What was the last movie you've seen?

[Ack]

Got to see Star Trek Into Darkness last night and loved it. I really like Cumberbatch as an actor I'm surprised there are people that think he is a bad actor. I think JJA is pretty hit or miss, but I have liked several of his directorial efforts (MI3, Star Trek, Super and think he overuses the lens flare, but oh well. A little disappointed that this thread spoiled the reveal for me, but oh well to that too, I still enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to Star Wars and to see what happens with that.

The reveal that RoboCop is the head of Starfleet? Yeah, I was upset about that too.

[Stark]

Got to see Star Trek Into Darkness last night and loved it. I really like Cumberbatch as an actor I'm surprised there are people that think he is a bad actor. I think JJA is pretty hit or miss, but I have liked several of his directorial efforts (MI3, Star Trek, Super and think he overuses the lens flare, but oh well. A little disappointed that this thread spoiled the reveal for me, but oh well to that too, I still enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to Star Wars and to see what happens with that.

The reveal that RoboCop is the head of Starfleet? Yeah, I was upset about that too.

You just made me laugh out loud in the middle of my cubicle farm, now I look like an idiot, thanks jerk.

[Ack]

You're welcome. Have fun at work!

[Retrodude]

When a production company commissions you to give a review of a movie, get back to me. But for now, please hush it and don't call critics arrogant and say they don't have a real job.

But you are arrogant

Luke's arrogant, but not because he's a critic.

To paraphrase Randall Graves, I find that critics of any media, in general, tend to overcompensate for having what's basically a monkey's job. Anyone can do what they do. They're not special. But because they're the ones being paid to do it, they feel the need to make what they do seem so much more important than it really is and assure themselves that because they're educated, that makes them so much more qualified than any dope you could grab off the street. It doesn't. If I were a professional critic, I would certainly take the job seriously, but not so seriously that I came off as a pompous windbag. Again, I'm talking about critics in general, not anyone here specifically, but that's my honest observation after years of seeing how critics react towards people who disagree with them (and no, I'm not just talking about myself). Most of them shouldn't even be called critics because they're not. They're reviewers, which is a totally different ballgame from serious critical analysis. I can respect those who do the latter whether I agree with them or not, but over the years, I have lost all respect for those who only do the former. Sorry.

[Ack]

To paraphrase Randall Graves, I find that critics of any media, in general, tend to overcompensate for having what's basically a monkey's job. Anyone can do what they do. They're not special. But because they're the ones being paid to do it, they feel the need to make what they do seem so much more important than it really is and assure themselves that because they're educated, that makes them so much more qualified than any dope you could grab off the street. It doesn't. If I were a professional critic, I would certainly take the job seriously, but not so seriously that I came off as a pompous windbag. Again, I'm talking about critics in general, not anyone here specifically, but that's my honest observation after years of seeing how critics react towards people who disagree with them (and no, I'm not just talking about myself). Most of them shouldn't even be called critics because they're not. They're reviewers, which is a totally different ballgame from serious critical analysis. I can respect those who do the latter whether I agree with them or not, but over the years, I have lost all respect for those who only do the former. Sorry.

But you also come off as a pompous windbag.

[prfsnl_gmr]

To paraphrase Randall Graves, I find that critics of any media, in general, tend to overcompensate for having what's basically a monkey's job. Anyone can do what they do. They're not special. But because they're the ones being paid to do it, they feel the need to make what they do seem so much more important than it really is and assure themselves that because they're educated, that makes them so much more qualified than any dope you could grab off the street. It doesn't.

I am a pretty smart guy, but I am fairly certain that Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael were a lot smarter. They were both pretty special, and I do not think that they ever "overcompensat[ed]" for doing a "monkey's job". Likewise, I do not think that "[a]nyone can do what they do" because I have yet to find other critics that do it as well.

Finally, I can assure you that education does make someone more qualified for certain jobs, and I think that this is particularly true for someone - like a professional film critic - who works in the fine arts.

[BurningDoom]

I don't listen to critics either. My tastes often don't line up with a lot of them. I guess I'm too low-brow for them. I like cheap horror and action movies, I like super-hero flicks, I like sci-fi movies with fantastic plotlines and cool looking aliens, and I like raunchy-humor comedies.

[Retrodude]

But you also come off as a pompous windbag.

If that's so, then I apologize, but I have little tolerance for people who think that because of some aspect of their lives (money, education, profession, what have you), they're somehow better than the rest of us. All I'm trying to say is that just because someone thinks they're important, that doesn't make it so.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... NameBigEgo

[Jrecee]

Oh god....

Critics watch a film and decide if it's good or not, so that people can read the reviews and decide if they want to see the movie or not. Sometimes there's more to it then that, sometimes there's not. Historically, my feelings of whether a movie is good or not will align with whether it gets a fresh or rotten score. If the basis for whether a movie is good or not is how popular it was, then Watchmen didn't do so hot on that front either.

[Retrodude]

If the basis for whether a movie is good or not is how popular it was, then Watchmen didn't do so hot on that front either.

I never use popularity as a gauge for quality. Speed Racer bombed, but it became a bit of a cult classic among animation fans (myself included). Twilight was super mega successful, but it's one of the worst films I've ever seen, if not the worst. Popularity means jack as far as I'm concerned. If a film I enjoyed becomes popular, great, but most of the time I don't even think about it.