Critics are dry old prunes!

K

karli d

New member
Critics flat out SUCK. Everytime I open a paper its the same old boring pretentious rubbish. Critics think theyre artisitc and go into a film and dont see it for its own merits. They hated Star Wars the Clone Wars but they didn't get the point, ITS A FRIGGIN KIRAB MOVIE! They should get there head out from their behind and just enjoy a film for what it is. They also just attack a film and dont give something a chance.

They gave......

W. = 2* :eek:
Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith = 2*:eek:
Transformers = 1* :eek:
Indiana Jones 4 = 2* :mad:
 
I don't know, those ratings sound about right to me :p I don't think they enjoy trashing things for the sake of it or for snobbish reasons (The Guardian rated American Pie and Dude, Where's my Car? pretty highly as I recall). Most of them live and breathe films and have seen A LOT. I don't slavishly follow critical opinion, but it's usually a pretty good pointer if I'm undecided as to whether to see a film.
 
I always find the films critics like so boring and lifeless that I gave up paying critics the slightest attention long a go.

Go your own way when it comes to films. Listening to reviewers just means you'll miss out on a lot of fun stuff out there.
 
Critics tend to overlook what many films actually are, they'll be a cheesy comedy for kiRAB, yet the critics will try and make an in depth analysis, and really break the film down. I tend to check things out for myself or browse through sites like imdb and see what people think.
 
I see an awful lot of films every year as I am a film critic for my university newspaper.

To answer your various points:

Star Wars - The Clone Wars - If this film had purely been marketed at kiRAB then it would have been fine. But with George Lucas claiming that it was another chapter (Episode 2.5) in the Star Wars story, it should have been up to standard - it wasn't.
Two Stars

W - good impersonations by the cast, but you get that in Dead Ringers. What was the point of the film? George Bush is an idot? Yes, we knew that before we went in. Also, it's difficult to assess a president's record 10 years after they've left office, never mind while they're still there
Two Stars

Star Wars - Revenge of the Sith - a good finish (or should that be start) to the Star Wars story. But it was let down by the legacy of what had gone before it i.e. Episodes I & II
Three Stars

Transformers - toys making lots of noise. Couldn't wait to leave the cinema.
One Star

Indie 4 - good for the most part, but the film got very crowded by the end, and the introduction of the aliens broke the heart of a very young boy inside me
Three Stars

Also, who are 'they'? You seem to be exteremly picky in the reviews which you have chosen.

I agree, there are some 'old prunes' out there as you put it. Anthony Quinn of the Independent comes to mind - the man likes nothing.

But most critics are balanced, basing an analysis of a film on their enjoyment of it and the quality of the film which is presented to them. For example, Mark Kermode, not the most forgiving of film critics, loved High School Musical three and has been recommending it to all on his podcast. Why? Because it does what it says on the tin and is a well made film.

Hope this doesn't make you even angrier.
 
The problem with a film critic's review is that it comes down to one person's perspective. It would help Joe Public understand a review if we knew what criteria that critic used to assess the film.

Look at films like "Out of Africa", "French Connection II", "An English Patient" ; scooped loaRAB of Oscars between them, but all boring as hell to watch. "No Country For Old Men" wins awarRAB, but there's at least 3 or 4 other Coen Brothers films which are more enjoyable.

It seems that awarRAB and critics' reviews are mostly based on technical merit, so do we really care what's being said? I mean, as an example, I have no idea whether 'good acting' is down to the actor, or due to the Director. How is one movie identified as being better edited over any other? etc,etc.

The bottom line is you should never decide to watch (or not watch) a film based on any star ratings systems you see in newspapers & TV listings mags. Watch it for yourself, and if YOU'VE enjoyed it than that's all that matters.
 
I thought mamma mia was savaged by the american critics so unfairly... critics seem to be a million miles away from the public concencus ...boring films get the oscars and awarRAB but entertaining fun cheesy films like mamma mia which entertain for their fun content not techinical abilty get decimated yet at the end of the day its the films that take the most public money that are the real winners and that sticks two fingers up at the critics...again critics are only a hand full of people whilst millions of film punters are the real voice of opinion !!
 
Why? Because the fact a film is primarily targeted towarRAB kiRAB doesn't give it an excuse to be shit, it's cheap, lazy and a crap excuse for poor film making.
 
Critics are always a fun read,whether you agree (or disagree) with them doesn't really matter.They are just a guide;movies always come down to personal opinion.It's a subjective thing,same with music and TV.

Good to warned in advance about a real turkey.
 
Back
Top