I have problems with many critics, but not the ones who can properly explain why the felt the way they did. Roger Ebert is one of the last, and could possibly be the last of his kind. I may not agree with everything he says, but he often makes valid points and has great insights. He also backs up everything he says with intelligent remarks.

I wish the same could be said for Richard Roeper.

If movie critics were members here, they would be on my Ignore list. I have no interest in the views of people who trash sci-fi movies simply because they're sci-fi movies. Science fiction is a perfectly legitimate branch of fiction which has produced many truly wonderful stories over the past century, but the average critic, while watching a movie based on one of those stories, is likely to say, "Is that a spacecraft?? This movie blows!" or something equally ignorant. They're just as harsh with horror movies and animated features, too, unless of course the animation was done in France. Now to be fair, sometimes the critics do give a four-star rating to a sci-fi movie that deserves it, the best example by far of which is 2001: A Space Odyssey, and there are a lot of bad sci-fi films out there that deserve to be trashed, but oftentimes the critics don't trash it because it's bad, no; they trash it because they don't understand it (perhaps because there were no subtitles). I stopped paying attention to the critics a long time ago; I have little use for the opinions of elitists.

Hmm, no offence to you, but I think it's a little unfair to give those "foreign, fancy, limited theatre films" the cold shoulder just because of the line that the critics take. Such pictures might not get a great deal of multiplex screen-time (usually because they don't have the big studio backing to secure that kind of publicity) but that doesn't make them of zero merit to the average film-goer simply out for an engaging and enjoyable experience, and it's often only really thanks to the critical attention they might have garnered at the Oscars or Cannes that they even have a chance to be noticed by the public eye.

I'm certainly not one of those militant indie purists who believes that small-budget arthouse movies are inherently superior to mainstream blockbusters, and I'm primarily drawn to the cinema for much the same reason as everyone else - enjoyment, and perhaps a little emotional resonance. And there's no reason why foreign and independent films can't provide the good time I'm seeking - it's nice to see film-making reflecting a variety of different cultures and rhetorics, not just the Hollywood one.

Believe me, I'm no fan of movie critics, and their consensus will rarely have any bearing upon my own view of a film. I know how annoying it is to have the critics rage on a film that you enjoyed...but then again, it's equally as annoying to be fond of a film that no one else could give a monkey's about. Either way, it's just one of those things. :P

i like Indie films and foreign films, just got "800 Bullets" not to long ago. Its a neo-spaghetti western set in modern day Spain. Great movie, not for kids.

I don't hate those films, I've seen some of them and have enjoyed some, my main point is though that every Friday i check the paper for movie reviews, there will always be some limited, select theaters film that's reviewed in it and EVERY time (or 98% anyway) that is the film that gets 4 or 5 stars.

My point is that critics always glorify films and give all the good words of encouragement, and positive aspects to those films. Sometimes those reviews take up most of the paper while big name films that everyone else knows about gets barely reviewed and always with an ignorant POV.

Horror films are a perfect example. Constantly critics hammer and bash horror movies, even some of the best ones and in any review of any horror movie, they will always talk aboit every single thing that's wrong and never what's right. Do they bother to commend actors for their performances? No, do they bother commenting on the music? No. They complain about every single thing.

I think it's downright redundant to rip a horror movie for not having a plot. My dad always said we go to see different movies for different reasons. People go to see comedy movies to laugh, not to have intriciately deep storyline or moving camera techniques. There are times I DO want a movie to have a deep storyline, but there are other times where I just want to be scared silly.

Critics can never treat any mainstream movie with respect because even when something is good, they bash it. If you got 2 and a half stars for a rating, that's a pretty good average rating. But when you read the review, the critic will say he/she liked one thing and spend the rest of the article's duration telling why this sucked or why this needed to be ignored.

What's worse is that critics don't even have valid reasons half the time, like Cass said, they bash things simply for the fact they are horror or sci-fi or whatever. Ebert and Roper are the only critics who express in deep detail what they like and disliked, they truly know how to express how they feel towards a movie with valid reasons and importantly, not trash talk.

That's another thing that bugs me about critics, if they dislike something they will bash it and use every negative word they can think of. To them, movies they dislike aren't movies they are: trash, filth, garbage, ignorant dribble, mindless, pointless, and my personal favorite "a waste of time". There's a fine line between criticism and just being downright bashing.

Most of the times though they don't see the difference. I'm not saying there reviews are totally unjustified, there are often times there dead on the money. But the problem is majority of critics have become so thick skinned over any horror, sci-fi, or comic book movie they already go into the theater with a negative attitude without giving it a chance and that makes me mad.

And in regards to the "select theater" films. All I got to say is watch the episode of Seinfeld where Elaine sees "The English Patient", and that is going to explain alot.

I don't think this is exactly true. Many sci-fi, comedy, horror, and even comic book films get stellar reviews from critics. Batman Begins, Knocked Up, X2, Alien, Aliens, Psycho, Scream, Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, Men in Black, Planes, Trains and Automobiles. That's just the short list. Plus, if you only read blurbs you'll never get a true feel for what many critics are saying. A movie may be very entertaining to them but gets a two star rating because it may not have followed through with the premise, and that's just one example.

Now, I'm not saying that you shouuld read every review or even care about what critics are saying. I'm simply saying that critics aren't out to destroy genre films with their pens and keyboards. Besides, there's many times that they say what they say because they're expected to say it. That's actually something that many critics have admitted to.

Still most of them have nothing on Ebert, and especially not on Siskel. Now there was a team that could not be beat.

Yeah, I don't disagree with ya there. I have personally enjoyed many films that many mainstream critics give unfavorable marks, and the same can be said with them giving favorable marks to some films that disappoint me greatly. All they do is give their opinions on films, and they get paid for it. It's what these guys do. I try not to take them too seriously.

For those of you who find Paris Hilton annoying like me you'll find this pic priceless!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...1/8008a154.jpg


8D8D8D

Believe me, I am taking a great deal of sadistic delight in the whole Paris situation. :bendy:8D

You and me both:scaryberry: