# I always laugh at people who need to cite warm critical reception...



## TetraVaal (Mar 24, 2012)

as a movie's strength in terms of its quality.

A film critic's job is one of the most pointless professions out there, it really is. I mean, I'm guilty of writing up my own film reviews--it's a medium I love, but I do it for fun. HOWEVER, I won't lie and say that if the opportunity arose for me to be a _professional_ film critic (_as if the term "professional" even needs to be applied to such an artificial journalist title_) I wouldn't take it--I would. But really, who wouldn't? That's money in your pocket--and as well know, film critics tend to get paid well.

But you know what really proves my point that a film critic's job is completely pointless? Take a look at Roger Ebert, the most renowned film critic of all time. The guy is a fucking Pulitzer prize winner for crying out loud, yet his hypocritical banter and reoccurring tendency to flip-flop just further reiterates that he's in a profession of politics. The awards and accolades he receives are superficial in every sense of the word. He's never held accountable by his peers for his weary sense of commitment towards his opinions.

This is a guy who openly insulted fans of 'Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen', a sentiment I not only share with him, but I share with anyone who actually has a respectable knowledge in filmmaking. But you know what makes his abrasive and insulting remarks towards TF2's fans so ironic? It's the fact that he went as far to say _"Those who think "Transformers" is a great or even a good film are, may I tactfully suggest, not sufficiently evolved. Film by film, I hope they climb a personal ladder into the realm of better films, until their standards improve"_--yet these comments are made by the same man who gave 'Speed 2' a fucking positive review, with 3 out of 4 stars and two thumbs up, no less. If anything, one could argue that 'Speed 2' is dumber, louder, and more offensive than anything Michael Bay has put out.

I never thought that I would utter a statement like that, but when you consider how insulting Sandra Bullock's performance was in that film--as well as Willlem Dafoe being at his absolute WORST--topped off with the severe lack of chemistry between the two leads, like someone took two random people from opposite parts of the world and just dumped them into a boat together, one could see what I'm getting at. It's one thing to write-up a negative review about a piece of entertainment that you strongly dislike, but it's another thing entirely to basically contradict yourself while insulting people who arguably have the same standard you do. Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that no one ever took the time to point that out to him. How is he in any position to be insulting any fan of Michael Bay's films when he's openly admitted to thoroughly enjoying one of the worst film sequels of all time? It's perplexing, isn't it?

At the end of the day, my _opinion_ that being a film critic is entirely pointless may be a bit strong--especially when you consider how much I love the medium. But when you have so called renowned figures in that field, like Roger Ebert, who is nothing short of a walking contradiction, being used as a frame of reference for what constitutes as a reliable "critic", isn't there merit to my feelings? I may not be a Pulitzer prize winner, but I'll tell you one thing... I never would have given 'Speed 2' a positive review, let alone _"two thumbs up!"_  It's funny to me that people sometimes put fickle individuals like Roger Ebert on an undeserved pedestal. It's amuses me that so many people flock to this guy like he's the be-end-all of film critics, especially when I just easily exposed him on being the phony that he is.

This, my friends, is exactly why I don't ever take a person serious when they say _"Look at the Rotten Tomatoes score! See, it's a good movie!"_

Now, are there good film critics out there? Yes, absolutely. But are they hard to come by? Yes, they are. The truly good film critics--the ones that don't flip-flop, while sticking to their convictions without conforming to the popular consensus stemming from their peers, are really hard to come by. This is precisely why if you're serious about discussing film, or getting involved in the medium because you have a profound interest in it, it's important to leave so called "critical darlings" in your rear-view mirror. You must always judge a film based on your own merits. If you can't put forth a respectable argument for as to why you like or dislike a film, and you need to use a critic's words to speak for you, then you clearly don't have a single clue about the film you're discussing.

I suppose that after reading this a bit more carefully, it's not so much that I find the idea of being a film critic pointless--it's that there are some critics out there whose reviews and film values _are_ pointless. It's just hard to take a person's words at face value when they're guilty of accusing someone else of the same thing.

*EDIT:* I'm gonna refine all of this some day down the road, as some of my statements are a bit too strong. In hindsight, I don't like that I stated that being a film critic is pointless, my wording wasn't too good there. I'd rather rephrase that as certain (_most_) figures in the film critic profession are pointless.


----------



## MajorThor (Mar 24, 2012)

tl,dr. summarize plz.


----------



## Pseudo (Mar 24, 2012)

Maybe he just likes _Speed 2_ Tetra? We've all had that one film we love that goes against the qualities that we personally consider would make a great film. 

I like Kung Pow: Enter the Fist.

Ennoea likes Adam Sandler movies.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Mar 24, 2012)

I liked the Transformers movies. Lots of explosions with hardly any plot to get in the way. 

You don't go to Michael Bay movies for quality film making, you go to watch shit get blown up. Criticizing it for being bad is like criticizing fire for being hot.


----------



## Violent by Design (Mar 24, 2012)

cool story.


----------



## Tyrion (Mar 24, 2012)

You're just jealous cause you ain't got a job like that and your reviews aren't being read by anyone else around the world, stop trying to bring others down.


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 24, 2012)

A.Glover92 said:


> You're just jealous cause you ain't got a job like that and your reviews aren't being read by anyone else around the world, stop trying to bring others down.





Wow.


----------



## Kirito (Mar 24, 2012)

A film critic is just that ... a critic. Someone who looks for flaws and invents some when there are only trivial flaws to be found.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Mar 24, 2012)

tl;                                 dr


----------



## Taleran (Mar 24, 2012)

Critics are for people who don't bother caring enough to look into this stuff enough on their own.


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 24, 2012)

They're just Critics Tetra, paid in blowjobs by Hollywood to hype up trash and make them a quick buck.
jk



> Enoa likes Adam Sandler movies.



I love me some of that

To be fair Ebert has been inconsistent many times, but it's just personal taste. Speed 2 is total garbage but he probably enjoyed it at the time, in hindsight I don't think he'd give it such a good review.


----------



## gumby2ms (Mar 24, 2012)

you have a point tetra. I usually try to find a reviewer who has similar tastes to me. like a creep online dating service. 

we need reviewers, imdb and rotten as a kind of mass of opinions, but in the end they can be very wrong about the movie. some people actively denigrate movies they haven't seen. some people are actually paid to denigrate movies they haven't seen. 

I seen '21 jump street' this afternoon. it was a fun ride and had some good low brow humor. if you take it too seriously you won't have fun and I have never seen the original(could effect some reviewers). it is primarily a comedy so don't go in expecting anything groundbreaking. 

I used to have a good reviewer but his youtube channel went down a few years ago when they got mad at him having movie clips in his reviews(from the trailer)


----------



## Whimsy (Mar 24, 2012)

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE YOUR MIND


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 24, 2012)

Whimsy said:


> YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE YOUR MIND



Haha, I know.

It's not that I didn't want to change my mind, but as another user pointed out, I do support the idea of amassing an overwhelming amount of opinions and putting them out there for people to see. However, I do take issue with a particular individual being labeled as the "head" of their profession, for lack of a better word, only to be easily exposed as being a side-stepping, hypocritical douchebag who displays traits of being an amateur. Anyway, I openly admit that I probably fucked my own thread up. I do think I got my original point across, but by stumbling over some of my words, I think I ended up posting a bit of a mindfuck, lol.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 24, 2012)

Is it a pointless job? One can argue that, but you're not a bad critic for liking one movie and disliking another. Even if they appear to be of the same quality, or the former being of worse quality than the latter. When it comes down to it, it's how the movie makes you personally feel. I like Doug Walker's (the Nostalgia Critic) view on it: everyone should feel free to like whatever they want to like. But he thinks a good critic should merely be able to say _why._ You like Batman and Robin? Cool. Just, why.


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 24, 2012)

Ennoea said:


> They're just Critics Tetra, paid in blowjobs by Hollywood to hype up trash and make them a quick buck.
> jk
> 
> 
> Speed 2 is total garbage but he probably enjoyed it at the time, in hindsight I don't think he'd give it such a good review.



1.) I understand that--but it's the fact that such a flip-flopping, continuously inconsistent mind like Ebert is held to the gold standard. I was just trying to make the point that he's guilty of the same insults he's hurled at fans of recently shitty films.

2.) I doubt it. He usually reworks his reviews if he ends up changing his mind--just like he conveniently did for 'Blade Runner' once everyone else hopped on the bandwagon.



Stunna said:


> Is it a pointless job? One can argue that, but you're not a bad critic for liking one movie and disliking another. Even if they appear to be of the same quality, or the former being of worse quality than the latter. When it comes down to it, it's how the movie makes you personally feel. I like Doug Walker's (the Nostalgia Critic) view on it: everyone should feel free to like whatever they want to like. But he thinks a good critic should merely be able to say _why._ You like Batman and Robin? Cool. Just, why.



I think you missed my point that I don't take issue with people enjoying shitty films. I take issue with those who put themselves on a pedestal, as Ebert did by making those comments about the people who enjoyed TF2, only to be easily exposed thanks to some of the HORRENDOUSLY shitty films he's given positive reviews to in the past. Hell, another example I can throw out is 'The Mummy 3', which he called the best in the series.

The guy is a phony.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 24, 2012)

Wait the Jet Li one? Really?


----------



## Whimsy (Mar 24, 2012)

It is a pointless job, and I can't remember the last time I read one, but fuck it there's a ton of pointless jobs, particularly in journalism, and getting paid for things people happily do for free is pretty sly.


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 24, 2012)

Taleran said:


> Wait the Jet Li one? Really?



Yep.

Plus, isn't it a bit funny that he also gave the first Transformers a 3/4, two thumbs up, and even praised the CGI.

Yet Bay makes essentially the same film with parts 2 and three, and he gives them both 1 out of 4 stars. I think the guy just tries to conform to whatever is trendy for him. He probably saw that people didn't like the second and third films, so he just followed that same mold.

As for me, I think all three of the films were fucking terrible, so I'm sort of shocked that he gave the first film a moderately glowing review.

The guy is fickle as fuck.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 24, 2012)

The first film is atrocious compared to 3 (to me) because by the time Dark Of the Moon rolled around Bay was so beyond giving a fuck if he was making a Transformers movie and just did his thing.

1 had that Spielberg wonderment bullshit grafted on (a technique that Speilberg himself hasn't used in 20 years)


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 24, 2012)

I don't disagree, but I think your "Transformers 2 Vs Speed 2" example wasn't the best kind to use. People change, opinions change and we develop bizarre, personal hangups that can't be farther from objective opinions.

Maybe if "Transformers 2" came out in the 90's, Ebert might have been in the mindset that would allow him to enjoy the film. If he saw Speed 2 in....2009 or whatever, he might have hated it. He himself acknowledges in his "Last House on the Left" remake that his opinion of the original might have changed in the 30 years sense he last saw it. 

Ebert is a critic who basis 90% of his reviews on his personal reactions to the film. He will complain about gore being in a slasher, he doesn't like kids being exploited in any kind of exploitation film (his review of "Kick-Ass" is like 80% a complaint about this), etc, etc, etc.

I don't agree with that style, but that's what it is. The problem with reviewing in general is the internet puts too much emphasis on numbers, like rotten tomatoes. People should just find a reviewer they more-or-less agree with and stay with them.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 24, 2012)

That is the WORST possible advice you could ever give anyone. Find someone who is like you and only listen to them.

Ha.


----------



## Stunna (Mar 24, 2012)

TetraVaal said:


> I think you missed my point that I don't take issue with people enjoying shitty films. I take issue with those who put themselves on a pedestal, as Ebert did by making those comments about the people who enjoyed TF2, only to be easily exposed thanks to some of the HORRENDOUSLY shitty films he's given positive reviews to in the past. Hell, another example I can throw out is 'The Mummy 3', which he called the best in the series.


Apparently I did. My bad.


----------



## Whimsy (Mar 24, 2012)

Taleran said:


> That is the WORST possible advice you could ever give anyone. Find someone who is like you and only listen to them.
> 
> Ha.



Whilst I agree with this, the average joe only has a certain amount of time, money and give-a-shit for films, so they need something to help their decision making on what to use those resources for. Which is essentially the whole purpose of pro reviewers.

Some people just want something they'll mosrt likely enjoy. It may be narrow minded yada yada, but its also how it is.


----------



## Mider T (Mar 24, 2012)

U Mad             .


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 24, 2012)

Taleran said:


> That is the WORST possible advice you could ever give anyone. Find someone who is like you and only listen to them.
> 
> Ha.



Yep.

A good analogy to use is sports journalism since I'm a huge sports fan. It's always fun to talk about football and hockey, especially at great length, even to the point that you overanalyze stuff. However, similar to modern film critics, companies like ESPN has journalists and commentators that are flat-out UNBEARABLE.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 24, 2012)

TetraVaal said:


> Yep.
> 
> A good analogy to use is sports journalism since I'm a huge sports fan. It's always fun to talk about football and hockey, especially at great length, even to the point that you overanalyze stuff. However, similar to modern film critics, companies like ESPN has journalists and commentators that are flat-out UNBEARABLE.



That doesn't work either, unless sports journalism has changed since I stopped being interested. 

Film reviews are supposed to help you decide whether or not a movie is for you. 



> Taleran 	That is the WORST possible advice you could ever give anyone. Find someone who is like you and only listen to them.
> 
> Ha.



Thats not what I said. Let me clarify,

1) If you want deep character understudies, read the reviews of Roger Ebert.

2) If you want Michael Bay action films, read the reviews of Arrow in the Head (John Fallon, I think his name is). 

If enjoy "Transformers 2", then you should probably not take Ebert's review of "Transformers 3" to heart. 

Too many people presume that critics give a final answer (They don't) and that the number of critics liking something means anything. Thinking that the number of critics liking a movie means anything is even worse. You have to consider what they are saying and why they are saying that.

As a slasher fan, I'm probably not going to trust Roger Ebert when it comes to the next Friday the 13th movie because he doesn't like slashers. 

Jesus, am I really saying anything new here? This all should be common sense.


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 24, 2012)

MartialHorror said:


> That doesn't work either, unless sports journalism has changed since I stopped being interested.
> 
> Film reviews are supposed to help you decide whether or not a movie is for you/



It's an applicable analogy since both professions stem from journalism. A film critic discussing the merits of whether they are right or not about the film they're critiquing is a similar concept to someone like Mel Kiper or that other dickbag that discuss the strengths and weaknesses of potential draft picks, only for them to almost always be inevitably wrong. 

And rofl @ your last comment. People don't need someone to speak for them, or decide for them what they should or shouldn't see. That's arguably the dumbest thing you have ever said--which is really saying something 'cause you've said a lot of stupid things on this board.



> Thats not what I said. Let me clarify,
> 
> 1) If you want deep character understudies, read the reviews of Roger Ebert.
> 
> 2) If you want Michael Bay action films, read the reviews of Arrow in the Head (John Fallon, I think his name is).



Oh, so now we break critics down into specific genres they attest to? This isn't rocket scientist, you dunce, it's filmmaking. Just because I prefer a genre like science fiction or horror over all the others, it doesn't mean I don't know how to accurately analyze a romantic drama film, so I can only assume that all professional critics can perform the same task. God, you suck really do suck at this. 



> because he doesn't like slashers.



And for good reason. Almost all slashers suck nowadays, but since your biased towards the genre, you won't acknowledge Ebert's reviews--how fitting!



> Jesus, am I really saying anything new here? This all should be common sense.



Common sense is obviously a concept you struggle mightily with.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 24, 2012)

Martial I don't get you that is even worse. Now you are picking critics based on their interests that also defeats the purpose. It is incredibly stifling to lump everyone in to categories like that.

People don't have that specific of interests usually so I don't care what someone who only cares about specific segments of film are like.


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 24, 2012)

Taleran said:


> I don't care what someone who only cares about specific segments of film are like.



Bra-fucking-vo.

Everything he typed in a paragraphs worth of a response, you tore down with one sentence.

It goes back to my statement that critics aren't limited to specific genres just because they have a preference.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 24, 2012)

AWWW SHIT THE DRAMA CRITIC DIDN'T LIKE IT BETTER GO READ THE ACTION CRITIC.

That makes the whole process meaningless.


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 24, 2012)

Taleran said:


> AWWW SHIT THE DRAMA CRITIC DIDN'T LIKE IT BETTER GO READ THE ACTION CRITIC.
> 
> That makes the whole process meaningless.



I wish I didn't have to spread around more rep.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 24, 2012)

> And rofl @ your last comment. People don't need someone to speak for them, or decide for them what they should or shouldn't see. That's arguably the dumbest thing you have ever said--which is really saying something 'cause you've said a lot of stupid things on this board.



Nobodies deciding anything for anyone. It's what they say that has to interest you. So if I review a movie and say that it's just nonstop action or gore, a viewer has to decide whether or not that's worth seeing. The only question is how good it is at being that.

Ebert probably isn't going to like it. He thinks action in itself is generally boring. If you agree, then he might be worth reading. If that does interest you, a reviewer who is into that kind of stuff will be more worthwhile. 



> Oh, so now we break critics down into specific genres they attest to? This isn't rocket scientist, you dunce, it's filmmaking. Just because I prefer a genre like science fiction or horror over all the others, it doesn't mean I don't know how to accurately analyze a romantic drama film, so I can only assume that all professional critics can perform the same task. God, you suck really do suck at this.



Oi, I'm saying that you should find a critic who has similar interests to you. Whether or not it's just a specific genre is ultimately irrelevant. With Arrow in the Head, I tend to agree with him when it comes to slashers, but usually don't when it comes to ghost stories.



> And for good reason. Almost all slashers suck nowadays, but since your biased towards the genre, you won't acknowledge Ebert's reviews--how fitting!



Pretty much, although "acknowledge" was probably the wrong word to use. I understand and respect his opinions toward the genre. I just don't agree with them. 



> Martial I don't get you that is even worse. Now you are picking critics based on their interests that also defeats the purpose. It is incredibly stifling to lump everyone in to categories like that.
> 
> People don't have that specific of interests usually so I don't care what someone who only cares about specific segments of film are like.



I don't see the problem. If I was a slasher fan and I avoided.....Let's say "Nightmare on Elm Street 3" based on Ebert's review of it, I'd be a moron. He describes it as boring (based on my memory of the review anyway) and boring is generally not what I want out of a slasher. 

But I've seen the film and I don't think it's boring. Why? That kind of stuff interests me. It doesn't interest him. Hence, when he reviewed "Hatchet 2", I didn't let his statements effect whether or not I decided to watch or avoid the film. 

I do, however, consider his opinions when it comes to something like "The Hurt Locker" or "The Wrestler", because I know what he looks for with those films. I know what he likes, dislikes, ect, etc and can deduce based on what he says whether or not I will like or dislike a movie.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 24, 2012)

I am saying that following any singular voice about ANYTHING IS FUCKING STUPID.


----------



## TetraVaal (Mar 24, 2012)

Taleran said:


> I am saying that following any singular voice about ANYTHING IS FUCKING STUPID.



Yep.

And just because people like Ebert may not be glamored with action films, it's not like he doesn't give out positive reviews to the ones he likes--case in point, 'Speed 2.' 

You can't break critics down into genres that they thrive in, 'cause like I mentioned previously, this isn't rocket science. It's not like one genre requires more intellect than the other--a smart, well-constructed film is a well-constructed film regardless of genre, or vice versa. MartialHorror can type up all the paragraphs and thinly-veiled excuses that he wants, he's still trying to convey a very, very stupid point.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 24, 2012)

Taleran said:


> I am saying that following any singular voice about ANYTHING IS FUCKING STUPID.



I'm not saying you should just follow a singular voice. I began this with a statement that following something like Rotten Tomatoes is stupid. 

I believe following the critics because of a general consensus is moronic, and it's in general just better to read individual reviews (preferably ones you agree with, or at least understand) and make your own decisions based on that.

People either will have the mentality of

1) Rotten Tomatoes gave a movie an 97%. That means it must be awesome. That % means little if everyone gave it a 2.5/4 or a 3/4 stars (which determines the %)

or 

2) Ebert disliked Kick-Ass, which means it sucks (or Ebert sucks because he dislikes it). Tetra more or less seems to be falling into this category.

Seriously, dude, since when did you become Tetra's bitch?



> Yep.
> 
> And just because people like Ebert may not be glamored with action films, it's not like he doesn't give out positive reviews to the ones he likes--case in point, 'Speed 2.'
> 
> You can't break critics down into genres that they thrive in, 'cause like I mentioned previously, this isn't rocket science. It's not like one genre requires more intellect than the other--a smart, well-constructed film is a well-constructed film regardless of genre, or vice versa. MartialHorror can type up all the paragraphs and thinly-veiled excuses that he wants, he's still trying to convey a very, very stupid point.



and this is the point where Tetra ceased reading my posts and just wishes to be a troll.


----------



## Taleran (Mar 24, 2012)

I find it kinda humorous the minute someone starts disagreeing with you I am working for the other guy.....

And I quote


> People should just find a reviewer they more-or-less agree with and stay with them.



That is what you said. When pressured you then went into you should find individual voices for specific aspects of film. That is still compartmentalizing following a single voice. Just it is a different voice for each genre or type.


----------

