Movie Reviews, good or bad? (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

And would you then start a thread to declare how worthless licorice is and knock anyone who likes it?

I agree with the "why bother?" sentiment. This thread almost feels like Bobby's crusade to insult critics and anyone who pays any attention to them...

 

[george kaplan]

My question is, if you had no reviews, how in the world would you decide what older films to watch? Now this assumes you have a viewer who's interested in watching great films of the past such as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Rear Window, The Godfather, Vertigo, Duck Soup, etc.

Without reviews, and hence lists such as the AFI 100 (which is put together by critics), how would you decide to watch those films instead of Bedtime for Bonzo, Cimarron or Monster a-Go Go?

I fully feel that one should decide for oneself whether a movie is great or not, and no amount of critical acclaim is going to get me to say anything positive about Cries & Whispers, and no amount of critical disdain will get me to not love Kiss Me, Stupid.

Critics help me decide which films to give a chance, not what to think about those films.

 

[Nathan Phillips]

"Dr. Strangelove, for example, is certainly a film that can and should be analyzed within the social context of the Cold War"

Maybe so, but I personally think that the best movies, Strangelove included, work regardless of time context. Certainly knowing the history around the movie can enhance the experience, though, so I see your point.

Anyway, like someone else said, I LOVE reading reviews -- professional and otherwise. And on movies I haven't seen, I have to rely on SOMETHING to help me judge what I'd be interested in seeing. I go by critics, what I know of the story and such, and the people involved. (Trailers/advertising don't help me; I worship Pixar and I don't think they've had a good trailer YET.) I still am frequently disappointed, but that's okay; in fact, it's great. Thing is, I'm absolutely not going to go and see "Are We There Yet?" or "The Pacifier" just to prove to myself that I won't like it. I would imagine most people -- especially here -- are the same way.

 

[Ernest Rister]

I understand your point, but I think you're missing Jack's point. Film is often a vital part of and a commentary on the times in which it's made. Dr. Strangelove, for example, is certainly a film that can and should be analyzed within the social context of the Cold War

That's not the same thing as some politicized film critic jackass reviewing Million Dollar Baby or The Two Towers from their lame "social" viewpoints. Dr. Strangelove is a specific satire about the folly of the arms race. If you need a critic to explain Dr. Strangelove, you've got bigger problems in your immediate life than the arms race.

On the other hand, twisting Million Dollar Baby or The Two Towers to serve some immediate political screed is revolting to my eyes.

Chris Garcia -- film critic of the Austin American Statesman -- once wrote, in his "review" of A.I. Artificial Intelligence, that Steven Spileberg was showing an unnatural tendency towards making films starring young boys.

Unnatural.

The man essentially accused Steven Spielberg of being a pedophile. So strong was his distaste for Spielberg's work, he had to take the leap and accuse Steven Spileberg of being a pedophile.

Is that the social context we need from "professional" film critics?

 

[RobertR]

I didn't say it was. I merely said it was worthwhile in certain cases (which you seem to have missed). Neither did I nor do I endorse your other examples. And if you don't think analysis of or commentary on a film such as Dr. Strangelove is a worthwhile exercise or people shouldn't waste their time reading it, why does your sig (which you apparently want people to ignore) point to such an analysis of film?

 

[Eric Peterson]

Bobby,

You still have yet to tell to tell us how you make your movie viewing decisions. Do you make your selections based on trailers? You at least partially admitted to going for certain actors, but nothing more.

All of us in some way or another filter our options, but you have yet to admit what your process is.

 

[Bobby*K]

I absolutely did respond to that process a few posts back. I base a lot on the director of the movie and the storyline (from as simple as reading the back cover). My feelings from some of the posts is that people try a little to hard to come up with a process to view movies. There are to many complaints about movie trailers, and the reason I say this is:

You can't buy a pack of gum now-a-days without there being misleading advertisements all over the place. Movies are no different, but the trailers give you a storyline with a bunch of other mumbo jumbo.....if the story interests you, then go see it, if not, then don't.

All the review research being done sends you into the movie with pre-conceptions. Of course this is my opinion and I don't expect that it will change the way others go about their movie watching, but this way makes sense to me.

 

[george kaplan]

Bobby,

How old are you, and what's the oldest film you've seen?

 

[Seth Paxton]

Exactly, though a good critic can enhance and expand how/what you think about those films too. Just like talking it over with a smart friend. Ernest, sometimes a good theorist can unpack a film in a very legitimate manner that would normally elude you, including TTT or M$Baby.

After all, the morals of stories, what types of characters or stories we like, and much more technical aspects such as how cinemaotography affects our opinion of a film's mood or intent, are ALL "tells" of the fundamental structure that makes up the human and social conditions. We take the time to look at these things so that we may better understand ourselves and the artist. We take things for granted, but there must be a reason why the good guy wore a white hat or why audiences like a happy ending.



For Bobby, to be blunt, you are kidding yourself. If you don't see EVERYTHING MADE BY EVERYONE (which is a lot of films) you are letting the opinion of someone else decide what you go to see.

Think of a film you didn't see at the theater, or did. Why? Bad trailer, good trailer, aka "looked good"/"looked stupid"? So you trust the opinion and skill of people paid to sell you on a film most of all? That's exactly the same as trusting the car salesmen above all else. I think you are better served in trusting a more neutral party (not one reviewer but a group).

An actor is in it, a director was involved? How much, is it on par with their normal level? How do you know? Maybe its Jack Black with Orange Co., implied to be the major character by the trailers, but missing from huge chunks of the film, a film not really centered around him at all.

And just how do you go about seeing the works of NEW directors and actors? How do you know that you like these artists without first seeing some of their work without knowing about them?

Maybe you listened to your friends or family...but then those "useless" people are doing the exact same service as the pro, except that when they say "best film of the year" it might mean "in comparison to the 4 others I saw" which really doesn't qualify as a very informed opinion.


In fact basically EVERYTHING you buy, do, places you go, and so on start off with the OPINIONS of others. It's not always as obvious as "buy this soap then drive to Ohio", but something beyond your own experience makes you buy that soap the first time or drive to Ohio the first time.



PS - Yeah, I like to just go and have a good time at the theater, or even when watching an old classic on DVD. Film can be experienced on multiple levels, like any good art.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Sorry to add, but after thinking about it more it just seems a bit ironic not just that this is a thread, as Michael and others said, but that it was posted in the MOVIES area of HTF, a place that is basically nothing but critical film discussion.

Hear that boys, time to log off of our useless lives.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I meant what I said with "socially." Upon reflection, I should have added "historically" in addition to the other two.

Now, proceed with the thread!

 

[Michael Elliott]

I don't agree with the original poster but I'd trust the readers at this very site over the majority of the so called "film critics" out there.

For me personally, I want to know what that reviewer has seen and what his knowledge of movies is. If (made up reviewer) Jack Jones hasn't seen a movie made before 1990 there's no way in hell I'm going to take him seriously even if he's the greatest writer since Shakespeare. Someone said reviews are only opinions and this is true in some form but I also think a better knowledge of film can help more than it could hurt. If I was reading a review for Peter Jackson's KING KONG and the reviewer didn't know it was filmed previously then I wouldn't care how well the review was written.

Roger Ebert is my favorite film critic and I'd say Martin Scorsese is the one person I enjoy most when it comes to film talk. I think there are better writers out there but what gets my attention is their knowledge of film. Ebert certainly lacks when it comes to the horror genre and I think the majority of the critics are wrong when they overlook "B" films. That's when a fan like Scorsese or even Tarantino come in handy because they review and enjoy all films. I think it was Scorsese who said you could learn more from a bad movie than a great one and this is true.

We've got various threads here with members tracking and sharing their thoughts on the films they've seen and I think these things can be just as handy as any film critic. We can see what we agree/disagree when it comes to other fans and we can get a very good idea of their tastes. As for me, I'll watch anything from 1890-2005 so I have no use for a film critic who hasn't seen a movie made before 1990 or a film critic who has no knowledge of history or who hates B&W films.

I always read Ebert and a few other film critics but when it comes time to add stuff to my Netflix list, I personally find the opinions of film buffs a lot more important. Again, that's why I find these lists here more important than a simple, greatly written review.

 

[Michael Martin]

I used to give Ebert a lot of weight (no pun intended) WRT what movies I saw, but after lukewarm reviews to The Matrix, Gladiator and Fellowship of the Ring, he's lost a lot of impact for me. I still enjoy his reviews, and think he gives some good insight into films, but I am less influenced by his ratings.

There actually isn't a single reviewer I give much weight to, anymore, but I do listen to a kind of "critical mass" - if a lot of sources I consider credible uniformly trash a movie, chances are good I'll pass it up at the theater. I have limited time and funds; I prefer to spend my money on films I really want to see and on films that show some skill and care. I read everything from early screening reports on the Web to hard copy magazine reviews, and let the total kind of wash over me. There have been a good number of times, though, that I've determined I'm going to see a movie no matter what the reviews have been. I can tell you I am going to see three movies this year, no matter what the reviews say: Episode III, Batman Begins, and King Kong. There are directors and actors I will actively avoid, and while I know you can make a good trailer for a bad film, trailers do influence me to a degree.

Reviews help me most in two areas: finding films I might ordinarily miss and thinking about the films AFTER I've seen them. I often find myself going back and reading reviews after seeing a movie, as a way to read about things I might have missed or to see if others picked out some of the same aspects or ideas.

 

[Steve Christou]

I think what the thread starter is getting at is "whats the point of reading reviews when they never like the films I like?" right?

I like reading a bunch of reviews on a film just to get an idea of whether it's seen as good or bad, but in the end I usually just ignore them. The films I enjoy at the cinema every summer rarely get good reviews. But I like hearing what members here think of them, even when they're totally wrong.

I'll bet some jaded, bored, cynical, just plain nasty critic has already finished writing their review of Star Wars III even before they've seen it, lambasting the overblown visual effects, terrible dialogue and dreadful acting, some films are critic proof, who gives a fuck what they think? You know you're going to see it, and see it again.

 

[Bobby*K]

I am 25. I own quite a few older films. THE STING, THE APARTMENT (Jack Lemon), REAR WINDOW, etc... I have seen quite a few others including the "so-called" greats... Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Citizen Kane and most all the Marlon Brando fims.

I don't consider myself an avid "older" films watcher, but I have seen enough to conversate about them.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, you just confirmed George's theory, Bobby.

 

[Bobby*K]

For Bobby, to be blunt, you are kidding yourself. If you don't see EVERYTHING MADE BY EVERYONE (which is a lot of films) you are letting the opinion of someone else decide what you go to see.[/Q

Of course there are instances when a friend sees a non "mainstream" movie and tells me to check it out, but other then that I NEVER take or try to find an opinion on a movie that helps me decide to see it. That completely ruins the experience for me. Since about 1995 I have seen near every movie realeased (because I have the time to). As for movies before that time I either buy or rent to watch.

My point, from the beginning, is that I would never read a review of a movie before I went to see it. So I don't think I am kidding myself.

 

[Bobby*K]

What exactly is George's theory Mr. Briggs?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Um, that you're young.



Really? Wow. I've not seen that many films in my entire lifetime (which is a good deal longer than yours).

 

[Holadem]

Yikes. That is one bold claim to make.

Just out of curiosity, what would be your top 10 of the last 10 years?

See, we're trying to use your age to invalidate your opinions. Barring that, we will try attacking your tastes directly .

--
H