Quote:
Originally Posted by jekylljuice
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 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.