Should we get rid of Movie Critics?
I'm a firm believer that film goers should be their own critics. That's the purpose of film trailers. If a movie interests you, go see it. If it doesn't, don't go see it. Film critics today are heavily biased. And I've come to the solid conclusion that if critics love a movie, I hate it. If they hate it, I love it. Take a look at two of the most heavily panned films of 2013. Will & Jaden Smith's After Earth and Bruce Willis's A Good Day To Die Hard. After Earth has a 12% rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes and A Good Day To Die Hard has a 15% rating. Both of these films were outstanding iny opinion. I feel that After Earth was rated low because of people's biased opinions of M. Night Shyamalan. The man is one of the most original filmmakers in Hollywood. At least he's not on the remake bandwagon like the rest of the Hollywood hacks who can't come up with their own film ideas. And the latest Die Hard is the second of the 5 movies not to be based on a novel, the first being Die Hard With A Vengeance. So what if John McClane has become somewhat of a superhero. There is plenty of stuff in the franchise that is against reality. The franchise is still a great watch. That said I believe we should get rid of Film Critics. I don't need them to tell me what movies are good and which suck. Film goers are big boys and girls. They can make up their own minds about films.
Why are movie critics so stupid?
They aren't stupid. If you enjoy a film, than you aren't wrong, but the value of criticism is incredibly great. Critics see more movies than you. They know which movies are better, they know what makes them work, and they know when they don't work, and try to diagnose the reasons why. Think of it like this, if Twilight is the only book you read, than you could say that Twilight was the best book you've ever read, and you wouldn't be wrong. If a critic said Twilight is bad, it wouldn't contradict your opinion, and considering they've read much more than you, you shouldn't just assume that they don't know what they're talking about. As such, it's a nonsensical mentality to write off critics as "stupid" just because you don't agree with them, especially considering they have a greater expertise than you in the area you're suggesting they know nothing about. So don't get offended just because critics have higher standards than you. If you enjoy a film and critic doesn't, you're not wrong, and neither is he. If you genuinely enjoy a movie, than a critic's opinion really shouldn't bother you. PS: The Rotten Tomatoes percentage is completely irrelevant as to whether a film is good or not. It's only purpose is an indicator of broad appeal. Update: There's a difference between watching a movie, and exercising critical thought as to what makes the film work. Does it stay with you? Does it reflect any basic human truth? Is it well constructed as a story, or does it fulfill a distinct purpose? Those are the questions that critics ask everytime they review a movie. I agree that there are some critics out there who don't make a lick of sense, but most of them know what they're talking about. And again, if you genuinely enjoy a movie, why should any critic's opinion bother you?
Movie criticism on the movie dodgeball?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364725/goof... Here are 46 things that could have been done better in the movie
What are some criticisms of the movie Black Panther?
(Minor SPOILERS)Some thoughts:The film requires that viewers have both some knowledge of the Marvel cinematic universe and have seen Captain America: Civil War. You'll have a hard time with it if you go in “cold.”The fact that American actors played roles that should have gone to Africans is a little depressing.Two younger versions of major supporting characters look nothing like the older actors who portrayed them as adults. This becomes so disconcerting that even the film has to flashback to help the viewer identify them.The co-antagonist plays a surprisingly small role in the piece.The multiple times that deaths occur in the film is glossed over or is completely ignored by the narrative.The film's narrative is exceptionally rushed. The primary events in the film take place within a single week, excluding the several flashbacks that are interspersed throughout the film.
Do critics favor movies that are liberal?
Yep, and it's stacked deliberately as is the chance to get in theaters and get publicity. Republican movies with political content can't get play in theaters, while Democrat Propaganda movies like Michael Moore's are in and hyped. Guess who was made President of the Theater Owners association, though he owns no theater? The Corrupt Democrat insider X Senator Chris Dodd. They stack those things to control the content and the Rothschild Cartel controls a lot of the financing. That's just the tip of the ice berg of their info Control.
Why do some people dislike movie critics?
Imagine you just received a puppy you really love. You have all this love for it, this desire to treat it well, and have others tell you what a good dog your puppy is. A friend comes over and kicks your new puppy and tells you it is ugly and a piece of shit. He tells how much he knows about dogs, how your dog is common and boring, and predictable, and its existence in the world is utterly useless. He then writes and article or appears on TV and says the same thing.That would piss you off, right?There is no critic that agrees with you 100%, so at least some of the time most critics will piss people off. If the movie you love, let’s take Sausage Party, for example, makes you feel all good inside, reading my review of it might even take away some of the good feeling. Why? Because I make points that you may not have seen, and whether you agree with me or not there is always that tiny bit of doubt that most people have that will make them think a tiny bit less of the movie they loved. That or they are so smitten with the movie they get angry and want to fight the critic! Either way, it will not make you happy.Most critics, especially popular traditional critics, have a depth of film knowledge you do not, and they bring that up often, to use as reasons for them to dislike a movie. Not because they hate all movies, but because the more movies you see, the harder it is to be impressed. I see 500 movies a year right now in theaters, both old and new. It is DAMNED hard to impress me. But when I am impressed I will rave about a movie, whether it be Coco (a #1 Pixar movie) or Folkbildningsterror (2014) a Swedish trans/punk/comedy/musical/love story that is insanely good and entertaining!Most critics thankfully do not care one bit if you hate them, so go on hating them. But remember, they are there for a reason, and whether you agree with them or not, they exist for a reason, and many people rely on them for some idea of what they are about to see, or have just seen.
What are some criticisms of The Godfather?
Whereas Goodfellas and The Godfather 2 were hard-hitting, The Godfather was languid and full of itself. Executive Producer Robert Evans' insistence that the film wasn't a crime story but rather 'about family' is trite and likely set the tone for a straddling work full of sound and fury that does surprisingly few things exceptionally well (in fairness, the last scene was great and the score was awesome).What it comes down to is this: The Godfather (1) just isn't that cool of a story (i.e. there's nothing 'punishingly intricate' like Ben Wyatt's board game on the Parks and Rec series finale) aside from the part about Michael coming of age. And (2) it's not that impressive visually (devoid of a Kubrickian, Scorcesean or Fincherian flare). Pantheon movies should have at least one of these two.Marlon Brando was fine from a casting perspective but seriously how hard is it to shove cotton balls in your mouth and act sedated, as he (a) did and (b) may have been. In the spirit of hindsight being 20/20 and calling a duck a duck, I'll say this: James Caan SUCKED as Sonny Corleone and Coppolla was the definition of a 'hack director'.The Godfather deserves props for being a trendsetter, similar to the way I'll give The Sopranos a semi pass for all the filler story lines when assessing its place in the greatest TV show pantheon (The Wire, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, etc.) because it was the first.In sum, I get that an 18 year advantage was in play but when someone vehemently argues for The Godfather as more of a masterpiece than Goodfellas, that person gets a big red flag in my book.
What (if any) are some legitimate criticisms of Pixar movies?
Well Toy Story 3 has been criticised for having direct parallels to the holocaust. The toys represent the Jews who talk about what they will do to pull through hardships, are looking to seek refuge in an attic and eventually end up in a seemingly safe place which turns out to be a place of torture. They also tried to give the theory credibility because of the furnace scene.I think A Bugs Life and Antz were in a feud for a while about both films sharing a similar plot, Finding Nemo was criticised for having some artistic liberties when it came to marine biology and the fact that while all drains do lead to the ocean, they go through treatment first and people were warning kids not to flush their pets down the toilet, Inside Out was even criticised for being too depressing and too boring since they thought Riley was just a white girl who didn't have that many real problems. WALL-E got a lot of theories that it was based on the bible and that lead to criticism "Oh a saviour of earth who has a love interest named Eve. Must be religious)To be honest I try not to pay attention to those criticisms because to me (apart fromantic Cars 1 and 2 and maybe the Good Dinosaur) Pixar is perfect...Inside and Out!
Why do some bad movies get good reviews from critics and good movies get bad reviews?
Why are some good movies liked by anybody (and not by others), and vice versa?Critics are NOT special in that sense.Why someone might give a good movie a bad review?Probably a big reason would be due to pretentiousness e.g “I’m too cool to like that”, there is certainly a fair amount of this among critics, perhaps moreso than the average population.But again, it’s the same with some amateur movie reviewers or just people in everyday life.Have you ever met the person who has to say that some popular and universally acclaimed thing is just terrible, just to be contrarian?Good critics are able to avoid being sensationalist in this manner and will give credit where credit is due. For example, I don’t care a huge amount for Justin Bieber’s music, but there’s no denying that he is a talented singer and the music is impeccably well produced and successful at doing what it does.Anyone who says otherwise or that the music is terrible is being a 100% sensationalist fuckwit.Same with movies.Some people have low self-esteem and get their kicks from -Criticising other things to gain a sense of superiority.Appearing like they’re really knowledgeable and able pick apart a movie.Sometimes it can go opposite and people want to be the only one who likes a movie, so they’ll overhype a bad movie just to be the only one with that likes it.Fanboyism can’t be discounted either - sometimes people can be blinded to the crappiness of a movie because of their emotional investment in a franchise, for example. Star Wars would be a good example. People want to be able to say “yeah, this Star Wars is the best ever, it’s better than the crappy prequels and so on”.Yet another factor in sensationalism would be page views, you get more clicks from saying “this is the best thing ever” or “this is so terrible” than “an okay movies.Some reviewers are pretty consistent and will give appropriate reviews for most movies, which is why it’s important not to listen to a consensus as much as it is about finding a single reviewer who you can trust to give a balanced opinion.The state of the industry itself can have a bearing, I’ve wrote about that before here:Matt Burwood's answer to How important are movie critics?