Author Topic: Are most film critics legit?  (Read 1267 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9762
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Are most film critics legit?
« on: September 05, 2012, 02:37:17 PM »
I often wonder if some film critics are in the tank to major picture company's?
I know plenty of bad reviews are written so I don't think it happens all the time but sometimes I have to wonder.
Monday I went to see, "The Possession". It was a fairly good movie. I enjoyed it enough.

I was reading some reviews prior to going and read one from Roger Ebert. Now this guy has been reviewing movies since the birth of Christ so he must have some credibility. He gave the movie 3 1/2 out of 4 stars. He said it was one of the best movies of its kind.

 When I got home I thought about his review. I thought, really? It was ok but 3 1/2 stars says its pretty great.

Do you think some critics accept payoffs to write good reviews so a movie makes its money at the box office?

I would say yes, it must happen to some degree. I would say film company's make up fictitious names as well.

What do you think?
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5821
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2012, 02:42:10 PM »
Roger Ebert also really loves Nic Cage. Something to keep in mind, but I like him anyway.

I think film critics are good, but looking at multiple sources to get a feel for everyone's reasons for their opinions (biases and all) is great.

Offline yorost

  • Inactive
  • Posts: 7862
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2012, 02:44:59 PM »
I don't think being paid off is the problem so much as possible conflicts of interest creating pressure.  If you receive any perks such as early viewings or advertising money from a business you review products of, well, you might need to be careful to not step on their toes.

Full time critics also have such a wildly different perspective than most others.  They see too much, of course they are probably coming to opinions from different angles than we might be.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13559
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2012, 03:03:25 PM »
I am pretty sure Ebert is conscious about rating and reviewing movies as they are presented for what they are. Meaning, he doesn't compare the latest war movie to Bridge on the River Kwai, or latest romantic drama to Casablanca. He gave The Phantom Menace a great review, trying not to view it as the person he was in 1977 when he saw Star Wars, or with the memories of that movie in the forefront of his mind.

I am sure some reviewers like to see their names in print, so appreciate the frequent "One of the year's 10 best according to xxxx" on the ad in the newspaper. How much do they have that in mind when reviewing a film? Who knows.

Some film critics have film education backgrounds, so they will have that knowledge a casual movie viewer doesn't have. Just like when I read people talk about crap in songs I don't understand, like arpeggios, pentatonic scales, and whatever. Does that make them better at understanding and appreciating film? Not to me.

I think part of it is how the review is presented as well. Ebert is a great writer, and often tailor's his review to suit the movie. His review of ET is written as a letter to his grandkids. That's an extreme example. But he doesn't write like a film 'snob.' He writes like a fan of movies, which is what he is. 
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline ReaPsTA

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 11204
  • Gender: Male
  • Addicted to the pain
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2012, 03:48:16 PM »
(I can't believe I wrote another TLDR ramble.  I feel like an alcoholic who's incapable of stopping at one drink)

The problem with most film critics is threefold:

 - In general, critics are not in sync with what audiences want.  I get the impression more than a few critics take pride in this and actually cultivate distinct taste.  This is why Transformers 3 grossed hundreds of millions of dollars last year and has a 35% Rotten Tomatoes score.

I understand that movie critics would be functionally useless if they we
nt to Transformers 3 and wrote about how the movie was the best of the year because the actions sequences are so exciting.  But, I would also suggest they are becoming less and less relevant for a reason.

I know a guy who told me, in all seriousness, that Transformers 2 was a great movie.  He told me (I'm paraphrasing) that I could look at it like a film snob, but that I was missing the point because it was fun to watch and he thought it was well done.

I disagree with this.  A lot.  But, if he told me, "I haven't seen Transformers 3 yet, I want to know if you think I'd like it," I'd tell him to see the movie immediately and that he would probably love it.  I'd mention that the first part of the movie is definitely slow and drags on a bit, but that the movie really gets going once it starts in earnest.  I would say this without a hint of derision (I hate when movie critics talks about who would like the movie they don't like in an insulting tone). 

The role of movie critics should be to give an educated analysis of the movie's qualities and describe who would like the movie and why.  I should be able to read a movie review and have a rough idea of whether or not it's worth my time to see it.  Critics seem to openly not care about this.

 - Critics don't seem to care whether or not they really undestand the films they review.  Here's Roger Ebert's review of Team America: World Police.  It's fine that he doesn't like the movie because he's not its intended audience.  I'd say he just shouldn't write his review, but that seems unreasonable since reviewing movies is his job.

The problem is two-fold.  One is that he doesn't recognize any of the above.  He thinks, purely because he's a movie critic, that he should be able to criticize the movie with both barrels.  Never in his review does he suggest that it might not be best to look at the movie through his critical lens because the movie wasn't designed through it.

Here's what I mean:

Quote
Regrouping, the team's leader, Spottswoode (voice by Daran Norris) recruits a Broadway actor named Gary to go undercover for them. When first seen, Gary (voice by Parker) is starring in the musical "Lease," and singing "Everyone has AIDS." Ho, ho.

The Everyone Has AIDS song is wonderfully catchy and hilarious.  If you were a fan of Parker and Stone and didn't like this song, you'd talk about your disappointment.  You'd feel let down.  He just dismisses it because he doesn't care.  He was never going to care.

Also, there are multiple parts of the review which make it abundantly obvious that Ebert doesn't even understand it on an intellectual level:

Quote
The plot seems like a collision at the screenplay factory between several half-baked world-in-crisis movies.

In a movie that is clearly meant to satirize action films, he doesn't consider the possibiliy this was done on purpose?

Quote
Opposing Team America is the Film Actors' Guild, or F.A.G., ho, ho, with puppets representing Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Matt Damon, Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn (who has written an angry letter to Parker and Stone about their comments, in Rolling Stone, that there is “no shame” in not voting). No real point is made about the actors' activism; they exist in the movie essentially to be ridiculed for existing at all, I guess.

Not true.  The movie's intention is to satirize the disconnect between the political ignorance of actors with the degree to which they believe they are knowledgeable.  At the end of the movie, the actors are actually fighting for the bad guy because they are so easily mislead.

Quote
If I were asked to extract a political position from the movie, I'd be baffled. It is neither for nor against the war on terrorism, just dedicated to ridiculing those who wage it and those who oppose it.

He missed the dicks/pussies/assholes speech.

I'm not saying critics can't make mistakes ever.  But this is pretty bad.  This is supposed to be the biggest/best critic in America.

 - Movie critics aren't filmmakers.  Here's a paragraph from James Berardinelli's review of The Last Airbender (the Reelviews guy):

Quote
It's hard to express how off-putting Shyamalan's script is. The movie is filled with awkward exposition - scenes in which characters state things for no reason other than to inform the audience of some piece of background. A romance develops out of nowhere for characters we don't care about. A lot of things, such as Aang's ability to drop into a trance and speak with a dragon spirit, are poorly motivated and reek of deus ex machina.

I've hate watched this movie a couple times and thought a lot about it.  It's a highly informative piece of bad film making.  So obviously I wouldn't compare my thoughts on the movie to his.  But even when I had just gotten done seeing the movie, I understood the fundamental reason the screenwriting was bad.  Nothing really happened. 

For example - When they go to the Southern Air Temple, they see the dead remains of Aang's people and he gets supernaturally angry.  The end.  We see nothing meaningful about his friendship with the group (they care for him, but we don't feel it).  We get no sense of the connection he did have with these people when they were alive.  We don't see how he changes as a character to move on from this, merely that it happens.  And on and on and on.  You don't need to be a professional screenwriter to understand this.  A film critic definitely should be able to.  I think Berardinelli is one of the better movie critics out there too, which makes this worse.  If a film critic for a local newspaper didn't understand this, I'd get it.  But one of the better ones?  Oy vey.

Also, it'd be nice if critics had any regard for the commercial circumstances under which movies are made.  I don't know what's gained by ignoring the fact that movies are designed to be profit-generating enterprises.  You can't look at any movie, even an independent movie, outside of a commercial context.  Movies are designed to fit this.  I've seen critics talk about movies as obvious cash grabs, but that's easy.  I've seen critics talk about how movies skillfully balance commercialism and art, but the implicit statement is "The movie managed to be something that could be successful in theaters without sucking."

I'm not going to say being commercial is necessarily good.  But consider that before the Avengers, Joss Whedon created two TV-series that were cancelled in their first and second seasons.  Then he wrote and directed the 3rd highest grossing movie of all time under Marvel's watch.

What I've never seen in a critic's review of a movie is respect for how tough it is to make a work of art commercial.  It's treated more as a political act than a function of good film making, which reflects a non-understanding of the process.

What's ironic and funny is that when studios put out their Oscar-bait movies, the critics lap them up just as they are supposed to.  It's nice that if critics are going to have an obvious blind spot in their approach, that we have the chance to laugh at it.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 04:01:09 PM by ReaPsTA »
Take a chance you may die
Over and over again

Offline Dark Castle

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6532
  • Gender: Female
  • SmegmaPrincessX
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2012, 03:58:46 PM »
My local film critics aren't.
They tend to hate big movies because they aren't indie.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 05:53:46 PM by Dark Castle »

Offline Kotowboy

  • Yes THAT Kotowboy.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28561
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2012, 05:52:29 PM »
Mark Kermode is my favourite.

He pays to see films with his own money so he can be as honest as he wants.

Plus he really rips into bad films.

Mark Hated 2012  :biggrin: I love this.

Mark Really Hated Star Wars Episode 3 Love it.

Offline zepp-head

  • Posts: 1331
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2012, 06:58:50 PM »
I believe there is a lot of value in what film critics say overall.  It's usually fairly easy to tell when someone is in the tank for something/someone. 

I've done my fair share of film studies (Bachelor of Applied Arts and Master of Arts) so I feel that my gauge for quality is pretty good, and I try to leave my personal tastes out of any serious debate unless noted otherwise.  This is a trait absent from a great number of faux critics, namely bloggers and well known douches from sites like AICN. 

I don't mean to take away the voice of anybody on the Internet with an opinion or act as any self-righteous film snob would by denying their credibility since everyone has their own opinions, but many are clearly attention whoring fanboy types hoping to either stir the pot or find people to be united with because they share a common hatred.  Both of these are fools' errands.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 07:51:46 PM by zepp-head »

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Et in Arcadia Ego
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 52785
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2012, 07:02:46 PM »
*stuff*

You seem to be mad at Roger Ebert because he doesn't agree with you.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2012, 07:48:03 PM »
Critics are just doing their job. Nobody makes us tailor our movie viewing choices based on their opinions.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2012, 12:15:07 AM »
*stuff*

You seem to be mad at Roger Ebert because he doesn't agree with you.

*Cue Chino barging in and calling Ebert a hack because he didn't like A Clockwork Orange*
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline countoftuscany42

  • Posts: 741
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #11 on: September 06, 2012, 01:18:24 AM »
im kinda back and forth with movie critics.  Ill be interested in the reviews in my local papers to see how many stars a film got, and will occasionally check rotten tomato for a more accurate representation of the publics view, but in the end if I want to see a movie then ill see it, regardless of the review.  Sometimes i regret that decision, but I take reviews with a grain of salt.  I love the saw films, i even enjoy the worse movies of the series, but id never expect a decent review from mainstream critics.  And im pretty sure my paper gave bourne legacy 3.5 stars (i could be wrong), and while i enjoyed it i wouldnt agree with it as an honest review.  And while critics and friends would slander films like prometheus and dark knight rises for their flaws (and there were some in both), i still enjoyed both films and wouldn't have been stopped from seeing them by the opinions of others.  so basically, i get why there are critics, but i dont honestly believe anything they say and use their opinions to enforce what ive already decided about a film or encourage me to give a film a chance

Offline Kotowboy

  • Yes THAT Kotowboy.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28561
  • Gender: Male
Re: Are most film critics legit?
« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2012, 08:23:51 AM »

*Cue Chino barging in and calling Ebert a hack because he didn't like A Clockwork Orange*

I must be a hack too then :neverusethis: