After watching a movie I have a weird habit of wanting to see what the average review for it was, so I usually check Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and I have noticed that movies I like and enjoy are usually rated rather low. I just finished Law Abiding Citizen, I thought it was very good and had a good time watching it my friend also recommended it for a long time before I saw it and all of them said they liked it, but after checking both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic I saw they rated at 25%(RT) and 4.4/10(MC). I have also noticed this with a few other movies that I have liked recently, Book of Eli being the most recent, I have also noticed that movie bob is almost useless to help pick out movies as well. So what I wanted to ask is does anyone else feel movie critics are not a useful tool in trying to decide if movies are good or not?
Poll: Are movie critics out of touch with what people want to see?
- Thread starter Cody211282
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I thought S.W.A.T. and the Assault on Precint 13 remake were a lot better than folks game them credit for. SWAT in particular is a mindless summer movie, but at the same time the action is a lot "smarter" than the sort of Michael Bay garbage we get nowadays.
I don't pay attention to movie critics - they are, after all, just people with their own opinions.
Movie critics are generally just average people with their own opinions, but are usually so jaded that they can't enjoy a film if it's just "entertaining". I don't really listen to reviews of movies because I usually know what I'll like or not, and if I'm wrong, it's not a huge monetary decision or anything, so no big deal.
That might be very true, but they are also out of touch with what my friend and family want to see as well to the point that I don't know one person who still cares what they say, and from twhat I can tell that means they sorta fail at their jobs.fluffybacon said:
Never saw Assault on Precint 13 but SWAT was ok for a mindless action movie, and I do have to say mindless action is more fun to watch then "artsy" movies most critics like nowadays, also the only 2 movies from Bay I thought were any good were The Rock and Armageddon, damn they are fun to watch.Samurai Goomba said:
I think they're out of touch, but the so called "movie critic" in my town is a 35 year old mother of 2...she basically praises everything Disney...also I was never fond of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes...just could never put my finger on it though.
There are a few who's taste tends to be just like mine: James Berardinelli and Roger Ebert. Ebert will give a movie a good review if it is dumb but fun to watch (The Core being an example). I like to watch a challenging movie from time to time as well as a film that's just dumb fun. I appreciate critics who let us know when a movie is just all dumb and no fun (Transformers).
There are a lot of movies that didn't get much press (or a wide release. Almost no movie that gets only a limited release plays in any theater in my entire state), so I wouldn't have known about them other than through critical praise (Slumdog Millionaire, The Hurt Locker, 21 Grams )
There are a lot of movies that didn't get much press (or a wide release. Almost no movie that gets only a limited release plays in any theater in my entire state), so I wouldn't have known about them other than through critical praise (Slumdog Millionaire, The Hurt Locker, 21 Grams )
They are really the only people in the global public who's opinion matter to me, I could go out and poll random people next to the theater if you like but I thought this would be easier to see if people felt the same way I did, and it seems so far they dofluffybacon said:
the reason that they are out of touch is because they have a very artsy view towards films while many go to see something blow up or get kicked in the balls
i enjoy many movies that seem to get poor ratings because of slapstick humor like that, but i seem to allign a lot with critics
movies however are an art form, thus they are subjective so no one can tell you something is bad or good, no one except me
i enjoy many movies that seem to get poor ratings because of slapstick humor like that, but i seem to allign a lot with critics
movies however are an art form, thus they are subjective so no one can tell you something is bad or good, no one except me
No, the movie critics aren't out of touch with what people want to see. They just see so much of it, that they're bored to tears with what the people want to see. I don't know if there is an original movie idea out there anymore, but if there is, for every one that comes about, there are 100 that fit a mold. Some fit the mold better than others. People want to see the same type of stories over and over. We pay our cash, go in and see a movie that fits our idea of a good movie and come out pleased. However, the critics must sit through hundreds of these things. Yes, they get paid to do it, but it also builds up callouses to what they're seeing. So, when something that is unusual comes along, it stands out to them as interesting or good because it is actually different from the last 99 samey movies they've seen. This also means that it's usually not something that the general public will embrace as a great movie. So, I think the honest critics try to remember what it is that the public enjoys and review accordingly, while always looking out for that thing that will catch his and her attention and remind them of why they are watching all of these movies.
Generally, yes. Although most critics don't have a name for themselves because they fail to recognize key elements to why a film deserves praise or a swift kick to the groin. I feel like they mostly agree with each other.
A movie like "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" for example is a movie generally unloved by some, but is a cult classic by others. Some streamline the movie as "homosexual, erotic, satanic, disgusting." Others view it as "art, musical treasure, fun."
It's all an interpretation of one's view. The "Eye of the Beholder."
A movie like "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" for example is a movie generally unloved by some, but is a cult classic by others. Some streamline the movie as "homosexual, erotic, satanic, disgusting." Others view it as "art, musical treasure, fun."
It's all an interpretation of one's view. The "Eye of the Beholder."
what that I don't care or that people are mostly agreeing with me, because the poll says they are at 13 yes to 6 no at the moment, but I'm a bit lost at what your saying you don't believefluffybacon said:
Critics of just about anything have probably been so exposed to the medium they're reviewing, having to go through it time and again every day, that I could really see where the "jadedness" is coming from. I read a really good piece at another gaming website that takes this subject on with game critics, how they end up having to play so many games that eventually there ends up being very few they actually like, because it just becomes so much of a chore for them to actually play through them all. I could see the same thing coming from movie critics. With critics of things like movies and food, it's likely that higher education comes into play. They've gone to school for film, cooking school, etc, and that tends to drastically change the outlook that the critics have when it comes to the medium. A movie critic may see something in a performance or camera shot that they appreciate for its artistic value or difficulty that we members of the movie-viewing public will probably not understand. So I could see how they would like more "artsy" movies more than the commercial blockbusters. But in the process, they don't remember the fact that we don't have the same level of knowledge and education about cinema as an art form that they do, and often if they do remember that fact, many tend to put themselves above us "common" movie-going folk and get all snooty about it. To me, that's the point when the newspaper, magazine, website or whatever needs to hire a new reviewer. A good writer needs to take into account the audience they're writing for. I think game reviewers in general do a pretty good job at this, but movie reviewers could do so much better. MovieBob, IMO, is actually one of the best reviewers I know of in this aspect. He remembers that we're gamers (being one himself) and he writes reviews taking into account what movies he thinks gamers enjoy, as well as his own opinion as a reviewer and a person knowledgeable about movies. Movie reviewers in newspapers and magazines tend to forget this, I think, and only write from their own opinion, which has been bent by the sheer number of movies they've seen, and by a much higher education than the average reader. The reviews then tend to be full of information that's not really helpful at all to the average reader when deciding whether they'll like the movie themselves.
Well it's hard to be objective when reviewing a piece of art, such as a movie. But when they tell what they think, they're just giving their honest opinion. And your best bet is to find a critic who likes what you like. Checking an amalgam of critics, like rotten tomato your not going to get what you like exactly. What's Great about critics like moviebob, is that they just say, look this is the shit I like in movies, this is what I don't like. If you see that and go he's wrong, you can't rely on his reviews, if you agree, you'll probably like what they have to say.
I agree that good original movies are extremely hard to come by, last one I saw was probably Moon, but what I have noticed in most critics are that they tend to hate something even if its good just because something like it has been done before.Mythbhavd said: