Don’t make this about you, then. Nobody called you out, and you inserted yourself into the middle of the discussion.
I understand that. Still, it galls; seeing proof positive that attitudes are ascribed to me based entirely on prejudice and absolutely unrelated to my real attitude, and it’s difficult not to point it out when the opportunity arises, as it so rarely does. I’m certainly willing to drop it–I hate it too when someone makes a thread about them when it’s not–but I’m bookmarking this thread for reference the next time someone tries to shut me down for being a “snob.”
History matters. Not only did Serge not belittle other posters with that specific statement, to my knowledge he’s never done so in other posts, at least on the topic of film.
Can you honestly say the same about yourself?
I have been writing movie reviews for my work staff newsletter for years now. The circumstances are that once in a while the editor asks me for a review X words long to finalise the newsletter. New movies here open on Thursday night. I pick one, go see it and write a review that I give to her on Monday. Sometimes I pick a dud.
When it comes to reviewing the movie I try to write something that will encourage those people I think will enjoy it, but discourage the people that I think will hate it.
Oh, look. Proof positive in the form of a hypothetical!
You have a funny definition of “proof”.
Let’s go through the OP sentence by sentence:
> No one I know listens to the movie critics.
It’s probably true that the majority of filmgoers (even if we restrict ourselves to people who see films more than some given amount of times a year) don’t read or listen to film critics. Still, there are a significant body of people who do see a lot of films and who do regularly read and listen to film reviews. The standard rule is that reviewers don’t have any effect on the big blockbusters. The people who go to them don’t care and usually don’t know what the critical opinion about them is. The critics can (and do) help or hurt a small independent American film or a foreign film.
> Whatever they love, everyone else seems to hate.
This simply isn’t true. As Alessan showed in his post, critics were reasonably favorable to about 80% of the blockbusters. An average non-critic-reading filmgoer probably dislikes about 20% of the average blockbusters, so that’s not much different. If there’s any real difference, it’s in the small independent and foreign films, which critics often are big fans of. The average filmgoer might not like these critics’ favorites, or they may simply have never seen them.
It’s not true of anyone that they have movie favorites that are completely different from anyone else. For several years now, I have been asking people “What are your favorite films? In particular, what are your favorite underappreciated films?” I have also been looking at lists of great or favorite films in books, magazines, websites, SDMB threads, etc. I have compiled a list of 250 very frequently mentioned films (“great films”) and a list of all 5,000 or so other films which are ever mentioned by anybody (“good films”). Five or six thousand films sounds like a lot, but remember that there are about 400,000 films listed on the IMDb and perhaps a million total films ever made. 90% to 95% of all films ever made have virtually no fans. I often go through the boxes or shelves of videotapes or DVD’s being sold off by rental places, seeing how many films from my lists are there. At least 90% are not mentioned in my lists.
> (Do they take bribes?)
If any mainstream American newspapers, magazines, networks, or TV or radio stations found that a movie critic working for them took a bribe, they would fire him immediately, and it would be doubtful that he could ever work in journalism again. There are some minor outlets that probably don’t allow their reviewers to take bribes, but the reviewers pump up their reviews of not-very-good films to produce good one-sentence quotes about the films. These reviewers are known as “quote whores.” They frequently get quoted in the newspaper advertisements, and these people apparently get their kicks just from being frequently quoted. These reviewers get no respect among other reviewers, and anyone who knows film reviewing can pick up which reviewers are quote whores and ignore them.
> So, who are these people that are held in such high esteem, but they are
> simply full of themselves.
Some of them are full of themselves. Some of any group of people are full of themselves. I don’t think film reviewers are more full of themselves than anyone else.
Incidentally, some film reviewers have film degrees. Some are journalists who worked for a newspaper who were told by an editor, “Hey, you like films. You’ll do our film reviews.” If you read a lot of film reviews, you’ll be able to figure out which reviewers and critics know a lot about film and which ones don’t and which ones write well and which ones don’t.
> So, why do we even have movie critics, anyway?
Basically, a good film critic is a good essayist. He has to write an essay about his reactions to a new film. Those who appreciate film criticism judge it in the same way that any essayist is judged - how much does the person know about the subject and how well does he express his knowledge.
The OP generalizes about film critics. It’s important to know, as has been discussed here before, that there are a couple critics who are not critics. Earl Dittman is a complete joke, and Jeffrey Craig doesn’t even really claim to be a critic, but you see him quoted in the ads.
There is a select group I will pay any attention to: Ebert, NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, Maltin, Newsweek, Time. I can’t think of anyone else who has real highbrow taste. One of the things I like about Ebert is that he tries to view a movie as it means to be viewed. If it’s trying to be exciting and not Citizen Kane, then he doesn’t compare it to CK.
And even those two had more good reviews than bad. Only one of those movies don’t qualify for a “fresh” rating at RT.
Yes I can. I defy you to start another thread with proof to the contrary. Every time I get accused of this–based only on past accusations–nobody has any cites. I have been violently defensive, and been banned for it, but I have never attacked or belittled. Find me a cite to the contrary and I’ll publicly apologize. (This is like the fourth time I’ve made that challenge; no one has ever had a response.)
Meanwhile, to end this hijack here, in this thread, which I should never have started, I’ll apologize. I’ve had salmonella the last four days and should probably not post while doubled over in pain and praying for death, nor while floating above the pain on a cloud of percocet. Not an excuse; I should certainly know when to post and when not. Just “on background.” Again, I apologize for the hijack and call for it to stop. I’ll be on the lookout for *other *threads taking up my challenge.
This post is not about lissener.
I just wanted to make a distinction between a movie *reviewer * and a movie critic, because I am feeling pedantic, and, well, SDMB. It seems to me that people are using the two interchangeably, and I think there is a difference.
A movie reviewer is writing about a movie that he presumes his audience has not seen. His goal is to tell them enough about the movie so that they can make a decision on whether or not to see it, without totally spoiling the movie in case they do see it. The best reviewers are not the ones whose taste you totally agree with, but who give enough reasons for their recommendations that you can make up your own mind. Reviewers seem to love to write negative reviews, because they really spread themselves describing those clunkers.
A movie critic, on the other hand, usually assumes his audience has already seen the movie in question. His goal is to educate them on what they might have missed in the movie, and sometimes to engage in debate with other knowledgeable critics. A critic will rarely bother to write about a bad movie, with the proviso that an interesting failure can teach a lot about film, also. When **lissener ** writes about Showgirls, for instance, he is engaging in criticism.
Of course, a lot of people write both reviews and criticism, and a lot of reviewers mix in a little criticism–Ebert does this a lot. Still, there is a difference.
This is why I don’t really like movie REVIEWS, albeit for a different reason than the OP; I just don’t see what purpose they serve. There’s almost no chance at all that the negativity or positivity of a review will change my mind about whether or not to see the film, since you can generally tell a film’s overall quality within a reasonable margin of error just by who made it and what it’s about.
Most reviews are just that, reviews. Very few include substantive criticism.
Davd Denby, The New Yorker; Stanley Kauffman, The New Republic; David Edelstein, Slate; Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune.
Somehow missed this sentence on my first readthrough. If this is actually true of you and your friends, I don’t think the problem lies with the movie critics. Let’s look at some recent four-stars from Roger Ebert:
Batman Begins - yeah, everybody hated that one.
Brokeback Mountain - utter dreck, no-one else liked it.
Kill Bill Volume 2 - crashed at the box office, detested by all.
King Kong - once again, total bomb.
…and so forth.
Priceguy writes:
> If this is actually true of you and your friends, I don’t think the problem lies with
> the movie critics.
Indeed, each sentence in the OP is an exaggerated version of what even someone who is disgusted with the film critics would write (and there is a case to be made for not liking film critics). It’s not true that no one listens to the film critics. It’s not true that whatever they love, everyone else hates. It’s not true that film critics take bribes. It’s not true that they are all full of themselves. It’s not true that there is no use for film critics.
Betenoir has it right. A completely random unknown movie reviewer is little use to you. What you have to do, if you want to get more out of movie reviews, is learn the tastes and expectations of particular reviewers and remember them.
If there’s an idiot you always disagree with, and he likes a movie, you’ll probably hate it…and vice-versa. More helpfully, since few reviewers will be consistently for or against your favorites, learn their idiosyncracies. Some might never give scifi valid consideration. Others might be too easily swayed by snob appeal, and give high marks to anything about Mozart, no matter how awful. And so on.
HOW do you learn about these reviewers? Read their reviews of movies you have seen. You know your own opinion. Now you can contrast it with the particular reviewer’s opinion. Do this enough times and you’ll feel like you know this guy or gal, just like your real-life moviegoing buddies. Then when said reviewer says “slow-paced and initially tendentious, this period dance piece…” you’ll know whether to dismiss or credit that reviewer’s opinion. You’ll think “He/she hated Dirty Dancing, hates the main actors in this movie, and likes dumb car chases…I don’t, and I liked DD: I think I’ll go see this movie”.
Like 99% of life, the more effort you put into this, the more benefit you’ll get out of it (up to a point :P).
Sailboat
::: Moderator pounds gavel for attention ::::
WHOA!
This thread is about the role of movie critics. It is NOT about any poster, either favorably or unfavorably. It is not about criticizing each other, it is about criticizing movies.
Those of you who have been off subject will now return to the actual subject of the thread. You want to insult each other, you want to defend yourself against alleged abuses, go to the Pit. BUT NOT HERE.
Note use of caps for emphasis.
Don’t make me come in here again.
I think critics tend to overrate movies that are the least bit unconventional, or can’t be summarized as a combination of two or three others. It must be mind-numbing to watch movies day in and day out. If you ate the same meal three times a day for a year, the first different meal you ate would taste better to you than it did to everyone else.
I think critics tend to overrate movies that are the least bit unconventional, or can’t be summarized as a combination of two or three others. It must be mind-numbing to watch movies day in and day out. If you ate the same meal three times a day for a year, the first different meal you ate would taste better to you than it did to everyone else.
Once again proving that critics can’t keep a badly reviewed movie down — especially one based on a runaway religious-themed best seller such as, say, the Bible or The Da Vinci Code — millions of fans turned out for the premiere of Ron Howard’s tale of Jesus, Mary and a new take on the holy grail. Da Vinci became the year’s best debut, with $77 million in U.S. ticket sales, and the second-biggest opener ever worldwide
I think you have a strange idea about the purpose of a movie review. Yes, the critic is more informed when it comes to judging how “great” a movie is in terms of cinematic history. But most people don’t read a movie review to find out if it is a historically great movie, they read it to find out if they, the reader, would enjoy watching that movie.
If I want to know if a movie would be enjoyable to me, then the most “informed” opinion is the one that most closely mirrors my own. Of course, a good movie reviewer can give you enough information to decide whether you would like the movie, independent of what he thought of it. But some critics seem far more concerned with telling you whether you “should” like the movie than whether you will like it.
I once read a review of Star Trek movie that criticized the ridiculous number of blinking lights on the bridge of the Enterprise. As if anyone would consider attending a Star Trek movie if they had a problem with blinking lights!