Are films critics’ opinions usually in line with your opinions on movies? Or are they frequently off compared to your impressions?
I’ve just started reading critics and I am going to start keeping track when I see a movie because I have a feeling many of these critics are frivilous with their critiques… or blindly biased.
“Are films critics’ opinions usually in line with your opinions on movies?”
HECK NO!
(or)
It depends who they are. Too many critics are stuck up bastards who lay into the best films and praise shitty black and white foreign films that make no sense. But some are ok - I tend to agree with Jonothan Ross (Film 2004) and trust his assessment of a film. His predecessor Barry Norman was one of the stuck up kind. The kind who are garaunteed to hate anything that makes over a certain level of money.
I am sure some internet-savvy dopers will point you in the direction of good critics who are worth listening to [Hint hint]
Depends on what ‘right’ means. It’s a myth that movie critics (and critics in general) are suppossed to review against some kind of objective standard or bias free… and besides, there are literally thousands of printed critics in North America and there’s no way they could all agree.
Bona fides: I was a film critic and member of the Film Critics Circle of Australia.
Find a critic who publishes in your favourite medium and demographic (if you’re an office chick then look in Cosmopolitan - if you’re a young internet person look at Latino review). Read their past reviews of films you’ve seen if they agree with you, trust them.
FYI Many critics do take themselves seriously but really they’re just someone with an opinion who gets to see free movies.
In my opinion, there is no sharper-eyed movie critic than Roger Ebert. He is also quite an essayist. He has combined these talents in his movie reviews which have been published as collections. Roger Ebert’s Video Companion is an example. His essay on Citizen Kane is a jewel.
When I do disagree with him about a film, it is usually because he just didn’t get it. I think that originally, for example, he gave Bladerunner a star and a half out of four stars. The director’s cut of that film gave him a chance to redeem himself and he did.
Every critic has a different agenda, different likes and dislikes, different levels of experience and film knowledge. Some critics will praise the worst garbage, because they want to get in good with studios. Others continue to be excited just to see their names in print, so they will say anything at all. Some critics automatically dismiss foreign films, or horror films, or films with violence. Some critics are inexperienced when it comes to film history and will prefer only the latest Hollywood blockbusters or remakes because they don’t know any better. Roger Ebert has been around forever, generally makes fair assessments, and doesn’t tend to have his head up his butt, though even he has his moments where he will lavish praise on terrible movies for inexplicable reasons. Richard Roeper used to like the worst movies when he was less experienced but his taste has been getting a little bit better. Jonathan Rosenbaum of the “Chicago Reader” tends to need to be able to reference a movie to a number of other movies in order to “read” it, and if he can’t, he’ll tend to dismiss it. I recommend Rotten Tomatoes because you get general consensus by a large number of critics, and also you can find ones whose opinions tend to fall in line with your own.
Roger Ebert’s pissing me off, because he gives away too many damn plot details in his reviews. As a result, I only read his reviews AFTER I’ve seen the movie. Some results:
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead – Quirky, hilarious “Hamlet” parody based on Tom Stoppard’s play. Ebert’s review: ZERO stars!
Erik the Viking – Lighthearted, hilariously Pythonesque adventure story of a hapless Viking. Ebert’s review: ZERO stars!
Doom Generation – Hopelessly bad, disgusting, and downright homophobic film about two teens on the run. Ebert’s review: ZERO stars! (Ok, it really did deserve that one.)
Changing Lanes – Awful, boring, pointless movie about a fender-bender and a missing legal file, riddled with unmotivated actions (the lawyer guy’s bad, then good, then bad, then good, then bad again! MAKE UP YOUR MIND!) not to mention plot holes you can drive a truck through. Ebert’s review: FOUR STARS!!! Did he even see the same movie?
Gene Siskel was the last good one. Can’t believe his fraud ex-partner carries on the show.
Yeah, I liked Siskel much more than Ebert. Ebert tends to have director and actor biases, even if the movie sucked donkeys, he will give it at least 2 1/2 stars. I also read Ebert AFTER I have seen the movie. The movie critics in the Chicago Reader seem to hate everything, they’re probably just trying to make a name for themselves by causing controversy. Generally though, if Ebert gives a movie less than 2 stars, I tend to agree with him. I usually go to mrqe.com and take the average rating of everyone.
Wow. I couldn’t stand “Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.” Nobody I know, save my English professor, liked it either.
Oh well. I’m not big on existentialism, I guess.
Though I did enjoy Kenneth Branaugh’s (sp?) “Hamlet.”
The movie review guy on the local news channel here HATES almost every movie he sees. I’ve seen him say he liked a movie only 2 or 3 times.
The only time I’ve really disagreed with Ebert on anything was when he didn’t like The Fellowship of the Ring because it wasn’t The Hobbit. It then coloured his reviews of the whole trilogy.
I think it’s pretty simple… if you like the movie and they hated it, they’re wrong. If you thought it sucked and they thought it was amazingly artistic and progressive, they’re wrong.
Most critics I’ve read go nuts puffing themselves up with references to previous movies or storylines…aka “Matrix Revolutions borrows heavily (albeit poorly) of Kurosawa’s landmark film 13 Samurai…”
Gimme a break…did you like the movie or not? Were you entertained?
My basic formula for liking / disliking a movie is pretty simple. Just ask yourself this…
Between the time when the movie started and the movie ended, did you forget that you were in a theatre?
If so, then it’s a good movie. If you were distracted by bad acting, or even worse, camera problems (i.e. lens flares or mud or water getting splashed on the lens) then it was less so.
D.
This really depends entirely on your taste. I don’t read any critics, but I check the IMDb about daily. It gives a rough idea of whether a movie is getting positive or negative reviews, how positive or negative they are, and a few illustrative quotes. I find that I agree with the consensus more often than not, because I hate the same kinds of movies critics usually dislike (stupid action movies, grossout comedies, vapid date flicks). But that’s a generalization - the IMDb review also tends to include the ‘minority opinion’ if there is one - and I think I’m pickier than most moviegoers to begin with.
Well, I have to disagree with you here. There are many times I walk out of a movie kind of bored or annoyed, but I still tell my friend or whomever I was watching the movie with that I still thought it was a good quality well-made movie, it just so happened to not amuse me.
Sometimes there is a difference between a good movie and a movie you like, no? For the most part you’re right, but on occasion I would disagree.
While some critics probably go out of their way to make themselves look smart, there IS something to be said for knowing film history. Let’s say you liked the new Matrix films (I thought they were complete shit). But if you liked them, you might want to check out movies they were based on, or owe a lot to. IMDb says that Smith and Neo’s last fight is based in part on a Korean movie called (in English) Nowhere to Hide, so maybe you’d want to pick that up*. Also, some directors just LOVE to make allusions to other movies in the films. Somebody who’s studied film criticism is more likely to catch that sort of thing. Is it obnoxious? Maybe a little. But if somebody else knows something and you don’t, there’s no harm in them telling you. People disagree with critics all the time, so there’s a limited value in a critic who only says “I was entertained” and doesn’t go into the deeper stuff.
By the way, the Kurosawa movie is called Seven Samurai.
I think it’s moronic to base the climactic moment of a three-movie series on another movie, much less an obscure one that’s only four years old.
I find the consensus of critics pretty much in line with my opinions. (See Rotten Tomatoes to find it.) If I were to pick one who I’d stick with most of the time it’d be either Ebert or David Ansen of Newsweek.
Sure they get things wrong, often when a director is trying something that goes over their heads. However, over time, critics have had a much better track record that popularity. Films that had critical acclaim but did poorly at the box office are more likely to be remembered years later than films that were panned but did well at the box office.
The main thing about a critic is that he or she has seen more movies than you have, so they know when something is stupid and trite.
Jonathan Rosenbaum. Best. Critic. Ever.
Many moons ago, I recall watching Siskel & Ebert review Independence Day. Both gave less than favorable reviews. Bad script. Bad dialogue. Ridiculous premises (eg. Jeff Goldblum hacks into the aliens’ computer with a Powerbook). And so forth.
After the movie takes in more than $90 million in its first week, S & E do a rare thing: they review a movie a second time. Their opinions don’t change. They are baffled by the movie’s appeal and sucess.
I wonder if they (or any critics) can ever watch a movie without picking it to pieces? FTR, ID4 is one of those movies that I like BECAUSE it’s bad. Perhaps all those eps of MST3K have altered my sense of good and bad.
On a side note, I recall seeing S & E review a film (whose name I can’t remember) where Siskel gave a favorable review and Ebert was so stunned that he refused to even comment on the film. Anybody remember this film?