Makes you wonder what critics are for...

From what I can tell, the audience consensus is that the movie is not as bad as the critics have been making it out to be (81% audience, 4.2/5 average. CinemaScore: A). If on the whole critics are writing so that we, the audience, are directed towards good movies, doesn't this mean that there is some degree of disconnect between the critics and the audience they are writing for? I'm pretty sure we don't pay these critics to give their opinions because their opinions are interesting reads on their own...right? What do you guys think.
Michael Lu
12-15-2012 05:15 PM

Thread Replies

Please log in to participate in this forum.

Matt Hastings

Matt Hastings

The critic's arguments seem petty in places, areas of large critisism seemed like it was just nit picking. But it does feel like after seeing it for myself (and taking their reviews into account) that they saw a different movie than me, and apparently everyone else

Dec 17 - 05:35 AM

D P.

D P

No, thy saw the same moe, they just int like I.

Dec 17 - 05:42 AM

CinefantastiqueOnline

Steve Biodrowski

What are critics for? Not to rubber stamp popular opinion with a seal of approval. As Anton Ego says in RATATOUILLE, their purpose is to provide "a little perspective."

Not that many of them are very good at this, but that is what they are for.

Dec 17 - 12:01 AM

D P.

D P

Again, all of the Twilight movies got much higher audience scores than critics scores. Who was "right" in that case?

Dec 15 - 08:12 PM

Paul Smith

Paul Smith

Critics are primarily for financial advisement. They make these conversations possible:

Person A: Hey, should we go see "Playing for keeps"?
Person B: Well, there's people who've seen the movie, and everyone except Leonard Maltin said they hated it.
Person A: Oh, I'm glad people saw the movie for us! Now I can take this $50 I would have spent on tickets and popcorn and put it towards the new IPAD!

What I would like to have seen done is separated reviews on the 24 fps and the 48fps. If I only have enough money to spend to see it once, I'd like to know how to optimize my movie-going experience.

Bear in mind that initial critic reviews need not correlate to whether the film is determined, in time, to be very good. I'm looking at Citizen Kane and Vertigo as films that opened to mixed reviews, and voila....they're now #1-2 on best of all time lists.

Dec 15 - 06:31 PM

Michael Lu

Michael Lu

Are you saying that critics are primarily for gaining notoriety through going against the popular opinion? Assuming that's the case, why would critics ever write anything but the opposite of what they feel...I might have mischaracterized your statement, no ill-will intended :)

And I know this is kind of off topic, but assuming the criteria for a good film stays constant, is it the basis for what constitutes these criteria that changes (for instance "good acting" means different things as time goes on) that causes films to be more highly regarded as time goes on?

Dec 16 - 11:49 PM

Dingbat Charlie

Dingbat Charlie

Crtics > Fanboys

Dec 15 - 06:18 PM

Andrew Pitman

Andrew Pitman

Yep. I'm not a fan of critics. If they were a movie I'd give them a rotten score. It seems that they go into movies already knowing the score they'll give it. Take the issue with 48 fps, many critics are saying the movie looks like a soap opera with it. They've been saying that since the first piece of HFR film was released. I just saw The Hobbit in HFR, I couldn't tell the difference at all, except when the action got fast and I was surprised to be able to tell what was happening on screen.
Then there's the comparison many critics draw to LOTR, with some saying this movie is too different, and some saying it is too similar. I think the books (Hobbit and LOTR) were sooo different from eachother that LOTR shouldnt even be mentioned in relation to this movie (as far as criticism goes).
Some critics complain that this movie didn't have the children's story feel of The Hobbit (book), to which I totally disagree. I felt like I was watching a movie I would have loved at 10 years old (though, it is worth admitting, I also loved LOTR at 10, but still, it felt like a children's book to me). Besides, this movie was only partly based on The Hobbit (though it shares a title), as it is also based on the Appendices and other writings (some of which, I believe were never published, for those of you who complain the movie doesn't stick to authentic material).
All this to say: I loved The Hobbit (book and movie), and though I continually try to ignore them, movie critics get under my skin.

Dec 15 - 06:08 PM

Jason Williams

Jason Williams

I saw the movie for the second time. This time in 48fps Imax 3d. It was magnificent. I preferred this frame rate. I honestly don't understand the frame rate criticism. It looks different but looked better to me. Perhaps I am just not much of a filmophile. I usually agree with critics but not on this one. The film was very good but not perfect. The 48 fps enhances it. The critics are behind the curve on this one.

Dec 15 - 06:05 PM

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile