Do cinephiles watch blockbuster films?

Tools    





I never called any other director hack.
Except that one time...

Saying that he's an "hack" like Bay or Snyder is just wrong in any way, shape or form and shows an extreme lack of common sense and objectivity.
...about those two directors.



Welcome to the human race...
I am in no way surprised that someone whose top ten includes the likes of Bela Tarr, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Theo Angelopoulos is liable to view Christopher Nolan as being in the same league as Michael Bay or Zack Snyder.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.



Also, I trust more about a professional film critic [...] rather than a simple film enthusiast who wrote his opinion from a keyboard and not from a magazine or/and in an interview.
"Professional" in the context of criticism is a meaningless adjective. In recent decades it's held even less weight, distilled down to just "someone who gets paid for it", full stop. It's not analogous to, say, a high school football player versus a professional NFL player ó where "professional" actually implies a separation of skill level in the position. Nor does "professional critic" imply a type of artisanal approach to the craft.

The vast majority of professional film critics featured in popular circulations and the corporate blogosphere have no background in either film study or criticism ó ó neither of those are a requirement for the job. They largely come from journalism and digital communications programs, sometimes even dualing in business.

Professional film critic jobs are acquired and dictated by the person's ability to meet constant suffocating deadlines, cover the most recent productions/trending topics (to better generate revenue via ad-space and/or web traffic), and maintaining their masthead's rapport with industry reps through junkets and promo features. The content and critical merits average professional pop-journalist reviewer are, more often than not, afterthoughts (if they're seriously considered at all).

The professional critics who are able to successfully market themselves through a variety of publicity efforts (independent of their editors or otherwise) have a better chance to secure exclusive staff or column positions for popular outlets ó even then, success generally depends on the person's PR savvy.

But increasingly since the turn of the century ó even moreso after the Web 2.0 environment was normalized in particular ó the idea/goal of professional movie critics (i.e., pop-journalists) achieving household-name status, or even being the dictating voice of their publication, has become quite rare.

However, there are many excellent film critics who self-publish while also contributing to commercial media outlets. There are also many excellent critics who largely just self-publish. Then there's the ocean of valuable criticism in scholarly/longform fields, in which a lot of great self-published critics (including some renowned, ex-"professional" commercial people) spend some of their time.

A good chunk of the greatest and most significant film critics of the 20th century started out as "simple film enthusiasts" writing their opinions in notebooks and publishing them with a small group of like-minded individuals.



DePalma, Carpenter have fallen off and had plenty of panned films but that does cancel their great stuff? No.

So, in no way, Nolan can or will be described as an hack.

Also, I trust more about a professional film critic and those outsiders (producers, actors, directors) rather than a simple film enthusiast who wrote his opinion from a keyboard and not from a magazine or/and in an interview.



Feel free to not like him, but hate and disrespect is annoying. There should be some sense of fairness when judging something.

I never called any other director hack.



I am one of those people who has written about film and theater and music in legit publications. Do you know what movie credentials I needed to get those jobs? Zero. Zilch. Nada. You do not know what you are talking about when you elevate the opinions of those who write for magazines. They aren't some magical breed of person different from basic film lovers. In fact, sometimes they aren't even film lovers and just got saddled with a job they are completely unqualified for.


You also keep stepping around acknowledging the fallacy in your argument. The one where critical consensus changes. It's not written in a tablet for the ages. No artist has immunity from being called out. None.


And this isn't even getting into the fact you are incapable of keeping your arguments straight. You claim it's wrong to call critically acclaimed movies bad. Which you have done in other threads. You claim you don't call other directors hacks, when you have. In this thread.


Don't be confused when others don't find what you say particularly convincing. And stop worrying about how you can't stop them from making your ears burn every time they say Nolan stinks.


People have different opinions about film than you. Opinions that they are capable of justifying with the thoughts in their head. Whatever they may be. So take it from a highly esteemed and published critic like myself to deal with it. Just accept some people don't like Nolan, and they are not wrong for doing so. After all, you're obigated to listen to people like me, since my words have apparently been turned into unalterable law by movie magazines.



"How tall is King Kong ?"
Let's not forget that, this being the internet, Nolan -like anyone or anything else- can only be one of two things : the best ever or the worst ever. There is no such thing as a decent overrated director, or a work with great strengths and great weaknesses.

If this looks grey to you, you may need to adjust your monitor's contrast.



People have different opinions about film than you. Opinions that they are capable of justifying with the thoughts in their head. Whatever they may be. So take it from a highly esteemed and published critic like myself to deal with it. Just accept some people don't like Nolan, and they are not wrong for doing so. After all, you're obigated to listen to people like me, since my words have apparently been turned into unalterable law by movie magazines.
Good to see someone argue that, but not everyone here is extended the same courtesy, so no surprise Ezrangel wonít acknowledge it. It seems to be very fashionable here to explain to people why their opinion, on film and other issues, is ďwrongĒ.



But Snyder and Bay are 100% hacks, based on their directing and critical reviews, lol.

I mean Bela Tarr etc, seems like snob stuff that probably would say that some blockbuster director like Nolan or Raimi is not his cup of tea?

I know my stuff about technical aspects, but still I would say that I watch films for fun most of the time.

The two directors I started with cinema were Nolan and raimi for their respective trilogies. So of course, I am heavily attached to either.

Call me an enthusiast.

I said personal opinions are sacred; but of course there are more knowledgeable and competent people when talking about films. It applies to almost all things in one real life.

Someone should have sair "I donít like it" like I did with lord of the rings; because itís just not... possible to argue that itís a trilogy made of bad quality films.



But Snyder and Bay are 100% hacks, based on their directing and critical reviews, lol.

I mean Bela Tarr etc, seems like snob stuff that probably would say that some blockbuster director like Nolan or Raimi is not his cup of tea?

I know my stuff about technical aspects, but still I would say that I watch films for fun most of the time.

The two directors I started with cinema were Nolan and raimi for their respective trilogies. So of course, I am heavily attached to either.

Call me an enthusiast.

I said personal opinions are sacred; but of course there are more knowledgeable and competent people when talking about films. It applies to almost all things in one real life.

Someone should have sair "I donít like it" like I did with lord of the rings; because itís just not... possible to argue that itís a trilogy made of bad quality films.
I don't mean to sound too presumptuous here, but I think you might have some trouble differientiating between a good movie and a well directed movie. LoTR is a good trilogy, but you can argue that Jackson was merely not in the way of the production, and that's why The Hobbit was vastly worse; because he didn't have that same production. You can also dislike all of Bay and Snyder's movies, but recognize they have vision and know how to get it to the screen, though the scripts they work with, or what they do with their talents may not be everyone's cup of tea.



I don't mean to sound too presumptuous here, but I think you might have some trouble differientiating between a good movie and a well directed movie. LoTR is a good trilogy, but you can argue that Jackson was merely not in the way of the production, and that's why The Hobbit was vastly worse; because he didn't have that same production. You can also dislike all of Bay and Snyder's movies, but recognize they have vision and know how to get it to the screen, though the scripts they work with, or what they do with their talents may not be everyone's cup of tea.
I donít see much wrong with hobbits either the script was just overstuffed and they were boring and had cgi

But his directing is always good.



I don't mean to sound too presumptuous here, but I think you might have some trouble differientiating between a good movie and a well directed movie. LoTR is a good trilogy, but you can argue that Jackson was merely not in the way of the production, and that's why The Hobbit was vastly worse; because he didn't have that same production. You can also dislike all of Bay and Snyder's movies, but recognize they have vision and know how to get it to the screen, though the scripts they work with, or what they do with their talents may not be everyone's cup of tea.

The Hobbit was bad because it was a four hour movie stretched to 9 and that's from the Studio.



They Shall Not Grow Old is a masterpiece



@Ezrangel
Is it possible for someone to really like some of Nolan's movies and also dislike other of his films...and still be considered a credible reviewer by you?
Itís not about Nolan but in general; how a reviewer talks and reviews something.

You can see whoís unbiased or more fair and whoís an hater. Itís easy.

The term "hack" alone means someone is an hater lol



Why are you guys still in here entertaining this child?



This is the guy who claimed it was ridiculous to ever hate a movie, after starting a thread about how much he hated Blue Velvet.


Consistency is probably not in the forecast here.
I think in many ways itís natural not to be 100 per cent consistent in oneís opinions, and Iím not sure why thatís expected. Itís reasonable to aim not to be too self-contradictory, but people are not machines and opinions are impacted by emotions and context, and therefore change.

I love everything that Lynch does, but I find Eraserhead pretty revolting, does that mean Iím contradicting myself? I think itís unreasonable to expect peopleís opinions on different things to fall in a neat, ordered line and all tie in with each other.



Good to see someone argue that, but not everyone here is extended the same courtesy, so no surprise Ezrangel wonít acknowledge it. It seems to be very fashionable here to explain to people why their opinion, on film and other issues, is ďwrongĒ.

I've got no issue with anyone arguing their tastes passionately. If Erzangel wants to fawn over Nolan , they should go for it. If they think Nolan is indisputably great, argue that. But he is stepping past that by telling others what they should argue. And has even criticized how people should defend movies (not with any of that snobby intelligence and knowledge, supposedly). That horse **** is meant to kill discussion, and that is why I'm not going to give much respect to where they are coming from.


I couldn't care less what people like or don't like. I personally have no issue with Nolan. And I will even be happy to listen to support of lots of directors I actively do not like (Eli Roth, James Wan). What matters to me is the quality of their defense. And deferring to critical consensus is a dreadful argument that Erzangel is peddling. It is intellectual death. It is clearly loaded with obvious issues, which Erzangel clearly must recognize because he has yet to acknowledge any of them. He keeps relying on critics to make his argument for him, because he actually doesn't even have one. And, in short, it is annoying.



I've got no issue with anyone arguing their tastes passionately. If Erzangel wants to fawn over Nolan , they should go for it. If they think Nolan is indisputably great, argue that. But he is stepping past that by telling others what they should argue. And has even criticized how people should defend movies (not with any of that snobby intelligence and knowledge, supposedly). That horse **** is meant to kill discussion, and that is why I'm not going to give much respect to where they are coming from.


I couldn't care less what people like or don't like. I personally have no issue with Nolan. And I will even be happy to listen to support of lots of directors I actively do not like (Eli Roth, James Wan). What matters to me is the quality of their defense. And deferring to critical consensus is a dreadful argument that Erzangel is peddling. It is intellectual death. It is clearly loaded with obvious issues, which Erzangel clearly must recognize because he has yet to acknowledge any of them. He keeps relying on critics to make his argument for him, because he actually doesn't even have one. And, in short, it is annoying.
I agree with you, but I feel a certain degree of frustration (which has nothing at all to do with this thread) in regards to my own views being referred to as ďwrongĒ in many other threads, repeatedly. And I am 100 per cent with you in that one shouldnít tell other people what to argue, but I thought Iíd point out that happens a lot here and not all opinions are seen as ďvalidĒ. Not at all.

One definitely does oneís best to argue oneís point and provide evidence, but those of us here that have ever had anything to do with law (and I engage in litigation all day long) will know that language is a beastly thing, and defending oneís point can easily descend into arguing over definitions with no end in sight. All of which is a bit sad.

I guess Iíve become rather disillusioned with the idea of respectful dialogue where both sides are being heard.



I think in many ways itís natural not to be 100 per cent consistent in oneís opinions, and Iím not sure why thatís expected. Itís reasonable to aim not to be too self-contradictory, but people are not machines and opinions are impacted by emotions and context, and therefore change.

I love everything that Lynch does, but I find Eraserhead pretty revolting, does that means Iím contradicting myself? I think itís unreasonable to expect peopleís opinions on different things to fall in a neat, ordered line and all tie in with each other.

That example is not contradictory. Liking Lynch does not imply you like everything he does. And, yes, no one is 100 percent pure from contradicting themself.


There are contradictions that are blatant hypocrisies though. Saying repeatedly it is wrong to ever hate a movie, days after creating a thread about how they hate Blue Velvet and everyone who likes it is lying to themselves because he hates it, is blatant hypocrisy. Then refusing to acknowledge it time and time again, shows someone is deliberately being disingenuous.


To call Michael Bay a hack, then a couple of posts later, claim he has never called anyone a hack, then get back to calling them hacks again within a couple more posts, is either transparent trolling, or someone who keeps absolutely no track of what they are even saying.
I'm pretty comfortable calling someone out who does this repeatedly. Especially when they keep insinuating others are stupid and obviously wrong if they don't agree with them. It's obnoxious. And annoying.



Especially when they keep insinuating others are stupid and obviously wrong if they don't agree with them. It's obnoxious. And annoying.
Michael Bay is clearly a hack.

I would never call any director a hack though.

But Snyder and Bay are 100% hacks, based on their directing and critical reviews, lol

Read the sacred reviews to see who is unbiased and fair versus just being a hater

Someone merely uttering the term "hack" means they're a hater, lol

HMMMM...



I mean, a competent director.

Of course, quality of a film is objective. And I have changed my opinion in Lynch since months; heís great.

Mulholland drive is in my top 10.



Quality of a film is objective.

And I have changed my opinion on a filmmaker