Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Film criticism - or any assessment of any artistic expression - is inherently subjective. But sometimes two people have similar tastes. As a general rule of thumb, if Roger Ebert liked a film then I would probably like it, and vice versa. There were exceptions, of course, but we seemed to have similar tastes. So it's not really a matter of trust, but just of finding a critic whose opinions generally jibe with your own.
If a film is widely panned, I probably won't like it. That much I have learned. If it is widely applauded, I will probably like it. The key word in both cases is 'probably'. Again, there are exceptions. But there beyond the basic exceptions are genre considerations. I have zero interest in superhero films. And there are various other genres that hold no appeal to me, so I don't care who likes them. The existence of these films does not bother me; I just won't see them (there are more than enough other films to keep me preoccupied).
I ignore the critics but I read the reviews on IMDB. Not so much for the opinions (like, dislike, good, or bad) but there are usually enough details about the movie itself that I can decide to see it or not.
Film criticism - or any assessment of any artistic expression - is inherently subjective. But sometimes two people have similar tastes. As a general rule of thumb, if Roger Ebert liked a film then I would probably like it, and vice versa. There were exceptions, of course, but we seemed to have similar tastes. So it's not really a matter of trust, but just of finding a critic whose opinions generally jibe with your own.
If a film is widely panned, I probably won't like it. That much I have learned. If it is widely applauded, I will probably like it. The key word in both cases is 'probably'. Again, there are exceptions. But there beyond the basic exceptions are genre considerations. I have zero interest in superhero films. And there are various other genres that hold no appeal to me, so I don't care who likes them. The existence of these films does not bother me; I just won't see them (there are more than enough other films to keep me preoccupied).
I tend to agree with you. With the costs of attending theater out-of-control and even movies not inconsequential I need some guidance. On the other hand, I borrowed The Fox Hunt: A Memoir of Yemen and My Odyssey to America by Mohammed Al Samawi from a member of my synagogue's book club. The book club universally panned it. I loved it. Go figure.
I used to believe the movie critics. I respected Roger Ebert, R. Roeper and others. No more.
. They have the same biases that everyone has. No better. Overall, movies are overrated.
Originality is overrated even if it is bad. They are always "politically correct" , so they favor movies that express this. I'm not criticizing that but I think movies should be judged on aesthetic merit.
Violence is great to them but blatant sex is not. I abhor constant violence. We don't know the criteria they use for evaluating movies, and the importance to them.
Sometimes they are absolutely right but that's the exception. Do they get something for a excellent review?
It is in their best interests to praise them because their reviews depend on the public reading their columns.
I wish they'd mention the lighting/darkness. I have seen movies so dark even a blind man could enjoy it.
I could go on...you agree?
Yes, I "trust" movie critics to give me an informed opinion. I choose the critics I think are good, astute, insightful.
It seems to me that you are wrongly assuming all critics are alike. There are certainly critics with crappy taste, and there are certainly outlets that highlight films they can praise, and focus on Hollywood blockbusters. But it's up to a movie-lover to find the right kind of critic.
And it's not necessarily a matter of being "right." If there's a critic I think is good, it can be enjoyable even if I disagree.
It's a matter of finding a critic who has the same tastes as I do. I would agree with others that has become harder because journalism in general has become more disconnected from everyday life. The people who become journalists are increasingly from the same sub-cultures within the wider culture.
Trust implies the critic has to "get it right". It's a value judgement, which I think is inappropriate in art. I think critics are just offering their take on a movie, no more no less. At their best they can help you appreciate a work more, from any number of perspectives, and in a way you would not have been able to on your own. But that's not because they have access to a truth you lack. It's just because they probably have more experience with movies than you do, and have a greater grasp of all the allusions and techniques in filmmaking.
On the flip side, I don't like critics who think their opinion is better than the layman's opinion. De gustibus non est disputandum!
Meh. All movie critics, even the "respected ones" (Ebert, Kael, Shalit, Maltin, Travers et al) have biases and human whims that make them suceptible to be unfair in their criticism.
However, at least those critics have/had training and formal education in filmmaking, film history, and all kinds of technical aspects of cinema.
Nowadays, any punk with a high school education, an internet connection, and a substantial number of social media followers can become a certified Rotten Tomatos "movie reviewer."
Movie criticism has become a joke. Scorcese said it best: https://www.indiewire.com/2018/04/ma...re-1201958988/
“[Modern movie criticism reinforces the idea that] that every picture, every image is there to be instantly judged and dismissed without giving audiences time to see it [...] maybe ruminate and maybe make a decision for themselves. So the great 20th-century art form, the American art form, is reduced to content.”
As may have already said, the late Roger Ebert and I were about 99% in sync. If he saw something worthwhile in a movie, I would as well. Miss him frequently.
Short answer is that I take all "reviews" with several large grains of salt these days. I feel like every reviewer is on the take in some way these days and I don't trust the lot of them. In Roger Ebert's day, you rose to prominence because you were actually good, generally. Publishing a newspaper and paying someone to write for it cost money. Now, with the monetization of the internet and the role of the "influencer" I feel like the studios are playing really dirty.
Also, like everything else, it's becoming politicized.
I prefer a "composite" like Rotten Tomatoes where I can see an overall score from critics as well as actually read the individual reviews. There are few movies with scores below 40-50 that I've liked.
Of course now, the "cost" of "going" to see a movie is far less so you can most always watch a bit of it and decide for yourself with minimal cost or inconvenience.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
