Do You Put Much Stock In What Movie Critics Have To Say About Movies?

Tools    





I hope this is the correct section to post this. I tried to post it in the GD but it wouldn't allow me.

Myself, I've never really paid much attention to their words. Just because they may or may not like a given movie doesn't matter much to me.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
I used to watch Siskel & Ebert's "At the Movies" every week, but it was more out of curiosity about the movies, and their opinions on the movies, not whether or not I should see the movies. I liked the way they showed enough of the movie to get a feel for what the movie was about, without giving away any spoilers.

But overall, I don't place much stock in most reviews unless I read an overwhelming amount of either good or bad reviews for a movie. It won't make my decision about whether or not to watch a movie, but it will give me an idea of what to expect from that movie.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



I place stock in people who know what they are saying and say it well. Whether they are a published critic or not. Otherwise, no, I couldn't care less. Bad opinions and bad justifications for those bad opinions are brain corrosives.



Good criticism should make you see the film in a different light. It shouldn't necessarily convince you in agreeing with their verdict of whether it is good or bad. But it should make you think.


Just ****ing think.



I guess not as I prefer to read/see as little as I can about any movie I've not yet seen and those that I have seen I prefer to read comments from people on here.
__________________

terrible, 0/5, not enough puppies.



Victim of The Night
Depends on the critic. With any opinion, which is all film criticism is, you have to consider the source.
I try to vet any critic I read by finding out what their credentials are and getting a sense of what they have rated positively and negatively in the past, as well as paying attention to what points they make and how they make them. It's not that hard to tell, in many cases, when a critic is really writing for themselves instead of honestly discussing the film for the benefit of others.
Usually I feel good about Roger Ebert's site (or Roger Ebert himself if it's an older film), the New York Times, and, perhaps most importantly, the opinion of a fairly large handful of posters here. The fact is, some of the best write-ups I read about any given movie are posted here by fellow forumites.



I place stock in people who know what they are saying and say it well. Whether they are a published critic or not. Otherwise, no, I couldn't care less. Bad opinions and bad justifications for those bad opinions are brain corrosives.



Good criticism should make you see the film in a different light. It shouldn't necessarily convince you in agreeing with their verdict of whether it is good or bad. But it should make you think.


Just ****ing think.
This.

I stopped reading professional critics regularly (mostly because I donít see that many new releases these days), but when I did, I would lean towards those who were good at giving me a sense of what the film was like and could articulate their thoughts well (or were just good writers). I never really followed critics based on how much I agreed with them.



I'll seek out reviews and ask questions in places like here if my opinion of a movie differs wildly from the consensus, to know why people hate something I love or love something I hate, but otherwise I don't care at all.



The Force is Favreau
I put a lot of stock in what some critics say, even if I disagree with them. We are all critics here and I have watched some movies because some of you have insisted that some movies are worth watching and since I have to trust some of your opinions, this has led me to give some films a chance that I wouldn't have considered otherwise. That's a good thing.



Likewise, with "pro" critics, I have profited by coming to know certain voices out there, because they allow me to make a better bet about which films will be worth my time. I out enough stock in what some critics have said to wait for some films to come out on video or streaming or passing up entirely and to rush out to theaters in other cases. I put enough stock in some opinions to form a presumption which guides my behavior ($$$).



If I didn't believe in conversation, I wouldn't be here.



I don't actually wear pants.
Not really. My tastes are eclectic and don't typically align with the populace, so I just watch whatever strikes my fancy. I hate the Godfather films, but I love Godzilla, yet the former is praised way more than the latter, and that's just one example.
__________________
I'm back, and this is my front. I left, but that's my right.
Thanks again, Mr Portridge.



I have my own method, not saying itís a good one, but it works for me as I donít have a ton of time to plow through myriad reviews.

If The New York Times says itís a good movie, thatís good enough for me even though theyíve led me down the wrong path many times.

At the The New Yorker magazine I like their resident movie critic better than anyone at the Times. If he says itís a good movie, it mostly is.
__________________
Iím here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. Thatís why Iím here now.



I watch a lot of older TCM flicks that I'm unfamiliar with and my channel guide usually includes a Tomatometer rating. So if there's something with a 100% rating that usually leads to me to DVR it and give it a chance. I've found some surprisingly worthy films this way. Films I likely would have otherwise passed right over.



Yes and no. The ones I attend to are pros and probably see more movies than I do. I'm an amateur and see a lot of movies. I take critics views as input, like my neighbor down the block who also is an amateur, look at why they like or dislike a movie and put it into my mental calculus on movie night. I've read enough of my local critics to know that this one never likes horror movies and that one only likes long talky movies. It's all just part of my mental calculus that often ends up when we decide what theater to go to and pick on that's showing there. The movie choice can be as much about good Chinese food on the block where the theater is as it is about the movie.



Nope. If I want to see a movie I'm going to watch it no matter what a critic thinks of it. It depends on the critic but sometimes if a critic gives a movie a one star review that means I'm definitely going to watch it. On the other hand, a critic or review can make me more interested in a movie I otherwise would have had no interest in watching.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Only if I'm picking a movie on Comcast. There's so many, so I might arrange them with "Critic's Choice" (by %) on top, but after a movie, I prefer reading populist criticism, "User Critic" on an IMDB movie page, for example. I never look at Professional Critics stuff on there, unless it's the only one, which has only happened once or twice.



If there are five movies to choose from, and I see one on IMDB with over 1,000 votes with a 5.7, I probably won't watch that first.



Typically, movie critics have certain biases in their taste that make their opinion regarding which movies are very good/great to be rather problematic. But they can help to differentiate between a 4/10 movie and a 7/10 movie. I don't think they are very useful to separate the movies I would like the most from the movies I think are good but not great.



I've found my tastes align with Mark Kermode 99%, so I tend to avoid films he dislikes.