What was the last movie you've seen?

[Luke]

Potty mouth review of PIXELS


This guy has an obsession with bodily functions. He also bestowed the term "critic" upon himself, when he's a dude who posts youtube reviews. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of him before.

But he did say a mouthful with "Worst Adam Sandler Film ever". That says a lot.

[jp1]

Potty mouth review of PIXELS


This guy has an obsession with bodily functions. He also bestowed the term "critic" upon himself, when he's a dude who posts youtube reviews. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of him before.

But he did say a mouthful with "Worst Adam Sandler Film ever". That says a lot.

I don't get the concept of a movie critic. What makes one person's opinion more accurate? I prefer making up my own mind. In that sense, in my opinion, we are all critics.

[Luke]

I don't get the concept of a movie critic. What makes one person's opinion more accurate? I prefer making up my own mind. In that sense, in my opinion, we are all critics.

I couldn't criticize Tiger Woods short game, as I know dick about golf.

I've thrown a football tons of time, but can't criticize RGII's spiral. I'm no pro.

Can't even comment on my next door neighbor's cake as I don't know much about baking.

I've studied film. I've studied cooking. I've been paid to do both for over a decade because for some insane reason my opinion matters by popular opinion. That goes back to my resume, which lists reasons of why I am qualified. Why am I qualified? Continued experience and ruthless education.

When you compare "movie Bob" or whatever his name is to Roger Ebert the difference is astounding.

Critics don't tell you what to think, but help you with how you think. Saying "This movie is rhino turds" doesn't give much insight.

For sure, think with your own noggin, but a good critic sure makes for a good reason and helps weed out what you might also think is junk.

[SNESdrunk]

Nightcrawler - Pretty much a one-man show but it's a good one. It's annoying that the other characters only exist to set up lines from Gyllenhaal's character, but it's definitely entertaining as hell.

[jp1]

I don't get the concept of a movie critic. What makes one person's opinion more accurate? I prefer making up my own mind. In that sense, in my opinion, we are all critics.

I couldn't criticize Tiger Woods short game, as I know dick about golf.

I've thrown a football tons of time, but can't criticize RGII's spiral. I'm no pro.

Can't even comment on my next door neighbor's cake as I don't know much about baking.

I've studied film. I've studied cooking. I've been paid to do both for over a decade because for some insane reason my opinion matters by popular opinion. That goes back to my resume, which lists reasons of why I am qualified. Why am I qualified? Continued experience and ruthless education.

When you compare "movie Bob" or whatever his name is to Roger Ebert the difference is astounding.

Critics don't tell you what to think, but help you with how you think. Saying "This movie is rhino turds" doesn't give much insight.

For sure, think with your own noggin, but a good critic sure makes for a good reason and helps weed out what you might also think is junk.

To be fair, I didn't watch "movie Bob" or his critique. I do agree that I prefer some sort of explanation as to why a movie is considered good or bad. I also think that from the standpoint of market research or even for an entertainment purpose a movie critic is useful. My only qualm with it being that since whether a movie is bad or not is subjective we are dealing completely in the realm of personal opinion. It's for this reason that I don't place a lot of weight in what a movie critic says for my own personal viewing habits.

On the other hand if I was throwing millions of dollars around and there was a guy who happened to have their finger on the pulse of pop culture, he is the one I'd want in my ear. In that context it makes sense.

I used to frequent the site Bloody-Disgusting for my horror movie reviews/recommendations and although the highly rated movies often had a very thoughtful and well reasoned critique...often they sucked (in my opinion). It is highly likely that my opinion does not align well with that of the mass market, for this reason I don't attempt to make professional movie reviews. The same reason is most likely why I don't place much stock in them either.

I am picking up what you're putting down though. Truthfully, if you are getting paid to make educated guesses on what movies people will like or not, I'm not hating on that. It really just comes down to a fundamental difference in the way we look at cinema in general. Is it a skill? Art? Entertainment? This makes a huge difference as to whether or not a person can be educated in what is right or wrong when making a film. If it is to be looked at as a business on the other hand, then the question is already answered.

tl;dr - No offense, I'm not hating on those who get paid to do it. The service just isn't for me.

[BogusMeatFactory]

I don't get the concept of a movie critic. What makes one person's opinion more accurate? I prefer making up my own mind. In that sense, in my opinion, we are all critics.

I couldn't criticize Tiger Woods short game, as I know dick about golf.

I've thrown a football tons of time, but can't criticize RGII's spiral. I'm no pro.

Can't even comment on my next door neighbor's cake as I don't know much about baking.

I've studied film. I've studied cooking. I've been paid to do both for over a decade because for some insane reason my opinion matters by popular opinion. That goes back to my resume, which lists reasons of why I am qualified. Why am I qualified? Continued experience and ruthless education.

When you compare "movie Bob" or whatever his name is to Roger Ebert the difference is astounding.

Critics don't tell you what to think, but help you with how you think. Saying "This movie is rhino turds" doesn't give much insight.

For sure, think with your own noggin, but a good critic sure makes for a good reason and helps weed out what you might also think is junk.

Absolutely agree Luke. A good critic can shed light to a situation and point out the, "Why's," of what makes a movie good/bad. A lot of times, critics do get caught up in their own personal preference, or lose sight on the purpose of a film and whether that film achieves what it sets out to do.

I always look at the classic Red Letter Media's, Mr. Plinket reviews for the Star Wars Prequels as internet criticism done right. They mix comedy with an intelligent deconstruction to the films and point out many reasons as to why the films are failures as films by talking about pacing, character believability and the lack of imagination in film shots. They don't just scream to the heavens about how bad the Prequels are, but instead take a rational approach while keeping a bit of absurdity in the comedic interludes that break up the commentary and keep you interested.

You really can't get very far as a critic if you rely on popular opinion and rely on gimmicks or personas that do not contribute substance.

[Ack]

tl;dr - No offense, I'm not hating on those who get paid to do it. The service just isn't for me.

A lot of it has to do with you finding the right critic for you too. I used to write articles on video games for pay, but regardless of the hundreds or thousands of games I have played through, I have personal taste that isn't necessarily going to mesh with yours. So you, as a consumer of information, may not agree with my interpretation and choose to seek out the opinions of other people. And it might not be taste, it might be purely out of presentation that you seek another format. It's fine not to agree with critics. But the well-seasoned critics will always have some form of background in the medium, regardless of whether you agree with the opinions they come to.

[Exhuminator]

What makes one person's opinion more accurate?

An opinion is a subjective thing. Accuracy is an objective thing. Therefore subjective opinions are not objectively accurate by definition. But experience can certainly make one person's opinion more informed.

Critics are vital to any artistic field, if said critics have a lot of history with and exposure to their chosen medium, and can also articulate their opinions in a constructive way. Their reviews help to disassemble a body of work in such a manner as to decide what works and doesn't work, and thereby aid the medium to evolve.

That said, of course one critic cannot speak for everyone's tastes. So ultimately it's up to the reader to decide if they agree or not with the critic's opinion. Personally speaking, I can count on one hand the amount of video game critics I truly consider professional and well informed. Most video game reviewers are amateur hour hacks.

[Luke]

To be fair, I didn't watch "movie Bob" or his critique.

Then you are out of your element Donnie. If you watch his review I'm pretty darned sure you would say "This man is no critic".

A lot of times, critics do get caught up in their own personal preference, or lose sight on the purpose of a film and whether that film achieves what it sets out to do...

Mr. Plinket

The thing is that a good critic admits to his preferences. That's acceptable. Like when Dish says he doesn't usually like superhero movies, that's fine. He's letting you know how his critique follows his preferences.

And it also shows where the critic is praising or being hyper-critical of something in a movie. I don't like jokes about cum. But in Something about Marry, I laughed. It made a joke about cum funny. And I wouldn't put it in those words in a review, but you get what I mean. It's fine to have personal preferences as long as you explain why you have them.

Okay. Mr. Plinket.

He rapes a cat in one of his reviews. He also sticks a cat in a microwave for perhaps a comedic effect? Like raping cats is funny? Is it?

It's not. But I do love his reviews. He's 10% trying to establish a character and 90% solid movie reviewing. His criticisms are strong and worth listening to. He also has a very business like structure to his reviews:

1) He's going to tell you what he's going to tell you.
2) He tells you.
3) He tells you what he just told you.

He's also a film school nerd. Focused on structure, but that doesn't bother me at all as he knows his stuff.

But as far as this Bob guy goes, there is a difference between:

"This movie is elephant ejaculate"

and...

"Movies often take place in towns, but they rarely seem to live in them. Alan Parker’s “Mississippi Burning” feels like a movie made from the inside out, a movie that knows the ways and people of its small Southern city so intimately that, having seen it, I know the place I’d go for a cup of coffee and the place I’d steer clear from. This acute sense of time and place - rural Mississippi, 1964 - is the lifeblood of the film. More than any other film I’ve seen, this one gets inside the passion of race relations in America."

Almost makes you think that most critics talk about films, but rarely do they try to live in them.

[jp1]

To be fair, I didn't watch "movie Bob" or his critique.

Then you are out of your element Donnie. If you watch his review I'm pretty darned sure you would say "This man is no critic".

The Dude abides.

Critic stuff.

I was trying to articulate that I understood the professional importance of movie critics. And as Luke quoted a very poignant review, I am aware of the entertainment value inherent in reading about subjects you enjoy. Such as the articles one might find on this site. I will just have to leave it at a personal preference that as a consumer I choose to go into most cinematic experiences as blind as possible. The review may have a chance to color my opinions or question my own feelings and while sometimes that may be a good thing, it isn't something I enjoy on my first viewing.

Even so, my taste in movies lies well outside of the mass appeal circle. I'm pretty sure of that since many of my purchases are of limited run releases or cost a fortune because they come from specialty distributors. So, it is entirely possible that critics are much more useful for most people.