Critics

Those who can do. Those who can't become critics.

I have found their remarks about films generally unhelpful to the point of useless. The cliché: "Two thumbs up!" usually means a crap film I couldn't be bothered to watch but I owe them one.

I watched Beaufort the other day, described as: "The Action Event of The Year". Maybe 3 minutes of action out of 96. The rest, the cast are scratching their butts.

Not being good at judging films from covers and subjects, I have watched some real yawnfests, believing the lies that critics said about them. I'd prefer it if they gave honest reviews, say the film is awful if it is awful.

__________________
All secrets are safe with this man, because none are as deadly to him as his own. His secret is that he is Richard Kimble. (The Fugitive - Conspiracy of Silence)

There are good critics and bad critics just as there are good artists and bad artists. The creation of art and the analysis of art are two distinct endeavors. To declare that "Those who can, do (film); those who can't become critics" is almost like saying that "those who can, do (biochemistry); those who can't become physicians."

It is the task of the critic to improve the state of the arts by studying and analyzing them. If you wish to use such analysis to make viewing decisions, look at the particular critic's previous opinions about movies that you have already seen. Do not trust a review implicitly. Do your research. Find critics who have an outlook that is complimentary to your tastes.

__________________
“A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished.”
-Mikhail Bakunin

Critics often get on my nerves. When you stare at the cover of a DVD and notice a quote that a critic has made, most of the time you have never even heard of the person, and never heard of the source (place/organization) they are with.

I think the problem arises because of the definition of a "critic". A true critic, someone along the lines of a James Agee, Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris and even a Roger Ebert has vast knowledge of film history and how films connect to each other, both through the filmmakers and the audiences who watch them. True film critics have a vast knowledge of history in general and film in particular. The people who mostly seem to discuss film nowadays are "reviewers". These people can tell you how they felt about a movie but they cannot really put it into any kind of thematic or personal context. They mainly get to ply their trade because somebody gives them passes to films before they're released. Now, I used to go see press screenings quite a bit because the guy I worked for would always get two passes to see a film, and he trusted me more than anybody else he knew. Now, of all the people we're lucky to have around here, I'd call Holden Pike a "true critic", but c'mon now, Holds, can't you come clean about how you're able to get so many pre-release passes?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

i dont read film critics in newspapers because i couldnt care less about their opinions to be quite honest. I care more about the opinions of people i know who are going to just say it how it is, not some mildly amusing less than informative '2 stars' 'wild ride!' opinion of a 'journalist'.

__________________

Undercoverlovers 100 REDUX

I think there's already been some lengthy discussion on this issue here before but I'm not very good at searching out those older threads.

Anyway. To arbitrarily lump all critics together makes about as much sense as lumping all movies into one category. For one thing its impossible and for another: you're wasting your time. If you don't think critics are ever right, then really that's kind of a whole other discussion. I think it was Yoda that may have suggested that its a good idea to read the reviews from some of the critics that you like or trust. If you don't trust any of them them I can't help you and neither can anyone for that matter.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

To me, i hate most critics. They tell their point of view on the movie and expect people to have the exact same taste as them. I judge a movie by looking at the plot and the cover not what some 60 year old critic thinks.

My biggest issue with critics is that they're so close minded in what they like. A film doesn't have to be stuffy to be good. They don't understand the concept of appreciating a film that doesn't take itself seriously. For the love of god, lighten up.

Yeah but isn't that what being critical is all about? If every critic loved every movie every review would read exactly the same yeah?

Aren't we all film critics? The only difference between the seasoned cineaste and the professional film critic is in the occupation. Just because they write their opinions down, doesnt mean they're opinionated or wrong for that matter. We'll all have different views; personally I find it interesting to read all critical opinions. They just confirm the diversities in film taste.

And then there's Elvis Mitchel. The man just has a depth of analysis that can't be touched.

I'm the same way.
What matters is what you guys think.

__________________
"If you can't be funny be interesting."
Harold Ross

But I don't think they give credit were credit is due. Especially in the comedy and horror genres, I feel like there's a lot of genius movies that critics discredit just because they're in those genres while mediocre dramas are overappreciated just for being serious. Know what I mean?

yep

I'm sure there's been a thread like this because I remember extolling the many virtues of The AV Club here before. But those folks deserve another plug, so I'll just say The AV Club is home to some of the most insightful, on-the-mark, witty and intelligent pop culture criticism I've ever read on the internet. You should all be reading The AV Club. Of course I hate the Jeffrey Lyons of the world who exist solely and get paid well to deliver a shallow, one-sentence summation of a movie. But, on the other hand, as a major geek, I love reading intelligent criticisms of worthwhile movies more than anything. So, yeah, like everybody said, don't lump all critics together.

Mark touched on this, but Roger Ebert, who has unintentionally done so much over his career to murder intelligent film criticism, is a semi-favorite of mine. He straddles the line between the braindead, mass-marketed critic and the "real" one. He has a bizarre tendency to mix up character names constantly and he's pretty blatantly sloppy or lazy in other areas at times, too. But, when he really put his mind to it or when he was writing a particularly harsh review, he was among the best. Past his prime now, maybe, but I still like the guy. Or, his writing, at least.

Leonard Maltin must die