Critics Changing Movie History

Either helping or hurting... I haven't read much criticism, but I remember reading Pauline Kael's enthusiastic review of Nashville, which hadn't even come out yet. This was a book reviewing a review, and mentioned that although Kael had got too close with Altman, that it helped a movie that might have never received any popularity.

Starship Troopers...

Did it help or hurt it?

Probably hard to say. Often bad press, equals good box office sales.

I remember watching it over a friend's house (extreme right-winger) but after 20 minutes, we both thought "Let's go do something else"..


I think a bad movie is helped by bad press.. And there's some who'll purposely watch or miss something because of politics (ala Roseanne/The Conners)

The best way for a film critic to change movie history is to become a director himself! Many did, including the majority of Cahiers du cinema guys, Monteiro, Bogdanovich etc.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

She makes a great point in the beginning, how some great directors' reputation/respectability can go make awful movies, but critics will say how great they are.. She mentions being on a show, and being chastised by the host after saying "Last Tango In Paris" was a great movie. During the break, the host said, "I actually love it, but..."



"When American movies are in a rut, American audiences will accept mediocre movies".


Also loved the context (this interview was done in 1984) of "The Perfect Reagan Movie"



I'll see you see the rest.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition