Critics should stop reviewing movies from genres they don't like! (Jason X)

I finally got to see Jason X last night and this is one time I can say that the reviewers got whoosed big time when they saw it. This thing was made for slasher flick fans. It was not going to convert anyone to the series. I don’t know what people expect when they go to see a Friday the 13th, but this one was the best one since #7. Jason goes to Hell was atrocious, but this one was good.

I thought it was really funny. The sleeping bag scene was so funny I had to rewind it and watch it a few times. My gut hurt after that. If you have seen it then you know why, but if you haven’t I am not going to spoil it for you, just trust me it is really funny.

Yeah there was alot of bad acting in this movie, and I am sick as shit of female space marines. They just don’t do it for me. The one in Aliens did it best, but all the chicks after her are just too feminine and are totally un believable as ass kicking space marines. There wasn’t enough titties in this one though.

For those that like Jason flicks there is a great featurette on the DVD about the rise of the series and a good history of the movies. Really entertaining.

They should stop allowing movie critics to review movies that are in genres that they don’t care anything about or worse, despise. It is really not fair to the movie or the people that are looking forward to the movie. I remember alot of the reviews for this starting off with “I don’t know why these movies keep getting made, they all suck, I shouldn’t have expected anything from this etc…”. Why the hell are you reviewing this movie then? It’s like allowing a hardcore christian to review pornos. What’s the point?

You know when Freddie vs. Jason gets closer to release that there are gonna be alot of moaners “Why do they keep making this shit?” but hopefully people will still see the movie. That showdown is second only to Aliens vs. Predator as far as movie crossover goes.

Critics, leave my movies alone!!

Are these movies supposed to be funny???

I know what you mean. Here in Atlanta, we have a local raido reviewer, Larry Munson, who hates anything to do with fantasy or science fiction. So of course any time one hits town he just has to see it so he can get his slams in. He hated Shrek, Spider-Man, The Fellowship of the Ring, all of it.

Larry, do yourself and me a favor; just stick to your artsy-fartsy dramas. You won’t have to annoy yourself with having to look at something with a special effect, and I won’t have to be annoyed with you grousing about it the next Monday.

Why? No one pays attention to critics anyway. If they did, certain movies wouldn;t be making any money at all. I’ve seen more people brag about not listening to critics than I have people talking about them as a way to avoid bad movies. I can’t tell you how many message boards I’ve seen people first strut proudly about how they don’t like critics and don’t pay any attention to them and go see every movie on opening night so it won’t be ruined by people talking about it - and then complain when everything they see turns out to be garbage - which every critic was pointing out all along.

Is anyone not going to go see “Jason X” because a critic said something bad about it? Do you honestly think that bad reviews kept people away from it? They don’t keep anyone away from XXX or Ballistic or any other crap, why should they have suddenly worked here?

Critics don’t decide which movies get reviewed and which reviews are broadcast or published. Critics have producers or editors who say “Review this movie for Friday’s edition.” I’d imagine that if a critic said “I don’t like slasher movies so I won’t review Jason X,” the next item he’d be reviewing would be the want ads.

Not originally, but the genre very quickly turned into self-parody (that’s when Freddy Krueger started making wisecracks.) The genre can’t really sustain itself as a suspense/horror/thriller – you know the bad guy is going to pop out and kill all the other lesser characters one at a time.

Audiences started rooting for the bad guy and slasher flicks became more like “haunted funhouse rides” – you go to see how long you can last before you jump when he pops out and you laugh at the lengths to which they go to top the last killing. (Like they try not to kill the same way twice, so after a bazillion sequels it’s getting really ridiculous.)

Disclaimer: I’m not a fan of slasher flicks.

Reviewers: Some reviewers can be fair. Ebert often reviews films within the context of the genre (particularly when dealing with sci-fi). But the reviews also have to be targeted for the general audience of the newspaper/magazine/TV Network. Would my mom like to go see Jason X? Hell, no and the review would make it clear to her that it’s not her cup of tea.

I completely agree with the OP (althought I also fully understand and agree with what Papermache Prince said.) I liked Jason X.

I had to defend the movie a while back, in this thread: Who the Fuck Greenlighted This Piece of Shit?. One person’s opinion was based on a review from Teleport City, a review that was prefaced:

So, I know from whence you speak. Didn’t keep me from buying the Jason X DVD, though. heheh

I disagree with the OP. Instead of getting upset with reviewers who don’t like genres you like, just stop reading those reviewers. Clearly, the two of you ahve different tastes in movies, and you aren’t going to learn anything useful from their reviews. People approach critics the wrong way. The trick is to find one who you usually agree with, and stick with them. It’s no different than asking friends and acquaintances about movies. Let’s say your friend Joe says Jason X sucks, but Joe only likes subtitled Iranian art-house movies. Do you tell Joe he doesn’t have a right to his opinion, or do you just think to yourself, “Well, Joe and I don’t agree on movies. But Bob has all the Friday the 13th movies on DVD; let’s see what he thinks.”

Personally, I mostly rely on Roger Ebert and Mick LeSalle. Ebert tends to have similar tastes to myself, and having read him for a few years now, I can usually tell when he gives a bad review to a movie I might actually like. Mick LeSalle, on the other hand, is a cretinous moron who must dictate his reviews, because I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have opposable thumbs. He’s such an abysmally incompetent movie reviewer that he’s actually highly useful: if he pans a movie, it’s almost certainly worth checking out. If he raves about, it’s almost always a steaming pile of crap. Since I started reading the both of them regularly, I think I’ve only seen one truly bad movie in the theaters. (It was Virus, if anyone’s curious.)

However, I do agree with the OP as far as Jason X goes. Absolutely hilarious movie. “We like to smoke pot, and have pre-maritial sex! Wanna join us?” Hee hee.

I somewhat disagree with the OP.

Even critics dislike things for legitimate reasons. I’m a science-fiction fan. I admit it. When I’m watching a sci-fi movie I’m willing to put up with . . . bad acting . . . lousy music . . . ridiculous script . . . unbelievable props . . . just about anything. So long as I’m amused. However critics keep me honest. Dr. Who is not good drama. The original Star Trek movies stunk. The Terminator movies really don’t make any profound observations.

When those critics turn to formats I don’t like, which drive me up the wall, then it’s very affirming to hear that Buffy and The X-Files suck. It doesn’t bother Buffy or X-Files fans much, I bet, and it’s useful to people who aren’t fans.

Maybe the directors and writers even listen to some of the criticism. Let the critics follow their passion.

I’ve a better example of the OP is correct. Children’s movies. When Disney’s Snow White came out, Marlene Dietrich lambasted it as “treacle” and nonsense and thought it was terrible. Well, it is perfectly fair to say that, because it was treacle and nonsense. But it was a brilliant children’s movie, the best that had ever been made up until that point. It is certainly in my top 100 films, even as a children’s movie. But would I recommend it for someone for a Friday night out with the friends? No. You have to approach the movie on its level. I’ve never seen a “Jason” film, but to a certain high school crowd out on a Friday night, it’s going to be the best choice, even if it is by all standards of film criticism, “crap”, which I suspect it is. (It is advertised that way.)

I would just like to find a reviewer who had common-man tastes. Someone who could watch The Fast and the Furious, and say “Yeah, it has no plot, the acting is subpar…but DAMN! Look at the cars! Look at the action!”.

How hard could that be?

I swear to god…If it isn’t a french film with chinese sub-titles, the critic from the Richmond Times Dispatch will tear it apart.

Gee wouldn’t it be great if all film critics gave the thumbs up to every film they reviewed?


You see their job is to sort out films and based on a large number of films they see they must say whether the film is any good or not.

Guess what? Crap like the Fast and Furious or Jason X may be somewhat entertaining but that doesn’t make them good films.

Especially if they are just another lack luster piece of garbage that has nothing new or interesting to say or show.

Imagine having to eat nothing but Hamburgers and most of them from McDonald’s sometimes you get Burger King, or maybe a mom and pop shop serves you a home burger. If yo0u are lucky once and a while you get a gourmet burger, but most of the Burgers are from McD’s. Now imagine you have to write an article each day about the burger you just ate.

Eventually you will start to see the McDonald’s burgers as the sawdust and horsemeat they are, and I’m sure you will not be as kind to them in your articles.

Now someone who enjoys them as a treat now and then will say you don’t know what you are talking about, and are some artsy fartsy because you prefer the gourmet burgers.

When the original Blade Runner came out, I think that Ebert gave it a star a a half! I adore Ebert but he was so wrong on that one. When the director’s cut came out, he gave it good reviews. True, it was even better – but it was deserving to begin with.

I believe you’re thinking of Leonard Maltin as immortalized in the closing segment for Mystery Science Theater 3000’s Laserblast episode where they went down a list of films that Maltin gave worse reviews than Laserblast to. I’m not positive what Ebert gave Blade Runner originally (he did give the director’s cut three stars), but it’s his kind of movie and I’m inclined to think that he rated it rather highly. A quick quote from his review of the Director’s Cut:

I agree with kingpengvin. I usually only read one reviewer in particular, and though we don’t always agree, I know I can when he tells me there may be a redeeming quality to a film that I intended to see anyway.

Just so you know, I actually rented Jason X the other day (it was a "bad movie night). I hate slasher flics. Always have. My sole intention was to get drunk and enjoy laughing at cinematic crap.

It worked. This film was dreadful, but it was amusing enough watching the hot chicks and trying to figure out who would die next. And the bit with the sleeping bags nearly had me in tears too.