What do you think about critics?

The staff of Sight & Sound and Total Film always produce great reviews, whether negative or not.

For me it's about not only having a clear understanding of what they have seen, but also having a good argument as to why they did or did not like the film. I also think that a bit of wit and brief comparisons to identical films can go a long way into helping me decide if I want to see the film or not. Guys like Jamie Graham knows his **** when it comes to horror films, and he always has a funny remark about the genre when I read his reviews, which I find quite engaging.

My former lecturer and personal tutor, Guy Westwell writes for Sight & Sound and has done for over a decade, I think. He is very specific about what he felt the film's positives and negatives were and often candid about even the seemingly smallest details. For example, he spent an entire paragraph talking about the different sound designs for The Hurt Locker (which he seemed to love) and how he felt it heightened the tension. I read that review after I had seen it, and I thought it was a good film before, but the review reinforced why I had liked it.

Rotten Tomatoes sometimes seems way off the mark to me.

Hunger Games for example I thought was deeply flawed but good. Maybe a 65-70% but Tomatoes have it way up at 90% or something.

Some films that I adore they have as 30-40%.

I love that magazine, only magazine I get every month. Definitely enjoy reading what they have to say. I like how they go more towards theory compared to say Empire.

Since you guys love reading critics' reviews, I'll throw one name in: Jonathan Rosenbaum. The only thing I strongly disagree with this guy was his opinion on Bergman.

Jonathan is probably the best living critic right now, along with Manohla Dargis.

I rarely pay much attention to critics but one that I do have a lot of time for is Mark Kermode. I have bought most of his books and I had the honour of seeing him speak last year at a local indie cinema.

I think the reason I like him so much is he is honest. He is not afraid to speak his mind and his points most of the time are perfectly valid. He also shares a lot of the same opinions as me but I also disagree with what he has to say which makes him a great critic for me.

__________________
twitter: @ginock
livejournal film reviews: http://windsoc.livejournal.com/
photos: http://www.instagram.com/christopherwindsor

I think that the critics are wrong 98% of the time. I suppose we just don't have the same taste in movies though.

The only critic I ever read is Peter Travers, but not because I actually care what he has to say. I have a subscription to Rolling Stone and keep the magazines in the bathroom. So I only ever even read his reviews when I'm... uh... taking care business.

__________________

Just of interest do you think that critics can make or break a film? Can they damage a film or help it?

I think critics can be helpful for independent and otherwise lesser known films, simply by virtue of bringing them to their readers' attentions. But I don't think they really make any significant difference for the blockbuster type movies.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Everybody's a critic," well, that wasn't said for ***** and giggles, it's a fact. Everybody has an opinion on something, you're only called a critic when you go to a medium and voice it. There's cynical ******** everywhere, those that dissect movies and over-analyze, but that's not what a critic should be, it's someone who likes or dislikes something, and then proceeds to explain why. So, I'd say, take critics for what they are, people that enjoy or don't enjoy something, there's no brilliance or superiority to them. And those that claim brilliance or superiority aren't critics, but douches.

I generally don't like critics. For example, I find the nostalgia critic, when he's actually talking about movies in a serious light instead of making fun of bad ones, often has an opinion I don't agree with. He also has a habit of not talking about good parts in bad movies when they exist just to seemingly, make the point he wants to make more valid than it actually is, Nostalgia chick does the same thing, to the point of trying to make it seem like she's not a movie purest when she reviews the Lorax.

One critic I do listen to, who also talks about movie news, is Grace Randolph, aka, Beyond the Trailer or BTT. Although lately I've been disagreeing with her more, she at least makes it a point to only talk bad about a movie she didn't like briefly and then moves on, aside from of course, her reviews. She is much less biased than most and I can appreciate that.

Generally though, I just stay away from critics. I don't agree with them often to make it worth it.

Couldnt be more right, I dont usually ever read reviews as they put me off or make promises before I have even watched the film!

Just because someone like the Nostalgia Critic calls himself a critic doesn't mean he is one. By the looks of the conversation, we're talking about movie reviewers here, people who provide a plot description and opinion on quality of the movie rather than provide criticism. There's a big difference

__________________
Mubi

I'll often use Rotten tomatoes (UK) as a general barometer of opinion. If a film is registering 30% or less, I need a good reason to go and see it. This doesn't mean that critics are always right, but getting a consensus view isn't such a bad thing when there are so many movies to go and see or rent. I will only read film reviews AFTER I've seen a movie, virtually never before. I can't bear even the slightest of spoilers.

One of the few critics I seriously rate is Mark Kermode, even if I don't agree with his assessment he is at least good enough to give solid reasons for his displeasure. He's also adamant that film critics have virtually no impact on the success or failure of movies releases. He reckons no-one actually listens that much to film critics, though I'm not sure I'd agree with him on that point.

I hate it when 80% of the review is a detailed synopsis of the plot. A review should be a teaser more or less.

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

That's how I try to do my own reviews. A quick runover of the general story.

My last review was One Hour Photo


Short and sweet.


I never really pay attention to critics. If a film gets a universal hammering, then I'll take it as read that it's a pile of crap but won't make an actual judgement until I've seen it for myself. I'll say it sounds crap from what I've read, but won't say it is crap unless I have actually seen it.

On the other hand, if it's a universally praised movie, then again I'll take it as a good sign, but won't make a full on judgement until I've actually seen it myself.

One thing though, Roger Ebert, rest his soul... if he ever said a film was crap then the bets are I'll like it.
I seem to be the complete opposite from Ebert.

__________________

I love watching Mark Kermode even though I disagree with him at lot. Just dont be scared to like something critics dont

I love Roger Ebert as well, and I'm so sad he's gone.

I actually like reading reviews and movie critics in general. I listen to a lot of movie podcasts and watch various YouTube channels by different critics - I love hearing others' opinions of film.

__________________
It's like you're unraveling a big cable-knit sweater that someone keeps knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting...