genres.

 

[ravenus]

On an aside, for reviews of films in the SF and Fantasy genres I almost exclusively depend on this site:

http://www.moria.co.nz

The site is currently not updated because the sole guy running it is having some problems with hosting and bandwidth, and he's in negotiations with somebody to relaunch the site on another domain or something. But there's still a HUGE log of films lovingly reviewed and miutely anlyzed. You may not always agree with his opinions, but there's no denying the love and attention he gives to these genres.