Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2020 15:20:45 GMT
When I was a kid, I used to think film critics meant something. And maybe they used to actually critique films based on their actual merit?
Something has fundamentally changed over the past 25 years.
I think film critics have now become activists to promote “themes” rather than actually good films.
For Example:
“Ghostbusters” (2016) RT Score 74%
“Bill and Ted Face The Music” (2020) RT 82%
“Joker” (2019) RT 68%
Let me ask you honestly. Which film of these three is the better film? It’s a no brainer. Nobody will remember Ghostbusters (2016) or Bill and Ted 3 in 20 years. But people will still be talking about “Joker” ... Joaquin Phoenix did a masterclass in acting.
Why do more critics give positive ratings to the first two films, but not the latter?
Simple. Read the actual reviews. “Joker” got a lot of negative reviews because of “White male rage” and “Incel males will use this as a rally to kill” etc... literally none of the negative reviews are about the quality of the film.
So you’re going to give praise to a film for paving the way for “female” superheroes. Not because it’s an actual good film. But because you’re afraid of you trash it, then people won’t go see it (which they didn’t anyway) and you’re afraid movie studios won’t make more. So it’s an activist review, not a real movie review. Same with Bill and Ted 3.
TL;DR: Film critics rate films with political bias rather than actual merit nowadays.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwightmachinehead on Dec 19, 2020 15:42:26 GMT
The way Rotten Tomatoes works, if it's rated average or above it gets a fresh rating. It's not the best and it probably is rigged because Ghostbusters (2016) is so painfully unfunny I was in agony and I was unable to get past the first hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason143 on Dec 19, 2020 15:49:28 GMT
Not anymore. For older movies before 2010 I might actually look up rotten tomatoe scores and critic reviews and judge whetherto watch a movie basedon them. But any modern film in the past 5 years the disparity between critics and audience reception has grown too large.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Dec 19, 2020 16:00:23 GMT
I like reading old Bosley Crowther reviews about films in the 1950's and 1960's, but outside of that I dont put much stock in any modern film critics. They all seem out of touch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 19, 2020 16:11:06 GMT
I have never put any stock in film critics.
The only opinion i care about when it comes to films, tv shows, music, books or any other form of art is my own.
|
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Dec 19, 2020 16:34:12 GMT
It's been a while. Same with music critics. I just don't care what they say and all too often they say it in a superior way. Robert Duvall once said all you needed to be a critic was an opinion and a typewriter.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonesjxd on Dec 19, 2020 16:54:36 GMT
This isn't anything new, Siskell & Ebert (especially Ebert) had been leading the charge against horror movies for political reasons for years, Pauline Kael held personal vendettas against movies and filmmakers were entire career. Difference was those critics actually had individual influence, whereas now critics may have their niche readers but for the most part only serve to make up a Rotten Tomatoes score. People look at the movies percentage score, they may read the one sentence review RT provides and they'll either see the movie or not see the movie regardless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2020 17:23:21 GMT
This isn't anything new, Siskell & Ebert (especially Ebert) had been leading the charge against horror movies for political reasons for years, Pauline Kael held personal vendettas against movies and filmmakers were entire career. Difference was those critics actually had individual influence, whereas now critics may have their niche readers but for the most part only serve to make up a Rotten Tomatoes score. People look at the movies percentage score, they may read the one sentence review RT provides and they'll either see the movie or not see the movie regardless. That might be the biggest problem. They are trying to adjust the RT average for political activist purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by jonesjxd on Dec 19, 2020 17:29:58 GMT
This isn't anything new, Siskell & Ebert (especially Ebert) had been leading the charge against horror movies for political reasons for years, Pauline Kael held personal vendettas against movies and filmmakers were entire career. Difference was those critics actually had individual influence, whereas now critics may have their niche readers but for the most part only serve to make up a Rotten Tomatoes score. People look at the movies percentage score, they may read the one sentence review RT provides and they'll either see the movie or not see the movie regardless. That might be the biggest problem. They are trying to adjust the RT average for political activist purposes. Coronavirus has pretty much wiped out the blogger critic profession. All the prominent bloggers and blogger sites have been pretty much decimated. I think BirthMoviesDeath is gone now, last time I checked the Slashfilm guy was moving away from reporting on Star Wars rumors and moving towards a full time vlog about him and his wifes trips to amusement parks, ooh, bad timing on that business model change haha.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2020 20:30:53 GMT
I agree the first two are hardly going to stand the test of time but nobody is going to be talking about Joker in 20 years even despite Joaquin's acting.
It's simply too derivative of other films-- namely Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. It brought absolutely nothing new to the table nor did it modernize something old in a unique way. It was an outright throwback to better films.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Dec 19, 2020 20:40:52 GMT
No, but I put stock when it comes to people online who have similar taste in movies. If they say they just saw a great movie, I'd probably check it out.
I didn't see the first two movies (nor will I ever) and "Joker" sucked for reasons mentioned earlier, and for just generally sucking. It would make my Top 5 Worst Movies I've seen all the way through.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 19, 2020 21:17:12 GMT
There’s particular critics I read or listen to.
I don’t put stock in user reviews
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 19, 2020 21:36:53 GMT
Yes. For instance if Armond White give a glowing review to a movie, that typically tells me "OK this an unwatchable piece of shit"
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Dec 19, 2020 23:15:35 GMT
I used to. Then I learned that critics are snobs who think that every movie needs to be an Oscar winner for it to be good in their eyes. Heck they really lost me when they gave Ghostbusters 2016 a good review.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Dec 20, 2020 3:06:57 GMT
When I was a kid, I used to think film critics meant something. And maybe they used to actually critique films based on their actual merit? Something has fundamentally changed over the past 25 years. I think film critics have now become activists to promote “themes” rather than actually good films. For Example: “Ghostbusters” (2016) RT Score 74% “Bill and Ted Face The Music” (2020) RT 82% “Joker” (2019) RT 68% Let me ask you honestly. Which film of these three is the better film? It’s a no brainer. Nobody will remember Ghostbusters (2016) or Bill and Ted 3 in 20 years. But people will still be talking about “Joker” ... Joaquin Phoenix did a masterclass in acting. Why do more critics give positive ratings to the first two films, but not the latter? Simple. Read the actual reviews. “Joker” got a lot of negative reviews because of “White male rage” and “Incel males will use this as a rally to kill” etc... literally none of the negative reviews are about the quality of the film. So you’re going to give praise to a film for paving the way for “female” superheroes. Not because it’s an actual good film. But because you’re afraid of you trash it, then people won’t go see it (which they didn’t anyway) and you’re afraid movie studios won’t make more. So it’s an activist review, not a real movie review. Same with Bill and Ted 3. TL;DR: Film critics rate films with political bias rather than actual merit nowadays. Depends on critic. |
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Dec 20, 2020 3:22:17 GMT
I think the main trouble comes when they either have an agenda to push (online), or interact wirh said persons (need free tickets).
But, I just read a piece and come to my own judgement on it, regardless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 16, 2021 14:21:26 GMT
The problem with this thread is that a lot of users are talking about critics like an entity. Are there 1 or 2 critics out there that fit these descriptions? Sure, but that doesn't mean they represent the majority. “Ghostbusters” (2016) RT Score 74% “Bill and Ted Face The Music” (2020) RT 82% “Joker” (2019) RT 68% Why do more critics give positive ratings to the first two films, but not the latter? How is 68% negative? Also, these are all different genres, and therefore, different standards. literally none of the negative reviews are about the quality of the film. Why do you say that knowing that people can go to R.T. and see for themselves that what you said isn't true? So you’re going to give praise to a film for paving the way for “female” superheroes. BILL & TED isn't part of that genre. I recently made another thread debating whether the GHOSTBUSTERS franchise is part of it, and a lot of people say it isn't. because you’re afraid of you trash it, then people won’t go see it (which they didn’t anyway) and you’re afraid movie studios won’t make more. Let me see if I got this right: Critics are snobs who go against what moviegoers think and are also afraid to go against what moviegoers? Critics don't have any value or influence yet moviegoers use reviews to decide what to watch? Studios pay more attention to reviews rather than box office results? The only opinion i care about when it comes to films, tv shows, music, books or any other form of art is my own. Then why are you in this forum? 😂 I learned that critics are snobs who think that every movie needs to be an Oscar winner for it to be good in their eyes. Heck they really lost me when they gave Ghostbusters 2016 a good review. These 2 sentences directly contradict each other. I think the main trouble comes when they either have an agenda to push (online), or interact wirh said persons (need free tickets). Critics will get free tickets no matter what they write/say. |
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jan 16, 2021 14:24:07 GMT
The problem with this thread is that a lot of users are talking about critics like an entity. Are there 1 or 2 critics out there that fit these descriptions? Sure, but that doesn't mean they represent the majority. I think the main trouble comes when they either have an agenda to push (online), or interact wirh said persons (need free tickets). Critics will get free tickets no matter what they write/say. I mean tickets to other events, like different shows, exclusive parties etc. Gifts, like those that would be strictly prohibited by the ethics code at the American company I work for (and our American host).
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jan 16, 2021 14:40:28 GMT
To an extent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 16, 2021 15:43:24 GMT
I mean tickets to other events, like different shows, exclusive parties etc. Gifts, like those that would be strictly prohibited by the ethics code at the American company I work for (and our American host). Is that a thing?
|
|
