USA Today article on critics vs. moviegoers (linked from TFN)

[JonathanLB]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-01-15-medved_x.htm

I think this article has a lot of good points. It is absolutely correct that critical opinions have, somewhere along the line, diverged incredibly from popular opinion. It is a very disturbing trend, in my opinion, and one that I work to thwart in my reviews at least. I think online film critics can help tone down the (basically) perversity of mainstream critics in selecting odd films that not nobody has seen and that are not even that great of movies.

Last year for me pretty much ruined my opinion of all film criticism, but it has been restored somewhat this year. Last year, I hated every film nominated for an Oscar almost. I liked LOTR, Memento, and Iris somewhat, but that was about it. Gosford Park sucked HARD, Mulholland Drive was trash in my opinion (I would have liked the ABC 6 hour series, but the editing on that film was wretched), Monster's Ball was less than mediocre, Amelie was boring and trite, In the Bedroom was unbearably awful, and I am sure I left a few off that I would rather not remember. As for A Beautiful Mind, well, I'm not that easily impressed. I think it was very average and if that type of film impressed me, I wouldn't have very high standards, IMO.

Yet why is it, then, that throughout history the best picture winners have been so far superior? When you look through the AFI list, which is what I have done over the last year, you see (almost) all 3.5 to 4 star films, mostly the latter group. The films that used to receive critical acclaim truly were great movies, but now they are very often movies that nobody has seen and that nobody will see even with their acclaim. There should not be such a difference between what audiences like and critics like, otherwise it actually destroys the job that critics are paid to do, which is tell audiences what is worth their money to see.

I would argue that the idea of film critics as "superior" to the rest of moviegoers is a trend that must have originated just after the Golden Age of Hollywood. I think that in the earlier days, everyone saw every significant film and the studio system had a stronger grip on films, therefore critics did not set themselves apart to such a degree. They didn't probably believe they were so far superior to audiences because they knew audiences were mostly watching the same movies they were, or at least many people were. Now, today, you get critics who have seen thousands of movies and see all of these small films that open in 5 theaters in the U.S. and that makes them BETTER qualified to review any film and it also makes their opinions more valuable. Or at least, that is what they'd have you believe. I think that a more well versed moviegoer or critic certainly can say their opinions are "more informed," but that doesn't make them better.

I sent an e-mail to a critic the other day who said he walked out on Resident Evil after it was half over because it was SO BAD, yet I watched it 3 times and absolutely loved it as one of the better B movies I've seen lately. I obviously didn't give it 4 stars, but I had a lot of fun and enjoyed it. He even tried to defend actually walking out on a movie, which I think is a cowardly act entirely unfit for a film critic, who is supposed to judge a movie objectively as much as is humanly possible, and you can't very well do that if you don't see it now can you? So he immediately invoked the argument, in his e-mail back to me, that even though I have seen as many (more?) films in 2002 as him (he missed a lot of the "bad" ones, he said), my opinion is probably less valid than his because, "Have you seen a lot of movies from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, etc?" Actually, yes, I have seen quite enough to be an educated moviegoer, thank you very much. But I told him that I admit I have what I consider a lesser understanding of film than I want, of course. I mean it's obvious to me that I have hundreds of movies left to see before I can say that I really am well versed in all eras of film, but I only found it interesting that he defended his opinion immediately with the idea that my lack of knowledge of past film must have somehow tainted my opinion of movies this year. I don't think that's a very good argument, personally. I think it's a copout.

Nonetheless, when I hear something like that, it makes me even more determined in my quest for film knowledge. One day, I'll get an e-mail like that and say, "Have you seen my site? There are 2,500 reviews there from all eras of film -- I doubt you've seen as many movies as me, and furthermore, I doubt you know half as much as I do about film." That will definitely be the day, but until then, I still stick to my argument that it's a copout to dismiss someone else's opinion just because they haven't seen every movie ever made, lol. I still remember an early motivation for me in learning about film was that I wanted my opinion of the Star Wars films to mean more, which I feel would be true if I have a vast knowledge of the subject. Then again, the more I learn, the more I realize that my opinions of the SW films will never change to the negative from learning more. If anything, I will only learn to appreciate them more, which is true so far at least. It's not like I see movies on the AFI top 100 list and think, "Wow yeah this is better than Star Wars." There's just no way. I've not seen one film on that list to challenge the SW films, except perhaps Citizen Kane, and it doesn't come close for me, but it made my all-time top 20 or so. I'd rank it highly.

I guess I would just argue that in many cases, if you love a movie, then you start learning more about film and watching more movies, your opinion of said movie is NOT going to go down, but up, generally speaking. At least, that's my experience. It is absolutely true of films of great importance, too, like Citizen Kane or The Maltese Falcon, where you think, "Wow The Maltese Falcon was the first film noir, that is so cool," which then makes you appreciate it more every time you see another film noir that borrows similar elements.

[Ishiva Ruell]

Interesting article and very thoughtful post, Jonathan! For a movie critic it would seem imperative to watch a movie's entirety beforing offering his/her review and opinion. In the article, it is obvious the moviegoer has contrary tastes to the movie 'critic'. Personally I have found the critics to be both right on and rather wrongly biased because a film failed to meet certain personal 'standards' or 'criterias'. I really enjoyed RE, it was very entertaining movie. No oscar effort mind you neither conceptually ground breaking. But it was one of the most enjoyable films of last year nonetheless. I will post more. Tired and need sleep. Excellent post Jon! ;)

[Oriadin]

Cant remember if it was you that said it Jonathan or the article but there was a part that mentioned that film reviews seemed to be concentraitingon films as if its art.

Last year made me sick to the back teath of critics and its rare I'll even read a review on a film now. So many films that I liked got slated by movie critics and so many films I hated got praise. I felt that if I didnt like what I was reading, I would simply stop reading it.

Monsters Ball was the perfect example for me. Almost every review I read gave it praise and hinted at it for oscars and in the end it didnt do to badly at the awards. So, I thought id go and see it. What with the write ups and the cast I thought it MUST be good. I thought it was crap. It really was a snooze fest. There were so many times no one on the screen was even talking. There was probably ony about 30mins of dialogue and it was just tripe. I thought the acting was fairly good but other than that, it was rubbish. Boring!

Then, I see a film like Moulin Rouge. Full of colour and excitement. Terrific acting and music and directing. People ive spoken too who didnt like the movie could at least appreciate the work that went into the film and to NOT have Baz up for best director is a disgrace.

Why dont films like Star Wars and LOTR get the praise and acknowldgement they deserve? I get the sense that many critics do feel as if they are viewing a piece of art rather than a film and I do get the impression they think they are something special and that they think they 'know something we dont'.

What is a film there for in the end? To make money first and formost. Then to entertain people. A film tells a story that people want to hear, feel and see. They want to be part of something that normal life cant give them. Films that entertain or give you an emotional feeling are the best films. Something you watch and think, well the acting was good but the story was crap is just a waste of time and its these films the critics seem to be boasting about more and more. Hence why I just go to see everything I can and make up my own mind.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Casual observation - young, newish reviewer - tends to be more popularist

Much older film reviewer - gets jaded by watchign so much crap, sick of the industry and job, only something diffrerent really gets noticed.

But I guess the commetns in the article do stand.

I think older reviewers may not realise what'shappenign either. They just see so much, their tastes would have to change. Interesting article

[JonathanLB]

Good observations, I think, Marcus. I find that is probably true, but if possible I would hope to avoid becoming like a Kenneth Turan (I met him in real life, so no offense to him, lol) or a ... what's his name, the dude for Rolling Stone. Oh yes, Peter Travers. I think there are a few critics who are amazingly cool, IMO, like Ebert is still a cool critic. Sure, I disagree with him on AOTC, Gladiator, and Spider-Man, but then he has the guts to say he enjoyed xXx, he liked Equilibrium, and he even gives two chick flicks, Maid in Manhattan and Two Weeks Notice, 3 stars. That just proves that he has more of an audiences' sensibility to film.

"I thought it was crap. It really was a snooze fest."

Seriously, yeah I agree with that. The movie blew. My sister and I barely made it through that thing. The first 30 minutes, granted, were good, then the rest was just awful.

I have not seen Moulin Rouge entirely yet. I've seen parts of it because I own it on DVD, and from what I saw it was an amazingly well crafted film, visually speaking I mean. I only listened to a few songs, but I liked what I saw of it actually. I don't know how I'll finally judge it, but the sets and costumes alone impressed me.

Interesting point raised about film as art versus film as business. From the very beginning of cinema, film was business, never art. In fact, nobody saw it as art until at least 15 years after its inception. In 1895, the primary company in the United States delivering films was The Edison MANUFACTURING company. That is what they were called. Not the Edison Film Art Company, lol. In Europe, specifically Britain, one big company was Cecil Hepworth's Hepworth Manufacturing Company. Again, both "manufacturing" companies because that is how they saw film -- as product to drive revenue and business. The idea of film as art really probably started just after 1900, but it took at least 5-7 years before the idea even started, then I'd say the acceptance of film as art wasn't really around until even 15-20 years afterwards. That's also largely because upper class and middle class society thought of film as amusement only for stupid people and immigrants, literally. They thought people would have to be stupid to enjoy such a "base" form of entertainment. Nobody realized it would eventually appeal to people of all ages, both genders, and all social groups and classes.

Actually, to be fair, Edison did not initially think of film as commercial at all. He saw it something to advance science, medicine, and preserve history, but not as a very commercial medium. The Great Train Robbery in 1903 helped establish film as a huge commercial medium.

I just think that history is interesting because you have people, obviously people who have not studied film or have forgotten what they studied, who say that studios only release as many movies as they can for their own bottom lines. They act as though this is somehow different from the past, as though studios in the past didn't care about money, only about art. This was never true, though! Never. From the very start of cinema, it has been about money and about film "product." That is not to say that it isn't an art, because of course most directors very much feel they are doing artistic endeavors, but it is just to say that film, in some ways, has changed very little from 100 years ago. At least in terms of the purposes of the medium.

Oh, about that critic who I had sent an e-mail, the one who hated Resident Evil. He actually sent me back a really good e-mail and I responded, so we are having a great discussion actually. He seems like a cool guy. He actually apologized for making it seem like his opinions were better because he has seen more movies. Actually, he looked at my list of the AFI's Top 100 greatest movies and he said he was impressed with my reviews because he admits he hasn't even seen as many films on that list as I have reviewed! lol. I always figured when I started on that list that if I could see every movie there, I would at least have the base of a strong understanding of film. That's truly a great list. I think any wannabe filmmaker should see all of those movies, at least, just for the sake of history if nothing else. Though I certainly think that almost everything on the list is great film, or at least very good film.

[CMJ]

Intereesting discussion. I did enjoy some of the films being vilified from last year though. ;)

To be honest, I usually tend to agree with critic's more than "the people". I'm not sure if that makes me elitist or a snob...:\

[JonathanLB]

Well to be fair, I agreed with critics mostly from last year too. That's why it was a redemptive year in some ways, hehe, after the 2001 films they loved pretty much all sucked, IMO.

But this year, Adaptation, About Schmidt, Chicago, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Gangs of New York, and many others were at least very good and at best great.

[CMJ]

Well, I went about half and half on 2001 with them if you remember. ;)

[Ishiva Ruell]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Casual observation - young, newish reviewer - tends to be more popularist

Much older film reviewer - gets jaded by watchign so much crap, sick of the industry and job, only something diffrerent really gets noticed.

But I guess the commetns in the article do stand.

I think older reviewers may not realise what'shappenign either. They just see so much, their tastes would have to change. Interesting article

Yeah, not being a professional film critic I largely avoid being overwhelmed with bad movies and/or poor film-making. As with most casual movie-goers. It is rare that a good film derives from the Horror genre. At least on the surface, some can contain thought-provoking and enlightening social/political commentaries if you serious study and analyze film and it's history tho. IMHO, RE is nothing more than a film that lands itself high on the entertaining scale, rather than judging films with any preconceived systematic criterion or measurement but relish the scale of pure entertainment a film can offer. Horror, adventure, and comedy measured on this scale of quality art/film usually produce pure crap tho. It is a matter of perspective. Level of personal enjoyment vs quality film-making.

[JonathanLB]

Horror is an incredibly important genre that is often ignored in its true meaning, which is somewhat too bad. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not sitting here arguing that The Bride of Chucky has profound discussions of life, but many, many horror films, probably more so before 1970, have incredible themes in them that still are of interest to people today.

When you look at these movies, you are seeing not just what someone made as a 'scary movie,' but actually what people find scary, what makes people scared, and there is a lot to say about that. There is a lot of discussion you can have about these movies, at least some of them, especially Night of the Living Dead, for instance.

We watched Nosferatu (I loved this) the other night, the 1922 (?) German expressionist film, and we also watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, both in my Intro to Film class, but they tie into my other class, Film Horror.

"Well, I went about half and half on 2001 with them if you remember."

Yes, well I still think that if you look at our film tastes overall, I agree with you much more than I disagree. Not to mention that even my favorite critics, I only agree with about 75% of the time, and yet we agree on quite a few films that could divide other audiences, such as A.I. My friends didn't like A.I. Sean didn't like it much, or he thought the ending was horrible, my sister hated it, Ben wasn't impressed, yet I found the film to be a profound piece of work, truly a brilliant retelling of the classic Pinocchio story in a way that examines even more questions than the original classic and actually is amazingly visually stunning in addition to being a film for philosophical and ethical debate. I love that movie. It's not one of Spielberg's major works, though, and to me that's kind of sad because it is one of his better works. Perhaps history will be a kind judge to it, but we'll see. It'll be interesting 50 years from now to see what Spielberg films will make the lists of notable works from him, or what film students will study. You never know, maybe in the future people will think, "Well Jaws was a throwaway film, important as a footnote to the blockbuster, but not as artistic as Minority Report or A.I." Haha, I mean you just never know. I have read about hugely successful films and directors who simply did not hold up over time, which is kind of sad I always think.

What about Harold Lloyd? How many people have heard of Harold Lloyd? Yet how many people know who Charlie Chaplin is? That's just not right, because Lloyd was a BIGGER star than Chaplin by the 1920's, yet somehow film history has seemed to glance over him to some degree. Even Buster Keaton hasn't somehow been as popular as Chaplin, yet Keaton was the more cinematic of the two and the better regarded at least among film critics today. Most film critics, that is to say. Personally, I find great value in both, but I too must admit I'm more impressed with the way that Keaton used the camera in his humor than I am with Chaplin's work, which is often really enjoyable and funny, but did not seemingly contribute nearly as much to film history and the development of the medium.

[CMJ]

I think we tend to agree alot more than we used to. What can I say, your taste is improving. ;)

I LOVE Buster Keaton, but to be honest, I think I like Chaplin more. Speaking of which the movie "Chaplin" is quite good...

If you liked 'Nosferatu' check of 'Shadow of a Vampire'...it plays with the making of the earlier film in some funny/interesting ways.

[JonathanLB]

I have heard great things about Shadow of a Vampire! I'd like to see it.

Chaplin huh, interesting. I'd like to see that. I have about 3 books on him actually, but I have yet to read any of my film comedy books.

I think in some ways Chaplin has more personality on screen, but that fits into their two idealogies for comedy. Keaton thought that sentementality was bad in movies, Chaplin felt it was good. Yet I still think I appreciate Keaton more from a cinematic perspective. He's like the earlier Jackie Chan, so to me, I'd have to say he's a bit ahead. Nevertheless, they're both very good.

[Oriadin]

Originally posted by Ishiva Ruell
Yeah, not being a professional film critic I largely avoid being overwhelmed with bad movies and/or poor film-making. As with most casual movie-goers. It is rare that a good film derives from the Horror genre. At least on the surface, some can contain thought-provoking and enlightening social/political commentaries if you serious study and analyze film and it's history tho. IMHO, RE is nothing more than a film that lands itself high on the entertaining scale, rather than judging films with any preconceived systematic criterion or measurement but relish the scale of pure entertainment a film can offer. Horror, adventure, and comedy measured on this scale of quality art/film usually produce pure crap tho. It is a matter of perspective. Level of personal enjoyment vs quality film-making.

This is exactly what I mean. Unless a film is there to give you some sort of hint to the meaning of life or something, its no good. I actually pride myself on enjoying ALL film genres. It can be an epic, a horror, a comedy, a romantic film or anything and as long as its enjoyable I will like it. The camera angles dont have to be superbly thought out every time with a twisted and possibly obscure script. If its a comedy and its funny then its good. If its a horror and its scary then its good. If its an epic and you feel exhauseted and felt like youve been through a hell of a lot in the last 2 hours then it was good.

You'll notice that Horror films and Comedy's never get any oscars. Why? Are they bad films? Actors are no good? Directing is no good? How the hell has Jim Carry not even been nominated for an oscar yet? What with Man on the Moon and the truman show.

I really enjoyed Resident Evil and feel that it completed what it set out to do. I found it very enjoyable and a lot like the game. Yet people will rubbish it and for what reason?

Films are a form of entertainment. They can be used to tell a story or to give you a certain feeling or thought or whatever but it is still entertainment. I like films like 'Dude wheres my car' because you can sit there, have a great laugh and just forget about your hassles for an hour and a half but because its dopey, does it mean it deserves bad reviews?

[JMK]

I like films like 'Dude wheres my car' because you can sit there, have a great laugh and just forget about your hassles for an hour and a half but because its dopey, does it mean it deserves bad reviews?

Shibby does that movie make me laugh! It certainly is dopey beyond compare, but I still love it.

[Oriadin]

Exactly. Sweeeeeeeeeet, Duuuuuuude!

the bubble wrap bit is excellent and I love the bit where they try to bump the two guys over the head with the fire extinguisher

[JonathanLB]

Very well put, I totally agree with you. I think more critics need to approach movies like audiences do.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying "fun" movies even if they are dumb. I have no problems giving 3 stars to dumb movies if I can honestly say that when I was watching them, I was having fun or enjoying myself.

I think I only gave Dude, Where's My Car? 2.5 stars, but it's the best 2.5 star movie ever made, no joke, lol. I actually like that movie, despite my rating, and my friends and I have seen that movie probably 4-5 times anyway. I just think Seann William Scott is freakin' hilarious. The movie is totally dumb, but it's enjoyable still.

I personally cannot imagine someone walking out of Resident Evil. At the time I saw that movie last year, I had just sat through some of the worst bunch of movies that I had ever seen from January through part of March, then Resident Evil came along and I watched that, not knowing what it would be like, but thinking it might be kinda stupid. I sat there and about half way through I was just like, "Dang, this is why I love movies, this movie kicks butt!" Sure it wasn't thought provoking, but who cares? There are lots of movies that are thought provoking. Anyway, I never said RE is one of the best movies ever made, haha, I just thought it was really fun.

Ugg well no movies in theaters for me today :( I got really sick yesterday, sore throat, kind of a cold, everything, so I guess today it's just DVD day for me. I rented movies from 2002 I haven't seen yet, like Sunshine State, The Importance of Being Earnest, and Pumpkin. Sunshine State is surprisingly long, doh...

[JMK]

I bought RE on DVD, but I didn't quite enjoy it as much as I hoped to. I got a kick out of it, but I really wanted to love that movie. Oh well. I'll probably never watch it on my own again, unless my bro or a friend is over and wants to see it. :\

[Ishiva Ruell]

Makes me wonder if film 'critics' ever watch a movie just for the sure entertainment it offers rather than constantly dissecting and analyzing it under this scrupulous scrutiny. Do they automatically condemn movies for not being oscar material?



Ugh, running late for work, will post more later tonight! But one last thought on RE. It may not be alot of things but one thing it is a very solid horror flick of stylish cinematography. Leaps and bounds over a great majority of it's genre contemporaries. Looking forward to RE2, just hope the Tyrant subplot doesn't diminish the next film.

[JonathanLB]

RE2 will be so sweet. I love the ending of RE, it's amazing. Great pullback crane shot. :) The music is perfect, it's just one of the best endings of any 2002 film, IMO, and that goes even for more intellectual movies. It's tough to end a movie in that much style, hehe.

Well I never really intend to be a "critic" in the strict sense of the word. I suppose I definitely qualify as a critic because I watch movies, review them, and am soon to be part of the Online Film Critics Society, but I never really consider myself that. I am more like a film enthusiast because what I want to do with my knowledge, ultimately, is create, not criticize. When I am done with college, then it is on to film school, so that will shift my interest from criticism and study of film to study of the creation of films and then actually being part of the process.

For me, film criticism is a means to an end. For critics, it is the end. It's what they do all of the time and they don't apparently want to do anything else. That's ok, I mean whatever you enjoy doing that pays the bills, hehe, but for me that would be an unacceptable situation if I never added to the film industry, only criticized and studied it. The point of criticizing and studying, IMO, is ultimately to create. That's my personal philosophy, anyway. I see little point in studying English all of your life if you never contribute anything to the English language, either through magazine writing or novels or whatever else. I see little point in studying engineering in college if you're not going to be an engineer. I see little point in studying film if you're not going to make films, eventually, or write scripts, or otherwise add to what you have studied...

[Dutchy]

People who go to the movies nowadays just want to have a good time and not to much thinking. They have a drink, eat popcorn and that's it. These people, mostly teenage boys and girls, aren't much interested in movies with a heart that touch them on an emotional level. Movies that put the e in motion ( picture).

popular does not equal good

I disagree on older Best Picture winners being better than today's. I don't see much difference between Annie Hall, Ordinairy People, Terms of Endearment, Midnight Cowboy on one side, and A Beautiful Mind and American Beauty on the other, for instance.

[JonathanLB]

If you look into the past, though, you see a lot more Best Picture winners that actually were huge commercial successes, too. I think Annie Hall is great, way better than A Beautiful Mind. I haven't seen American Beauty and won't further comment until I do. I'll have to rent that sometime soon inevitably.

I'm not a huge fan of Midnight Cowboy, personally. I really liked it, actually, but I wasn't crazy about it. I gave it 3.5 stars, very good, but not exactly what I think of as a great film. Still, very close.

I'm not sure that it's fair to say, Dutchy, that audiences only want to be entertained and don't want to think. At least my friends are really interested in thought provoking films, too, but we all enjoy the occassional dumb action flick or dumb comedy, definitely. I still am very touched and impressed when I see a movie of real emotional weight, something like The Pianist or Rabbit-Proof Fence, or of course something like Schindler's List. I mean, I love watching The Transformer, Resident Evil, Blade II, or xXx, but if that's all cinema had to offer, what a shame that would be! The best films are the ones that really make me think and that mean something more to me than just 2 hours of entertainment, but I can appreciate both types of films for their differing goals. It's just a matter of what the filmmaker wants you to get out of the movie.

I would suggest to people who complain about movies like Resident Evil that they simply avoid entertainment films and see only the intellectual ones they seem to feel are "worthy." Personally, that would be too difficult for me to sit through an important, emotionally gripping, thought-provoking film every time I went to theaters. I think that would be horrible. Not only would it require 3-5 page reviews for every movie, but it also would lessen the impact of every movie. If every movie were thought-provoking and had a great message, then it wouldn't be special at all. It would just be expected. Instead, as it is now, when I see a movie like Changing Lanes the feeling I get is incredible because it's just the rare film that manages such a moral dilemma and introduces philosophical lessons into the narrative. I like to balance my film watching.

For instance, if I'm going to have a meal, then maybe Minority Report is my steak, which is to say it has the real substance and nutritional value, but then Resident Evil might be what's for dessert. Then aside from that perhaps Maid in Manhattan might be the mashed potatoes. Sure, mashed potatoes aren't bad for you, but when it comes down to it, they're just fluffy and not very filling. Still, nobody would have a dinner with just steak. You have to have the other side items too :) That's how cinema should be.

Sci-fi is my favorite genre, but I would be very annoyed if 3 sci-fi movies opened every week and nobody made movies from other genres. That would destroy the balance that should exist in film.

[Dutchy]

Jonathan, true, I meant the majority of the outgoing public doesn't want to think much. Not everybody, of course.

I'm surprised you give Midnight Cowboy 3.5 stars.

Oh, I'm pretty sure you'll hate American Beauty. :)

[JonathanLB]

Why are you surprised about my Midnight Cowboy review? Too low? Too high? I don't get it. It's a basic re-telling of Of Mice and Men, a great, classic book. I like the literary work more than I like the film version, but nonetheless.

Well I can't truly judge American Beauty until I see it.

[Marcus Telcontar]

And yet, movies like Sixth Sense are massive hits. No, I think Hollywood aint serving up enough intelligent movies and when they come along, they might not work, but now and then they most certainly do. Dont presume the public doesnt want intelligent movies, they will if they are done well enough.

Fact is, I think the mindless entertainment movies tend to be the ones that crash after the first week as the public vote with their feet and go look for somethign else better.

For an another example, Pixar make intelligent films that dont cater for the lwoest denominator and look what the payoff has been.

[JonathanLB]

But look no further than Waking Life (2001) to see that truly philosophical debate in film is not what audiences want. I personally think Waking Life is one of the best animated films ever made and one of the most thought provoking movies around, but it had a limited release and would not have appealed to most people. Even some critics said it was "pretentious" just because it was very thought-provoking. Most loved it, though.

[Oriadin]

Jonathan summed it up pretty well for me there. You need a good mix of everything really. I just find it a shame the the majority of film critics cant simply sit down and enjoy a good slapstick comedy and write a good review for it. Why do all the films they recomend have to be either arty farty, very thought provoking or twisted to the point where no one can understand it?

It would just be nice if they said, great film. Had a good laugh and time watching it but dont expect any clues to the meaning of life rather than to sit there and say is mindless, raises few laughs and the directings crap. Not all films are designed to bring new things to cinema. Some films are simply there to entertain.

Oh, and on a side note, I hated american beauty with a passion. I thought it sucked. Royally. Maybe because its supposed to be based on the American way and I didnt get it or something but I just thought it was rubbish. Great acting, poor film. IMHO. Plus the director is going out with Kate Winslet so I hate him too :p

[JonathanLB]

Well I feel like an idiot for not having seen American Beauty, but as I always say, add that to the list of like 500 movies I SHOULD have seen but haven't. :)

That leads me to a difficult dilemma I am again considering. I discussed it on this forum before. It is the idea that seeing every new release is cutting into my film knowledge, honestly. I saw 5 movies in theaters last weekend. I am seeing 5 this weekend, plus 3 I rented that are from 2002. That leaves me almost no room to make headway in my quest for classic film knowledge. That, to me, is not acceptable.

I am thinking it over, consulting with another film critic too, but I am not sure I can do this anymore and still work towards my goals. I think that I'm treading water, and not really moving to where I should be. I'm working as hard as anyone who is swimming somewhere, yet I'm swimming in place.

I understand the debates we had earlier, in which many of you said that people only care about new release reviews, but you know my review of Citizen Kane has gotten 95 clicks in three weeks. It's one of my top 20 biggest drawing phrases on the search engines. I'm just pondering the idea of perhaps cutting back on new releases to seeing only the good or significant ones, or any one that I want to see, and then pursuing my film knowledge more voraciously. I mean, right now, why do I have 7 Akira Kurosawa movies I am dying to see, Solaris (1972) on DVD, a Hayao Miyazaki film I want to see, and the Dirty Harry series, plus Tora! Tora! Tora! and How the West Was Won, all sitting next to me, unseen? The reason is because my life is dictated by new releases. I have little control over what I see anymore. It's like I can see 10 to 12 movies per week, 2 of those are in film class, so now it's down to, let's say, 9 movies. Well if 5 are new releases, now I am down to 4. So I can only choose 4 movies per week that I want to see and the rest is all decided for me. I'm sorry but that's just depressing. It's not really getting me anywhere. Am I a better film critic if I go see Kangaroo Jack? Am I going to be a better filmmaker for having seen that?

I'm just not sure anymore that this course I am on is the right one. I am getting the feeling it is dreadfully wrong to be spending days watching new releases that are not important instead of improving my film knowledge by seeing best picture winners or any other films from the past that are now significant and that have influenced other great filmmakers. Whatever the case, I would obviously always see about 50 to 75 movies per week and would make sure to see every film nominated for a major award, just as I have this year, but dang would it kill me as a critic to miss the ordinary films that take up space? I'm not so sure...

One part of me wants to do everything and be complete, see every single new release, then the other part is constantly growing even angry that when someone mentions an older film, I cannot see it because there are so many other movies to see that are new releases. I have a site with 423 reviews. More than half are from 2000 or later. I just don't know about that...

[JMK]

That leaves me almost no room to make headway in my quest for classic film knowledge. That, to me, is not acceptable.

This would be my frank advice to you: Relax. You're 21. You're not (or shouldn't be) in any rush. Rome wasn't built in a day, and you can't acquire film knowledge like practicing your abc's. It's more of a thing of film lore and that has to be absorbed over years of constant, steady exposure. It can't be forced in. Once you suck it all in, it will just come out when you get to writing your first movie. If I were studying & watching film as much as you, then sat down to write my screenplay, I would blank just like I would if I crammed for an exam the night before.
It's got to seep in slowly, not a Matrix-like upload to your brain. I said the answer in your post; you've got to reduce the @# of movies you see in the theater and devote that time saved to classics. You cannot create time, so you may as well use the 24 hour clock to your advantage and just do what you can without worrying about how much you've seen. Ambition is one thing, but I think you may be putting too much pressure on yourself to be all knowing too quickly. Take some time to smell the roses in what you're doing.

[JonathanLB]

I see your point(s). You make accurate observations. I do put a lot of pressure on myself, perhaps too much, to gain knowledge as quickly as I possibly can, but I have a fairly long time table too, well, in my opinion it is both short and long.

I enjoy what I do, that is what I will say, but I can say too that I would enjoy much more so what I do if I could just have more say in it. I feel as though I don't have much power in any given week because 30 to 35 hours goes to college, then 15 to new releases that I do not choose but simply must see, and then that leaves a bit of time left over for me, but not much.

I know, though, that if I decide to pursue my classic film knowledge that it may impede upon my immediate traffic and also you guys, as well as others, do not seem to feel it is what I should do. So it seems I will have to make an unpopular decision that I feel is right, if that is what I chose to do, I mean. I'm speaking theoretically still.

I agree about film knowledge that it must be learned over a long period of time, but that is why I have about 4 years, or 3.5, to seek and gain that knowledge. My wish to see these classic films, at the expense of some new releases, is my concession that I cannot see it all, but I have to be more selective. I am almost worried that the new releases put unnecessary stress on me just because it eliminates my sense of choice in film knowledge and rather just defines it as it is being written, so to speak. Whatever is released, that is what I see, and in four years is someone going to ask me about Kangaroo Jack or The Jazz Singer, Lawrence of Arabia, or something like that?

[JMK]

I think it's far more likely that in 4 years from now you'll be asked about Lawrence of Arabia rather than something like Kangaroo Jack or even a movie like Windtalkers or Signs. But you get my point.

[JonathanLB]

I do, exactly. That is what I am thinking and just sometimes wondering if I'm not throwing away my time on these new releases.

I mean, with my Website, although I classify as a "critic," I really just want it to serve as my place to put reviews, I don't need it to be a typical site that delivers every new release review, if that isn't what is most worth pursuing. I'm thinking ahead to when I am in film school in 4 years. I am going to regret having not seen some significant movies and instead seen Country Bears, Jason X, Kangaroo Jack, etc. But it's not too late to change that, if I switched now and cut films in the theater from about 220 to maybe 75, I could free up enough time over the next 3-4 years to get to every significant movie ever made. That is seriously within grasp. I just think I should seize that opportunity while I can, but the perfectionist in me is going to have trouble even with that because I am annoyed when I walk into a theater and know I've not seen some of the movies there, even if they suck. I'm such a completist. It's just the way I think. I should probably get over that idea, though, and focus my efforts where it seems they will make the most difference and help me learn the most.

Plus, I did the complete film critic deal for one year, I know what it is like, and I think I have proven that I can do it if I ever wanted to be a full time film critic later. *shrug*

[JMK]

Yes, you should focus on what will make the most impact, namely seeing the movies that will be important to you once you get to film school. Country Bears is not one of those movies.
I'm a completist too. This year I wanted all of McDonalds allstar hockey cards. I couldn't deal with just having 25% or 50% or even 75% of the set, I needed them all. In the end though, I got about 60% of the way because I would have to make alot of trips to McDonalds, which would kill me, literally.
In this case the cards represent the movies you want to see, where the killer burgers represent the time you have. :)

[JonathanLB]

Great! That was the best metaphor I've heard in days. :)

I understand what you mean, though.

I also do not want to risk losing my passion for film because of having to see these horrible films in theaters. I'd rather remain passionate about film through expanding my overall knowledge.

[JMK]

Well what's the point at all if you lose your passion for film?

[JonathanLB]

Very true, that would be a shame. But Kangaroo Jack could corrupt my fragile little mind! ;) South Park paraphrase, sorry, haha.

[Ishiva Ruell]

Wow, some more very thoughtful posts in this thread. Anyways, Jon, maybe you need to slow down and make more room for the classic movies. Especially if they're the subject matter of your current studies. Plus the rate you are going may cause burnout or may even diminish the impact of each movie experience. Honestly, you are young and a bright person who has an obvious love for all aspects of film but you may be overdoing it a tad much.


Originally posted by JonathanLB
RE2 will be so sweet. I love the ending of RE, it's amazing. Great pullback crane shot. :) The music is perfect, it's just one of the best endings of any 2002 film, IMO, and that goes even for more intellectual movies. It's tough to end a movie in that much style, hehe.

Yes, I am supposing the next film going to take place in the Raccoon City environ itself with Alice meeting up with other survivors. The Beltrami and Marylin Manson collaberation on the techo-melodic score is marvelous. Hope they bring them back together again.

[JediBoricua]

I told you before. To be a conosseiur in Literature you must read all the clasics of Western Civilization. To be a conosseiur in movies, you must watch what your piers and the movie industry consider clasic movies.

Frankly it all depends on what you want the most, the website or your progress as a critic/buff/conosseiur whatever. If it is the website then watch every single movie, u will surely get more hits. But since the website is a thing of now, and u surely don't plan to live off it, I say watch the classics and learn about ur medium first.

[JonathanLB]

JediBoricua has the right idea. That's what I mean. I'm not in this for the money or for the hits, I'm in it to become an educated film critic or film historian and I will only do that through watching the great films from the past, not the modern mediocre ones or poor ones.

[JMK]

That's what I meant. Also look at it this way? Are you any better of a critic for having seen Jason X, Country Bears, Crossroads, Ya-Ya Sisterfarce, or stuff that never really had a chance in the first place?

[JonathanLB]

Hehe, I very much doubt it.

I saw all 150 of the top 150 highest grossing films of 2002! lol. Plus I saw many that failed to make that list.

[JMK]

Do you feel it was necessary to see the top 150? Or could your site be just as "complete" or "attractive" by seeing maybe 100 of the top 150 and 50 extra classics?

[JonathanLB]

In retrospect I'd rather have seen about 50 of those movies plus about 10 to 15 more that were not big commercial winners, like Equilibrium, Below, those types of films.

I have no regrets, though. For one year I saw basically every movie released, which is pretty cool. Now I know what it's like to be a critic :) But perhaps it's best time to expand my classic film knowledge now because that's what is most important.

So that's what I think I am going to do. I'm sure I'll probably still see around 75 to 100 movies from 2003, but I just won't see everything.

There are more classics than some people seem to "remember" off the top of their heads. When people say, "Oh the classics aren't going anywhere, you can see them anytime," that is kind of funny to me because there are actually about 1,000 overall that I would label as important to see. Those range from silent films to foreign films to Oscar winners to films by certain directors like Billy Wilder or Hitchcock. I mean, Hitchcock alone has made about 65 movies or something, so I'd like to see 30 of them anyway. That's what I feel would qualify for sufficient knowledge of him.