My biggest pet peeve with critics

[JonathanLB]

I cannot stand to read something like this: "so and so film really sucked, but I loved it anyway! Sure, the dialogue sucks, the acting is horrible, the plot is lousy, but it's a great time anyway!"

You know, why doesn't the critic just say what they really mean: "I am a spineless individual who follows the masses." Why do I say that? Easy. Because the only reason you would EVER criticize a movie you enjoyed is because other people didn't like it and you don't want to be thought an idiot.

I loved The Skulls (2000). I think it was a very good movie. It was quality entertainment. Yes, it was a teen flick, but like Final Destination (also 2000), it rocked (but FD is 4-stars good, Skulls is more like strong 3 or 3.5). I just read some review where a guy says how bad the film is, but how much he loves it. That makes no sense at all and only a total moron would say something like that.

If a film is bad, it means it is not enjoyable. Bad. Not good. Goodness being a quality that defines a film as fun to watch or artistic, etc.

If I see a film that everyone else hated, like Waterworld for instance, and I end up loving it, that's not my problem. It's the problem of everyone else who saw it and didn't realize it was a great film. They just watched a fantastic movie and didn't even realize it, which is really not my loss. I gave Waterworld four stars and I don't have to say, "It's a bad movie but I enjoyed it." I say it is a great film and I explain why it is a great film.

It's the same with a movie that everyone likes supposedly, like E.T. It's not like I'm going to say, "Well E.T. is a great movie, but I don't like it." Uhh, then it isn't a great movie (quality is an opinion anyway as far as movies go; I actually know someone who LIKED 3000 Miles to Graceland and he's a really big movie buff! lol).

Anyway, the subject comes up because I saw The Skulls II and it DOES really suck. It's horrible. I couldn't find many reviews of it online, but anyway, the dialogue is some of the worst I have ever heard.

I doubt the critics who saw it who wrote reviews even watched it. I saw a few where they wrote a paragraph like, "The acting is decent for the teen stars and the dialogue is ok." No it isn't!!!!!!!!!!!!! The dialogue has more cliches than Bill Gates has dollars. It's terrible. It's one of the most poorly written screenplays I have ever seen. The acting was atrocious too, but not as bad as Crossroads.

What do you expect for a straight-to-video movie anyway.

In summary, don't be a spineless follower of the masses like that oen guy. If you like a film, say it was good because you know you thought so. If it was bad, say it sucked and say why, doesn't matter what anyone else thinks of what you think. That's their damn problem. Your opinion is just as valid as theirs.

[ReaperFett]

I sortof agree. One of our reviewers said of The One something along the lines of "It's pap, but enjoyable pap", and I do get what he could mean

[Marcus Telcontar]

Wrong Jonathon

A Knight's Tale I saw tonight. It is rancid, fetid, awful cliched and a good deal of fun to watch. And why? It's got a good bit of violence, it's funny in places, its watchable - BUT IT IS A BAD BAD MOVIE. But it's mindless fun. So, I think it's terrible. And I enjoyed it. What, you dont understand that? You dont think it's possible? I would give A Knights Tale 1 star out of 4 as a movie. As entertainment, well, 3 out of 4.

Listen, Citizen Kane is the best film I have watched. But I dont like it. THAT probably gives my view one hell of a lot of credence because I can acknowledge honestly Citizen Kane is one of the greats. So it's not my type of movie. Does it make it any less? NO, it just means it's not my kind of movie.

I saw quite a few LOTR reviews that said LOTR was not a movie type they liked. But they still understood just how good it was. That means the reviewer is being honest and doing what they should - setting aside their likes and dislikes and reviewing the movie fairly. If I rated moives based on my likes, you would all be bored s***less. I love car movies. But what I like does not make it a good movie!

[JMK]

Kind of like what I thought of Blade 2! ;)

[CMJ]

I must say I disagree with you too Jonathan. Sometimes I just like "bad" movies. It's called a guilty pleasure.....

[JonathanLB]

Films are for enjoyment, so if you think a film is fun, good entertainment then it's 3 stars. Not a bad movie. Make a scale with 100 points. Assign each aspect of a film from acting, to dialogue, to plot and visuals, etc. different point values. Then rate each of them. Decide before hand what ratings qualify for what star ratings, then do that for any movie and you should get what a film deserves.

Like with Blair Witch Project, for instance, if you do that the only way you can possibly call it a good movie is if you assigned 100 points to concept and 0 to everything else, then you can give its concept a 95 or so and call it a great film. But in reality, you have to give it a 0 for music, next to a 0 for acting, a 0 for dialogue, very low for visuals, and if you rate it objectively like that (which is the reasonable way to review anything), you're going to come up with its true quality.

You cannot say a movie is poor in every respect but enjoyable, therefore it's good, or therefore it's bad. Your views need to be consistent. If the film is bad, then it gets a bad rating. There is only one rating of any film from one person.

How much do you think a critic would confuse someone by saying, "Well the film is 1 star, but as entertainment I give it 3 stars." That literally makes no sense. What it means is the critic just didn't think through his opinion of the movie carefully enough.

As for what you said CMJ, you just used another phrase I hate, "guilty pleasure," ugg what an annoying phrase. Makes me want to bang my head against the wall for some reason. I guess because I wouldn't feel guilty about anything I thought was "pleasure." To Jolie's question in Original Sin, "Do you believe pleasure can ever be sinful?" No. I don't. lol.

Godzilla 2000 was a horrible movie that deserved 0 stars, and that is exactly what I gave it, DESPITE liking it more than many 2.5 star films I have seen. So why did it get 0 stars? Because it was a horrible film, and no I didn't actually enjoy it, but I did enjoy laughing at it and I'd almost rather a film be insanely awful than just poor. Poor films are not any fun. Really horrid films that are laughable awful are much more enjoyable. But that doesn't change their ratings.

Anyway, A Knight's Tale was quite a good film. I thought it was fresh and quite well done, a nice plot, very good entertainment especially for a spring blockbuster. I bought it used for about $9 and it is worth that much easily. I forget whether I'd give it 3 or 3.5 stars, so I'd have to see it again, but I think it was quite good. Even very good.

As for Citizen Kane, well if I don't like the film then clearly I will give it a bad rating. You can appreciate a movie's style while at the same time not like the film and give it a poor rating. You just can't be schitzo about a film, plain and simple. That won't get you anywhere with reviewing at least.

I suppose if nobody else asks your opinion it is fine, but when hundreds of people see your reviews and you send a mixed message as to whether the film is good or bad, it's very poor writing and reviewing indeed. Just exactly the type of review I hate.

I assume many people must agree with the way that I review movies... I hope so anyway. At least the poll on my site asking whether my reviews are better, equal, or worse than most critics yielded 29 out of 32 saying better, 2 saying equal, 1 saying worse. I think the manner in which many critics review is just, well, it leaves a lot to be desired let's put it that way.

If a critic liked a film, I don't want to hear it is a bad movie but "I loved it." If the person loved it then there must be obvious reasons for that. If you can't explain them, YOU CANNOT COMMUNICATE, i.e. get out of the reviewing profession because this is for real writers (this is how I feel about a lot of critics; they can't write at all). Sometimes I feel lazy about a review too, where I don't quite know what to say about how I felt about a film, but then I remind myself, "Come on, you're a professional, it's not good enough just to make general comments, think of exact reasons why this film is sub-par and what could have made it better." Whenever I can, I will even suggest exactly what I would have done to improve the film. Of course, my suggestions only mean if I were a director, here is what I would do with it, so of course they wouldn't actually make the movie "better" as a matter of "fact," but in my opinion said changes would have been better and would have, at least, earned a better review. I admit it is definitely back-seat driving, but I've seen enough films to comment on what I think would make for a better film. Doesn't mean I'm write, but it's just something to consider for readers perhaps and some people may agree, others may think I'm full of it. :) That's the beauty of film. It is an art form.

[Charley]

I totally dig the skulls. Cool movie.

I also disagree with you Jon. The critics gauge film as an art form. Not necessarily for its entertainment value. There is an entirely different medium and set of standards to follow.

What gets me is when everything MUST be innovative to be critically acclaimed. I don't agree with that. There are lots of archetypes and thematic templates that movies naturally gravitate to. Just because a movie falls into one, doesn't make it of low artistic quality. Gladiator, for instance, had practically zero innovation at all. But for its paradigm, it executed its parts nearly perfectly. A beautiful epic sword & sandal movie.

That would be my only gripe with critics. They're always looking for the black and white movie made by Berkeley grads about lesbian cowboys who eat pudding and explore their sexuality in a series of silent vaudeville acts.

[Jedieb]

That would be my only gripe with critics. They're always looking for the black and white movie made by Berkeley grads about lesbian cowboys who eat pudding and explore their sexuality in a series of silent vaudeville acts.

:lol That was simply hysterical. But I disagree with you on your "innovation" statement. How many times do critics rave over a low budget art house movie? What's innovative about a thoughful drama exploring some horrific family tragedy, government injustice, etc.?

Look, we're talking about critics as if they're some uber-sect. WE'RE ALL CRITICS! How many times do WE trash or rave about films? The big difference is some critics get published on paper, we don't. If we can hate and love movies, then why can't critics? I also find it funny how some people can love certain critics right up until that particular critics trashes a movie THEY like, then the critic is an idiot. So they're basically setting themselves up to be ridiculed by everyone who loves a movie they hate, as if they've got the exclusive barometer on what's good and what sucks. Which is ironic, because that's one of the things they hate about critics in the first place!

[Doc Milo]

Jon, according to this philosophy you're espousing, then every person who came to this board claiming "TPM sucks" and giving their opinions on why they thought it sucked is absolutely correct -- and you have no right to criticize their opinion on it. You have no right to call them a moron based on your particular opinion of that movie.

Most people here would say that American Beauty is a great film. I hated it. But I can see where people thought it was good. As a film it was very well done, directed, acted, written. But I still hated it. I know many people who acknowledge that "Manos: The Hands of Fate" is a horrible movie. But they get enjoyment out of it. There are plenty of "bad" movies that I enjoy watching. I know they are bad, from the acting to the writing, but there is some ... charm, I guess ... about them that makes watching such crap bearable, even enjoyable.

The thing is, there are things that make movies objectively good or objectively bad. But whether or not someone enjoyed a film is totally subjective. So, while a movie can be objectively bad, meaning it failed in those criteria that can be measured objectively, it can still be enjoyable on a whole other level, and thus you get the conflicting "It was a bad movie, but I enjoyed it" type critique.

[JMK]

People put far too much stock in critic's reviews. Some people get paid to give their opinions on movies, but most don't. Jedieb is right, we're all critics, and we have only opinions. The only thing in movie land that is fact-based is B.O. performance. As long as there's no conspiracies in said numbers...o_O

[Jedieb]

JMK, you said conspiracy and B.O. in the same sentence! FOR THE LOVE OF YODA STOP! HE'LL HEAR YOU AND RETURN FROM THE DEAD!!!

[Figrin D'an]

Well said, Jedieb. :)

I know this is a major stereotype, but I find that film critics, in general, fall into two categories:

1) The "Gushers" - They love everything that is big, spectacular and grandeous about Hollywood. Make something epic, or with a lot of big names, and they'll likely wet themselves with glee... occasionally, they'll rave about a smaller indendent film, but only after it's become clear that big budget Hollywood likes said film themselves. In this respect, they are very much in the role of the lemming. They tend to follow trends and established popularity rather than think for themselves.

2) The "Pessimists" - They are quite the opposite of the gushers. They hate everything that big budget film-making represents, and as such, only like smaller or independant films. Even if a "Hollywood" film really is good, and deserving the praise it receives from the masses, they will still insist that the film "represents the materialistic and narcisist ways of Hollywood," and is therefore crap in every conceivable way. The tend to be quite snobbish as well, believing that the average movie-goer is a complete moron, wouldn't know a good film from a typical porno-flick, and therefore should be written off completely as a viable source of opinion.




As you can probably guess... I don't think much of film critics, especially those that turn it into a full-time job... :)

[CMJ]

LOL Jedieb...you're right. I was just discussing that "individual" the other day. I'm sure he's out there lying in wait. ;)

[Figrin D'an]

If that said "individual" does pop up around here again, he might be in for rude awakening, consider some you that he was always arguing with are now part of the board administration... ;)

[CMJ]

I banned said "individual" at least once...and yet he found as way to come back. It's like he was the undead...you couldn't kill the guy. ;)

[Doc Milo]

That individual is Jedi3167 right?

Just want to know because I heard if you say Jedi3167 three times, he comes back to life, like Candyman.

Therefore I'll only say Jed -- oops. Almost brought him back!

[CMJ]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO don't say his name! ;) I'm tempted to delete your post Doc...I know he's out there. :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I wonder if Jedieb had a heart attack over that statement.
As far as Critics, Figrin I am not sure if all fit into either category, Roger Ebert comes to mind, he will like independent films (In the Bedroom) and like big budget Movies (he gave HP 4 stars, TPM 3 1/2 and LOTR 3 all those are good reviews) Unfortuntely I think he is an exception and not the rule, I also think Leonard Maltin is another good critic, though I think of him more as a film historian than anything else.

[CMJ]

It's amazing..I've been a memeber of this community for about 3 years. In that time...the *cough* guy Doc mentioned was around a grand total of 4 months off and on...and yet he's remained burned in all of our collective memories. :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

Most of the other trolls have been forgotten yet we remember him, I guess its because of he sounded like a deranged Lunatic with all of his conspriacy talk.

[Figrin D'an]

Yeah, I know that not all critics fit into the those two categories... there are always exceptions. That comment was more or less made in a sarcastic humor manner.

For the most part, Roger Ebert isn't too bad. And Leonard Maltin is a good one, too. Those two, however, have the benefit of being so well recognized that they can pretty much say whatever they are actually thinking and no one will think twice about it. Most other critics either kiss some serious booty to be accepted, or they spurn Hollywood completely because it's the "cultured" thing to do...

[JMK]

MWA HAHAHAHA :wings
I love causing a ruckus!

[Marcus Telcontar]

Anyone mention that loony's name again, I'll pan them

:p