posted
In the recent column, Card bashes critics because he enjoyed a movie they all collectively condemned:
quote: The Wedding Date, the Debra Messing/Dermot Mulroney romantic comedy in which a depressed single woman hires a gorgeous male escort to pretend to be her boyfriend at her sister's wedding, is getting reviews that range from poor all the way up to lukewarm.
What did you expect? These are the same critics who think Sideways is deep, Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle is funny, and who gave lavish praise to embarrassing confessions of Hollywood's inadequacies like American Beauty and Closer.
These are the same critics who worship a pretentious director like Martin Scorcese, who can't tell a story on film without constantly showing off what an intellectual, artistic director he is, even if -- no, especially if -- it interferes with the audience's ability to immerse themselves in the story.
So how could they possibly like a fairly low-budget sex-role-reversed Pretty Woman with a television star in the lead?
It's easy to diss a good movie. Just compare it to movies that aren't trying to do the same thing and call it a failure.
The reviews for "The Wedding Date" are very, very negative as demonstrated here.
Same sort of film...considerably different sorts of reviews. They like Hitch (well, 72% of them anyway...) and despise "The Wedding Date" (only 9% stand up for it.)
I think Card is being considerably unfair here because they clearly seem to in this case hate The Wedding Date because of the poor quality they perceive rather than anything else. For Card to suggest that they are somehow all completely wrong and deserving of contempt for having that opinion (and for liking Scorsese!) is simply not constructive and a bit pretentious, to be honest.
What do you think of critics?
Are their opinions of any value to you...?
Do you shun a film with mostly negative reviews or do you trust your own instincts and go in...?
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Card on this one; I have yet to agree with the majority of critics on more movies than I can count on one hand. We just don't seem to care about the same things.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But some of Card's favorite movies from the recent past were generally praised by critics. For instance, "Peter Pan," "Finding Neverland" and "In Good Company" all pretty much got the approval rating of 80-85%. Clearly, a fair amount of critics are seeing the same things Card is seeing--or the other way around. For him to spew such harsh vindictive at them merely because he liked a film they shat upon doesn't really indicate respect for the art of criticsm on his part.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My valuation of a movie critic is based on whether I can tell if I'll like the movie based on their review. This has little correlation with how often I agree with the critic's likes and dislikes. A necessary precondition of this is lack of spoilers. (Note: This is for movie critics, not for people commenting on a movie for social reasons.)
By this criteria, about 1/4 of OSC's reviews are useful to me. And, I can tell which ones will be useful. So 1/4 of the time I get useful info, and the rest of the time I'm not misled.
He's doing better than most in that regard. Desson Howe of the Washington Post is probably the best for me according to this definition.
posted
I'm not saying I always agree with Card, either. Just that I don't usually agree with critics. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think it's fun to read bad reviews of movies I know are going to suck. But the whole liberal media intellectual elite speel drives me up a tree. Scorsesee is cool. It's Spielburg that gets too decadent. And Adrian Lyne. Why doesn't he ever complain about him? Lolita? Fatal Attraction anyone?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still haven't figured out whether my snobbish movie taste is proof of my class and impeccable taste, or just another manifestation of my juvenile spite for all things American.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think OSC kind of missed his calling. He should really consider reviewing reviewers and reporting on pundits, thus elevating "meta" to a whole new level of respectability.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think all the reviews of OSC's reviews of other reviewers are wrong. There, I'm the metamost. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, has he even reviewed movies by Lynne? I hadn't noticed. Maybe he thinks Lynne is so bad he doesn't watch his movies.
Maybe I have a jaundiced view on this, but I tend to agree with OSC's attitudes (on movies) even when I don't agree with his specific reviews.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen him do that... *also sometimes hates some things American, but not old, maybe more like new American things.*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the secret Syn - it's not just America, it's new America. America jumped the shark in the 70s.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely ignore movie critics. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't...so going by their judgements would be like choosing at random.
I generally just read what a movie is about, and then watch a preview to decide if I will see a movie. If I am going to ask anyone, I ask friends who have similar taste. Though, I rarely see movies in the theater anyway...I mostly wait for DVDs.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ignore the critics. Or if I listen to them I won't see or not see a movie based on that. I've seen tons of movies they say are bad and I've loved them, and movies that they said were good that I thought were horrible.
I especially dislike Ebert and Roeper, who as far as I can tell have totally lost the ability to appreciate a good movie, or even to enjoy one. That having been said, I think OSC sucks as a film critic too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless he likes the movie I like, yes... Because he keeps griping about intellectuals and it really just drives me up a tree. Though, he does have a point about how cynical hollywood can be, as if a movie isn't good unless it ends tragically or is about pathetic people and their pathetic lives, only shown in a profound sort of way.
quote:That's the secret Syn - it's not just America, it's new America. America jumped the shark in the 70s.
I would maintain that America's ability to produce Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure in 1985 disproves this statement.
establishes film snob credentials/ And I've sat through ALL of Last Year at Marienbad. /established film snob credentials
As to critics - of course you're not going to agree with them every time. They tell you what they think about a movie, not what you should think. And they *have* seen a lot more movies than most people, so are more sensitive to crap. What you should do is read enough of a few to find out what they like or dislike, then follow the one who matches your tastes.
Of course, that's a lot of work. So perhaps a better alternative is to treat film critics like Dear Abby; as, essentially, entertainment. It's always fun to watch critics tear apart a bad movie:
quote:Saying Uwe Boll’s Alone in the Dark is better than his 2003 American debut House of the Dead is akin to praising syphilis for not being HIV." -- Nicholas Schager, SLANT MAGAZINE
I normally disagree with Ebert and agree more with Roeper, because I think Roeper's more able to see an "entertaining" movie than Ebert. I find that a lot of critics just look for meaning instead of entertainment - and aren't movies mostly about entertainment?
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Echoing Dagonee, I want a critic who can tell me if I'm interested in seeing the movie. My tastes are eclectic and I can't even always tell why I like some and don't like others. Some critics have their tastes and they are unable to separate them from objective critiquing. Some critics see cinematic influences and suggestions that the casual moviegoer won't catch and they critique based on those. And some just vote for the movies they got free passes to.
You want to understand critics -- tell me why Spider-Man 2 didn't get nominated for Best Picture. Was it because not enough people watched it? Hardly. Obviously it entertained a great many people. But the Academy Awards does not recognize entertainment, which is why so many people get confused when they see a Best Picture list filled with movies they haven't seen. The Academy Awards recognize art, or like to think they do.
Me, I want to know if I'll be entertained. This is why the only utterly reliable movie reviewer for me has been Joe Bob Briggs.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Was that that French movie in black and white? I watched it for a class. It was good, but sad, if I am thinking of the right movie.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most movie critics tend to value innovation above entertainment. Who can blame them? If your job is to watch 6-10 movies a week, you would probably dislike formula movies too. For average people like us, some formula movies are still satisfying because we are not as jaded as the critics.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't say that. Just pointing out that the Oscars don't reward entertainment. On just about any scale you'd care to use, Spider-Man 2 entertained more people than, say, Million Dollar Baby, but there was never any chance it would be nominated for anything besides technical awards. Many critics watch and recommend movies the same way, looking for art and meaning when I want to hear about entertainment.
On the other hand, The Peoples' Choice Awards do reward entertainment (this year's best picture nominations were Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Fahrenheit 9/11, The Incredibles, Shrek 2, and, yes, Spiderman 2).
I want a Peoples' Choice kind of critic.
[ February 15, 2005, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fortunately, Syn, Spider-Man 2 was not a black-and-white French movie. Why would you think that? Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If this were true I'd probably have given up on movies altogether."
It was just an example against the assertion that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences only concerns itself with artsy films and eschews popular entertainment.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Then I'm not sure what you're saying, Chris, because you did say
quote: You want to understand critics -- tell me why Spider-Man 2 didn't get nominated for Best Picture. Was it because not enough people watched it? Hardly. Obviously it entertained a great many people. But the Academy Awards does not recognize entertainment, which is why so many people get confused when they see a Best Picture list filled with movies they haven't seen. The Academy Awards recognize art, or like to think they do.
which to me seems to be saying that the people/critics who give out Oscars are those teddible elitists we keep hearing so much about and they only, as you say, nominate movies people don't watch. I mean, are you not using the barometer that the more people watch a movie the more entertaining the movie is? That's why I pointed out Titanic, which as far as a lot of people know, only recieved the Oscars it did because it sold a bunch of movie tickets and the Oscar was the academy's way of saying thanks.
As to other movies that got an Oscar that were pretty entertaining, I have a rotten memory, but wasn't that whole Lord of the Rings thing just given some Oscars recently?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, good. I thought I had missed something positive about the Titanic experience. Glad to see I didn't. Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're making more of my comments than I did. The point I was trying to make -- apparently ineffectually -- was that critics, like the Academy Awards, tend to be impressed by meaning or innovation over entertainment. I'm not saying that both aren't good, or that entertaining movies haven't won Oscars before, but that critics who base their reviews on how "important" a movie is aren't going to be very much use to me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
O.K. I'm still not sold on your belief, but I definitely see where you are coming from. Sorry if I misconstrued what you were saying.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:did somebody reference Bill & Ted as a lowpoint for American entertainment?!
Well, not really. Rather, I referenced it for its service in singlehandedly halting the decline of Western civilization.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
