Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have expressed my opinon on the parasite like nature of film critics in other threads and and how I see no worth in them - in fact the opposite.

I watch and enjoy or not) films and decide if I like them. Why would I (or anyone else) need someone to tell them whey they should or should not enjoy something

In addition being human they are invariably as prone to simply reflect their own lieks and dislikes - since they are paid to see films and seldom remain objective

Its an art form so subjective

They are subject to pressure or incentives from Studios, and not a few seem to simply recyle the press release they are sent.

With all that i donlt see what purpose they serve.

Maybe i am wrong and they do for others?

Same for Food Critics.

Because some of us don't have much money/value our time enough that we want to know if a film might be worth going out of our way to see?

It's really not that complicated. If you don't like critics then ignore them. I find that my opinions generally align with mainstream film critics, so for me they're useful. Hell even negative reviews sometimes convince me to go see a film simply because I 1) know that the things the critics don't like mean nothing to me and 2) bad movies and enjoyable movies don't exist as a 1-to-1 ratio and sometimes what critics don't like is what makes me enjoy the films. Case and point Battle L.A. Horrible movie. Horrible plot, but the cliche storm is so strong and unrelenting it was my favorite comedy of the year. That's not something critics generally praise, but whenever I see the words "riddled with cliches" or something like it in a review I slot that movie down for future viewing because I just might find it funny.

I don't pay attention to food critics... but then as long as its sanitary I'm not that picky. If I really just don't like the food I quietly leave and never return.

 LordofHats wrote:
Because some of us don't have much money/value our time enough that we want to know if a film might be worth going out of our way to see?

It's really not that complicated. If you don't like critics then ignore them. I find that my opinions generally align with mainstream film critics, so for me they're useful. Hell even negative reviews sometimes convince me to go see a film simply because I 1) know that the things the critics don't like mean nothing to me and 2) bad movies and enjoyable movies don't exist as a 1-to-1 ratio and sometimes what critics don't like is what makes me enjoy the films. Case and point Battle L.A. Horrible movie. Horrible plot, but the cliche storm is so strong and unrelenting it was my favorite comedy of the year. That's not something critics generally praise, but whenever I see the words "riddled with cliches" or something like it in a review I slot that movie down for future viewing because I just might find it funny.

I don't pay attention to food critics... but then as long as its sanitary I'm not that picky. If I really just don't like the food I quietly leave and never return.

Thanks - i do ignore them

The only time I have read their drivel is when people harp on about how good a film is because "critics said so".

I watch trailers and have about a 95% success rate on films I watch at the cinema.

Pretty much what LordofHats said.

There’s critics I trust, because they forego snobbery, in favour of looking at a film as an example of its genre.

There’s other who can’t see past their own snobbery.

Example? Dredd.

There were reviewers who clearly took no steps to familiarise themselves with the source material. Comments about Dredd being heavy handed, criticism of MC-1 being a Police state with absolutely no Due Process. And they marked the film down for that. Despite that being a true representation of Dredd’s world, and indeed the entire nature of Justice Department. Yes, Dredd does shoot first and not really bother to ask questions after - but that’s juxtaposed against Mama’s own brutality.

Sure, it’s not a film to everyone’s taste. It is very violent. It is one for mature audiences. But those criticisms I mentioned above are completely missing the point of the background. It’s a satire at heart. Justice Departments methods are meant to be questionable to the modern person.

Which is why I tend to rely on critics on Geek and Nerd sites. They’re more likely to have a similar appreciation to myself, and I find that, typically, I agree with their take, if not necessarily their conclusions (DenofGeek is notorious for copping out with 3/5 ratings, whether they’ve slated or praised a film).

Another reviewer I find trustworthy is Jonathon Ross - because again, he reviews a given film as an example of its genre. He’s happy to say a film is well enough made, but a weak entry compared to another in the same genre.

But this modern assumption that any reviewer that enjoys a film others don’t has been bribed is just.....bleurgh.

I follow Emergency Awesome on Youtube. I don't know if he counts as a critic. He has mentioned that studios don't like bad reviews and implied that it costs reviewers opportunities if they give bad reviews too much or too often, something like that. So I think it's mostly a matter of not being completely honest to stay in the loop to make the money.
That channel has introduced me to shows and movies I was unaware of, I don't watch any TV at all. Other than that who knows. I only go out to see things that look like a good time from the trailers. Which doesn't always work out.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


There were reviewers who clearly took no steps to familiarise themselves with the source material. Comments about Dredd being heavy handed, criticism of MC-1 being a Police state with absolutely no Due Process.

To be fair I think that's kind of a stupid thing to criticize a film for. I mean sure if you're goal is to talk about "depictions of police brutality" or something in media then it's certainly relevant but on a simple scale of "is this movie good" it's kind of a tertiary statement. Like the reviewers who praised Jessica Jones for having a female heavy crew as if that was something that should make me like the series in itself. I didn't like Jessica's character, and it spoiled my enjoyment of the series. The fact that there were a lot of women working on it sounds great for women working in the industry, but it doesn't automatically make the series good.

Representation is an odd one.

A good comparison I’ve seen is that prior to Wonder Woman, Halle Berry’s Catwoman had ‘Hollywood’ all but convinced that female lead superhero movies don’t make bank.

Never mind the movie sucked horribly, it was ‘female lead’. Never mind that Daredevil sucked horribly, yet Male lead superhero movies continued apace.

To those whom such things matter, it can be important to support the films.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Representation is an odd one.

A good comparison I’ve seen is that prior to Wonder Woman, Halle Berry’s Catwoman had ‘Hollywood’ all but convinced that female lead superhero movies don’t make bank.

Never mind the movie sucked horribly, it was ‘female lead’. Never mind that Daredevil sucked horribly, yet Male lead superhero movies continued apace.

To those whom such things matter, it can be important to support the films.

Which I get, but wanting to support a film to push the industry in a direction is a tertiary quality to how good the movie is. Criticism of quality should be kept distinct from criticism of representation and I've read reviews where the reviewer seemed to be conflating the issues.

Critics are good if you get to know them and their taste. I was in junor high when Jim Carrey hit it big with the first Pet Detective movie. My local paper's reviewer hated Jim Carrey, and so I knew how good the new Carrey flick was going to be by how hard this guy panned it.

I use critics for movies I'm on the fence about it's better they suffer through a bad film, than I do. I read their reviews for keywords that I find entertaining. generally the more the critics hate something the more I'll like it.

How can anyone hate critics when Red Letter Media and Siskel and Ebert exist (just don't go to them for horror reviews).

I listen to the podcast the weekly planet. But less because i agree with or value their opinions and more because they are funny. Sometimes i agree with one or both hosts. Sometimes i dont. Sometimes they point out things i missed that are neat little things in the film.

I dont really value any critics opinions.

Roger Ebert once wrote in one of his books that a good film review will let know if you will likely enjoy the movie even if the reviewer didn't.

I've found that to be true with Ebert when he was alive, at least.

Personally I will use the aggregate review scores for movies I am on the fence on. If there is a movie that I really want to see, and it's rocking a 15% on rotten tomatoes, I am much less inclined to actually go see it in theaters.

I find movie critics useful. Sometimes I don't really agree with them. Ravenous is a movie I love which didn't receive all that great reviews. The Prophecy 1 - 3 where also movies I loved that got mixed reviews particularly as you got further in. Both had lore I am really into and great villains (Well Christopher Walken wasn't the villian in The Prophecy 3, but still made the entire movie). Also Vigo Mortensen did the best Lucifer performance I have ever seen. They were movies I was predisposed to enjoy, but I understand why critics might not like them.

Some critic reviews have absolutely been the best things I've read. One review of Mortal Kombat Annihilation in a local paper was "Just shoot me". Another actually comes from a friend who read a review of the movie Blood Reign. The reviewer stated that if you intentionally watch this you need to have your friends strip you naked, cover you in honey, and bury you in a fire ants nest so that as they eat you alive you can think to yourself "at least I'm not watching Blood Reign.

There are movie critics I like that I go to that I like even if we have a different view on movies. For instance MovieBob is someone I like seeing reviews from. He liked the movie Hereditary better than I did. I thought it was a kind of standard horror story that, admittedly, was very well made compared to the actual script. I got my hopes up in the movie early on though that the actual monster was going to be mental illness, which is kind of rare to actually see in a horror movie. Being a film critic, MovieBob actually pointed out things I didn't notice and/or consider at the time. It didn't make me like it any more than I did, but I felt that I gained something from watching it besides entertainment.

I love mainstream critics because you get to play spot how they've managed to insert gripe of the moment into the review

I generally dont pay them much heed, although post watch deconstructions are fun

And whilst Ben/Jen Daredevil has its flaws, it sucked far less than Catwoman as Ms Berry really should have known better

Considering most critics are paid by Disney who really cares what they think.

Evidence for that please.

It’s something I often see claimed, but never supported.

There have been cases of it in the past, heck there was one time that a group of computer game reviewers got given a free playstation when attending an event, which was taken to mean that the playstation would get a top review from each reviewer.

There's also always accusations that "bad reviews get you put on a no-pre-release" list and suchlike. Sometimes it holds true sometimes it doesn't and there's enough grey around the whole situation that any debate from those outside of the system can as much find proof for and against it.



That said sometimes reviewers just hold a different opinion.

Personally I tend to avoid pre-review info on most things and prefer reviews on the finished work; I also try to read any review with a grain of salt and accept that in the run up to release of something the reviews that get the most attention are either going to be showing it in praise or slinging muck at it like crazy (ergo the extremes).
What I try to walk away from a review is the general quality of the product in question; I accept that things like story, characters, plot etc.... can be very subjective to the person engaged with a medium ;but a reviewer can at least attest to a certain level of quality.

Following a specific reviewer long enough and you can work out their tastes and dislikes (though I rarely follow a reviewer that much to learn those ins and outs); but otherwise I try to only get the most basic and generalist "this is worth time trying it out or not".


That's really all I want; I don't want ot know all the detail and ins and outs; for me that's more fun to engage with and learn AFTER experiencing the thing for myself.

One need only look at recent Disney films that got slated to see it for the nonsense claim it is...

Lone Ranger.

John Carter.

Latest Pirates of the Caribbean.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Evidence for that please.

It’s something I often see claimed, but never supported.

I think it's less direct bungs more the fear of getting excluded / blacklisted in the future that causes some reviewers to be overly positive in some cases

That’s not what was claimed though.

 Overread wrote:
There's also always accusations that "bad reviews get you put on a no-pre-release" list and suchlike. Sometimes it holds true sometimes it doesn't and there's enough grey around the whole situation that any debate from those outside of the system can as much find proof for and against it.

Honestly I don't know if that's much of a threat, I mean you can just pay for the movie, video game, etc and still review it, sure it might be few days later than the rest of the reviews but if you built enough of a fan base they will wait for your say on the product.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That’s not what was claimed though.

depends on how you defined 'paid', a freeby trip to a premier, a couple of paid for jollys with cast/crew, etc, prefectly fair behaviour by studio's etc to promote product but does blur the line a tad

Well. Without further info, I’d say paid means cash monies, no?

It’s a paranoid rumour started when the D.C. movies were slated for being more than a bit rubbish. Which they are (I didn’t even enjoy Wonder Woman, and find the praise for Gal Gadot incompatible with what I’m seeing on screen).

fair point, I'm equally baffled by the whole WW / Gal thing, merely being not gak doesn't make it good, its a decent 3 star hero hijinx, but not any kind of game changer

Gal Gadot is utterly wooden in this role.

I mean, when she’s trying to talk down Supes in Justice League? Just utterly flat.

but she's pretty and got a funny accent so must be the best actor ever and if you disagree you are a rabid wammuns h8r, apart from all the better lady actors you like (so everyone bar J-Law and Daisy)

Daisy Ridley is waaaaay better than Gal Gadot!

Hell, her brief appearance in Toast of London shows more acting chops that Gadot has managed to date!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Gal Gadot is utterly wooden in this role.

I mean, when she’s trying to talk down Supes in Justice League? Just utterly flat.

I thought she was fabulous in the role and was one of the highlights of Bats Vs Sups - took away a bit of the nausea induced by the Loopy Lex performance - different strokes.

depends on how you defined 'paid', a freeby trip to a premier, a couple of paid for jollys with cast/crew, etc, prefectly fair behaviour

Sounds like a bribe to me which either induces a certain performance on the review or can be withdrawn to exert pressure. Goods / services in exchange for services. I wonder if they are declared.....

I wonder why people are so quick to defend these "independent" critics and what if anything any of them have as qualifications to do their "job".

God knows, people who are paid to have attitudes toward things, professional critics, make me sick; camp-following eunuchs of literature.

Ernest Hemingway

Seems about right.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Gal Gadot is utterly wooden in this role.

I mean, when she’s trying to talk down Supes in Justice League? Just utterly flat.

The WW movie utilizes her well. Both writers/directors of Justice League didn't know how to properly write any character in that movie. NOBODY came out of that piece of gak with good writing.