I am tired of critics

As the title says critics get on my nerves they complain about some of the greatest movies in history then when they become classics then they always saw the genius in it. When I was attending film school,I was asked what directors do you look up to and what movies are your favorite? Then I of coarse said Spielberg, Coppola,M. Night ,Cameron, Ridley Scott and George Lucas I named my favorite movie being my favorite because it really pushed me into wanting to make films which was Jurassic Park the laughs and taunting could be heard for 2 minutes or so. My point is they named off a bunch of trendy cool to like directors and then a bunch of the same people who liked the trendy directors named David Lean the 60's equivalent to Spielberg and Alfred Hitchcock the equivalent to M.Night, the ignorance of wannabe's and critics seem to be one and the same, I wonder if these critics are the wannabe's that never made it and are sour grapes to people who make art and make money at the same time ? The Village at first I was disappointed like the critics but once I got over the creatures not being real and watched the film over it was a masterpiece the writing and acting was amazing the camera placement breathe taking. I know the Village and Lady in the water will go down in history as truly great pieces of cinema.

That is all,
Dusty Clark

I totally agree with you on that one. Film critics are so stupid. No offense to anyone who is. hehe. Oh, and welcome to the site.

__________________
"'How many more of you are there?'" - M. Night Shyamalan

I think his shot at critics in "Lady" through the apartment tenant really pushed them over the edge with him. I thought it was quite funny.

But I never take what critics say to heart. I've liked tons of movies they've hated, and hated tons of movies they've salivated over.

Film, like anything else, is always up to the person watching. I think more and more folks are figuring that out, because movies that get drubbed by critics start at #1 in the box office while movies that are praised have a tough time making the top 5 (there are exceptions to each, of course).

__________________
"See, what you have to ask yourself is what kind of person are you? Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles? Or do you believe that people just get lucky?" - M. Night Shyamalan

So you went to film school with Roger Ebert and James Berardinelli? Awesome!

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

The problem isn't really the critics. The problem is more that most people listen to critics. They believe critics know exactly what they're talking about because it is their job, but what people forget is that film critics are just regular people like us. They have their opinions and we have ours. Yet their opinion is more important than ours because they hold the title Film Critic. We also have to realize that the majority of Americans and filmgoers like comedy and violence and such. Having said that we see that most critics will be the same. The majority of critics like the things that really have no meaning. Now then there are the minority who have a feel for deeper meanings, for truth. We here on this forum are the minority. We love what M. Night creates because we can connect to it, but America is on the boarder of losing not a little bit but all of its meaning. M. Night is trying to fix that in the way that he is best suited too. The critics aren't going to like it because they are losing their sense of security, when someone chooses to be so different it frightens them. All we can do is continue to support M. Night and encourage others to do the same.

Kyrsten

So the public is into comedy and violence, yet the critics are the ones who are provincial...I'm pretty sure that doesn't make sense.

__________________
"Like all dreamers, Steven mistook disenchantment for truth."

But do you think that reflects the ineptitude of the critics, or the peoples' general aversion to intelligent films?

I think it points more towards the public not wanting to pay $10 a ticket to be weighed down with mundane material that they see in everyday life. Instead, they want to be taken on fun/scary/thrilling rides that can take them into another world for 90 minutes.

which films are you referencing which critics praised but you found mundane?

Broken Flowers, Brokeback Mountain, Good Night and Good Luck to name a few recent ones.

Serious films can be done very well (Capote being a good example) and then they can come off as pretentious and just looking for critical praise.

Have you ever traveled cross-country looking for a son that might not even exist and retracing all of your past relationships? Have you ever fallen in love with one of your fellow ranchers and had to deal with its implications? Have you ever been involved in a moment of pure social revolution and made history while demonstrating the power of the media and information itself? are these mundane boring parts of your everyday life?

No, which is exactly the point. When they're made into mundane and boring films, it's disappointing.

But I guess, again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You were bored by Good Night, and Good Luck? yikes! We are obviously not on the same page when it comes to movies, so any attempt at debate would be circular and go nowhere (as debate often does). I guess we are simply looking for different things when we watch a movie. Fortunately we live in a country where differences of opinion are allowed to flourish freely (assuming you're American).

I used to work for a newspaper, so I knew the entire Murrow situation before watching the movie. Nothing I saw was new, and it was all stuff I had heard in one form or another several times already. So watching it wasn't eye-opening to me.

And yes, I'm American.

In this day and age when every idea has been used at least once, it's hard if not impossible to be unique. That makes the current climate more about execution than originality from my perspective.

I am pretty sure that wasn't what I said. What I was getting at is this:

People in today's society like to go and see films that are just funny or just about violence. It is proven in how much these types of movies make at the box office. Critics also like these movies. Now then because most critics like these movies we see them praise those movies. I am not saying that those movies are bad, I am not saying you shouldn't go see them. I am saying that since most people like the movies they like (and guess what? critics are people) then we will see movies such as Beerfest or whatever loved by critics. Not once did I say that anyone was provincial.

kyrsten

What critics to you read who praise stupid movies about violence? And can you not separate comments from a critic about a particular aspect of a violent movie (say, the special effects or stuntwork, for example) from praise for the entire movie? Do you really think that people who go to see low-brow films about violence even listen to critics? What color is the sky on your planet?

I read some of what the critics were saying about LITW and most of them said the same exact things. They said something about the critic's character in the movie, the arrogance of MNS to play a character who writes a book that plants the seeds of change in the world, and they talk about the plot.

I guess that's what happens when a writer or movie talks about purpose, all those without one have to try and bash others who do....isn't that the way of the world?

Critics tend to be egotistical, its all about them and so in this movie the only see that which pertains to them...criticism of critics!

The can't see the myths, archetypes and symbols of restoration, purification, sanctification, deification. There are references to buddhism, moses and his tabernacle, modes of theophany. Its a beautiful fairy tale that shows ancient beliefs in a new medium. I loved it.

I find it both quite amazing and quite disappointing when people use phrases like "the critics think this way" or "people shouldn't listen to critics," as if film critics are all one person with one opinion.

As you can see even in this thread, everyone has a different opinion about different films. For every movie that comes out, at least ONE critic usually likes it, and at least ONE critic usually hates it.

Pretty normal, no? If you're going to assign a characteristic to a critic, perhaps you can say, "I generally don't agree with so-and-so" or "This critic is a particularly poor writer," but to group them altogether?

For example, how can you compare Roger Ebert to Rex Reed? They have very different opinions about very different films. Or, just looking at Ebert, notice the way he sometimes defends films that get low scores, such as Femme Fatale (which he gave four stars, I believe). You could probably notice such "aberrancy" for every reviewer.

Yes, perhaps critics sometimes share a particular kind of training or education. Yes, there are trends to appreciate certain kinds of films (unusual, unique, or foreign) simply because of the sheer VOLUME of movies some critics watch, and they sometimes expect better quality than the average moviegoer for it. However, you can't tell me that Joe Average with his movie review site listed on Rottentomatoes.com or somesuch is an erudite snob. This hypothetical person doesn't even have the credentials.

Sometimes a movie is bad just because a movie is bad. At least to the majority, it's bad. I never heard any complaints about "the snobby critics" when Battlefield Earth got panned. It's only when they diss a movie that has a cult status or someone in particular enjoyed.

Sorry to cap the rant with a truism, but as they say, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Film reviewers have their jobs, not because their opinions are *worth* more, but because their training and expertise lets a good critic offer additional insight as to whether he/she thought a movie was poor/average/good.