Why do movie critics feel the need to use personal insults?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Feng, Apr 19, 2002.

  1. Feng

    Feng Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just felt very uneasy while reading today's news on Internet movie database (www.imdb.com) about reviews of Scorpion King. Quote: "Foreman describes The Rock as 'a large fellow with bulging eyes and an enormous neck who looks like Keanu Reeves pumped full of air.'" I mean you may not like the movie, you may even hate the actor. But it is very unprofessional and childish to use personal insults like that. I don't watch WWF. I have no opinion on the Rock. But it makes me sick to see those kind of words from "professional" movie critics.
     
  2. Chad R

    Chad R Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 1999
    Messages:
    2,180
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Real Name:
    Chad Rouch
    That doesn't sound rude or insulting. He is large, his eyes do bulge out (and that's not a bad thing, just descfriptive), he is extremely muscular so he has a bulging neck and his facial features are similar to Keanu's, but he's bigger hence 'pumped full of air.'
     
  3. Mike Graham

    Mike Graham Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its just a way for a particular reviewer to stand out from the rest. You're more likely to read more reviews by a particular columnist who made you laugh then one who gave a cut and dry review.

    Although it can be mean, comedians have been making fun of others with personal insults for money for a very, very long time.
     
  4. Morgan Jolley

    Morgan Jolley Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    8,888
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Didn't you see Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back? The internet is a place where people can anonymously bash films they haven't even seen and trade porn.
     
  5. Terrell

    Terrell Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I don't know about personal insults, but a lot of people are trashing this film. Even most of the major critics are. Although Morgan is right about people trashing films they haven't seen.
     
  6. Brad_V

    Brad_V Second Unit

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are a lot of people out there who completely despise professional wrestling and the WWF, so some shots at the movie and at The Rock himself probably stem from that. Ever read Phil Mushnick's sports column in TV Guide? That guy will take any opportunity he can to take shots at wrestling. (Even though he's a sports writer and wrestling admits it is not a real sport.) And some movie reviewers probably are doing the same.

    Anyone know if Roger Ebert has reviewed the movie yet? He's always seemed to be more able to understand "fun" movies such as this and recommend them despite them not being Oscar material.
     
  7. Terrell

    Terrell Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I don't think it's fair to say they're slamming the film because the Rock's a wrestler and they don't like wrestling. I've read a number of reviews, and most of them don't take shots at the Rock. They take shots at a movie they feel is bad. Are there some amateur critics that'll do that? Of course. But the professional critics will try and be fair, and usually are.
     
  8. Marvin Richardson

    Marvin Richardson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 1999
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A wrestler from the WWF could star in one of the best films ever made and give an incredible performance, and certain critics would still bash the movie and the actor anyway. As a fan of the WWF (yes, I'm aware it isn't real) I know that the possibility of that it is rather remote that a wrestler could deliver a good performance in a movie. What makes for a good entertainer in wrestling (broad characterizations, or if you prefer extreme overacting) does not work in films I usually care about. There are of course exceptions, but I don't see Rock's movie career being of interest to me. Especially in light of the fact that I've heard that he does the People's Eyebrow (part of his wrestling schtick) in the movie. Maybe he can go beyond that, but I kind of doubt it. I don't want to see that stuff unless I'm watching wrestling.

    My problem with this movie and my lack of desire to see it has more to do with the fact that it is a prequel of a sequal of a remake. I didn't mind the first The Mummy with Brenden Fraser, but I didn't particulary care for the second.
     
  9. Terrell

    Terrell Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Marvin, I disagree. Professional respected critics are not that petty. They review films on the merit, or lack thereof.
     
  10. Andy Sheets

    Andy Sheets Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2000
    Messages:
    2,376
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    110
    You want insulting critics try reading some of Stephen Hunter's reviews for Washington Post. After his reviews for movies like Ninth Gate and X-Men I had no choice but to conclude that he was a serious asshole [​IMG] (Actually, come to think of it, pretty much any Post critic, except maybe Desson Howe, will do...)
     
  11. Adam_S

    Adam_S Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2001
    Messages:
    6,307
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Adam_S
    The main reason I hardly ever read any cirtics reviews (except for a select few such as Ebert or Harry Knowles) is because they seem to have no love for film. They're either sad followers of the college educated intelligentsia mindset (ie David Lynch is the greatest filmmaker EVER, any other film or genre that isn't like a film he would make is worthless tripe), or they are bitter, cynical failed and talentless filmmakers that resent that anyone else is making movies and they are not.

    What I like about critics like Ebert and Knowles is that they have a general passion for the ENTIRE medium of film, and they want to share their knowledge and enjoyment of it with everyone they can. A love of the film medium seems to be sadly missing from almost all modern critics (no offense meant to any critics reading this forum, who, of their reviews I've read, are much more exceptional than the average critic), and even a knowledge of film from before the mid sixties seems to me to be lacking. I would venture that the critics for our local newspaper if they have seen any films from before the nineteen fouties it would probably be limited to Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, and (maybe) King Kong, (so only the timeless classics, if that).

    Adam
     
  12. John Spencer

    John Spencer Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2000
    Messages:
    857
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ebert was mildly entertained. It seems he accepted the movie for what it is, and had a decent time, which is nice to see from a "high-profile" reviewer.
    Ebert review
     
  13. Marvin Richardson

    Marvin Richardson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 1999
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  14. Craig Brandstetter

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2001
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't worry too much about what "professional" critics say about a movie. I watch it and make up my own mind. And as far as those comments go about the Rock. Somehow I don't think he will give a big rip what the critics say. He doesn't seem to be the type of guy to sit around and worry about that. In the interviews I've seen him in he seems like a down to earth kinda guy, except for the fact that he always refers to himself in the 3rd person, like he's talking about some other guy. It's all part of his act though.

    Can you smell what the rock is cooking???

    -Craig
     
  15. Terrell

    Terrell Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,216
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, I don't think we have to worry about that Marvin. TSK is about a billion miles from that. The reviews I read were really not taking potshots at the Rock. This film, according to critics and reviewers, had far more problems than the Rock.
     
  16. Morgan Jolley

    Morgan Jolley Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    8,888
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    I like when a reviewer can look at a movie for what it is and judge it on just that. Ebert can do this, and that's why I like him. He doesn't compare it to previous films in the genre or by the same director, he doesn't say the film sucks if it isn't a serious drama, and he is also able to back up his gripes with movies (which many people don't do).

    He also watches some of the lesser known films (foreign, anime, independent) and then tries to spread the word of how great some of them are. A very respectable practice.
     
  17. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,590
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Siskel and Ebert's review of UHF slammed Weird Al Yankovic really bad.

    Part of the review stated that Yankovic's face looked like a caterpillar on a baby's rear.

    UHF wasn't THAT bad!
     

Share This Page