kiss of the dragon

[archon_666]

...there you sit:

possessing a mind - possessing thought: possessing a need to self-express further than the usual garbage sludge of '..dude: that sucked...'

and yet to sit about and bicker and aimlessly invoke the high priest g0ds of stupidity and ignorance in the name of being 'right' means nothing and says much about the zombie culture that current exists to only consume and bicker and consume and bicker and inevitably add to the vomit and shit and piss and pus of the mental miasma that currently runs throughout the s0-called 'popular culture' as more and more credence becomes given to s0-called 'experts' and 'insiders' whom are as clueless and useless as those bickering and consuming and bickering and consuming.....

learn then to use your own minds: the current rash of heavily infected message boards online that offers nothing more than toilet paper to wipe the shit ass end of feeble minds does not nurture in the least a powerful forum to invoke discourse and initiate change:

....the critic has become a useless and very un-neccesary parasite within the 21st century as the information explosion represents more a constant harvest and perpetual yielding to create further protocols of subjective perspectives which lends towards an overall forum for empowerment and ultimate change within every field of life and culture:

start looking pass the acceptable famine of dogma that limits and that destroys and that only perpetuate the continued hold over minds and efforts willing to exceed the limits but all too often are led easily towards mindless time and wasted space fillers:


think for yourself --- destroy the critic:
destroy the review:

stop hedging your bets and take for yourself what adds meanings to your own life versus wanting to see that 'cool movie' that everyone seems to be talking about (...but in reality are saying nothing more than what they have been told to say by the critic or the review...)

...learn to see on your own intent.

[Chris Gore]

Yes, someone please answer this for me:
Why are movie critics held in such disdain?

Critics can make or break a movie – or at least that’s what they would tell you. Do audiences really care what critics say? While consumers seek advice and criticism about all kinds of consumer products to make their buying choices – cars, homes, electronics, music, plays, etc… – it seems that movie critics who offer information to help guide movie-goers in making their own buying decisions are held in very low regard. So why is it, exactly, that some film critics are held is such disdain by the movie-going public?

Two things I'd like to address:

1) The worthlessness of movie critics as a whole.

On this, I don't agree. Critics can help us make purchasing decisions. In fact, there's an entire magazine devoted to this, Consumer Reports. Where would we be without these critics telling us what is a good or a bad DVD player? Or car? Or refrigerator. We need critics to make intelligent buying choices so our money does not go to waste.

Also, we need critics to tell us when our political system is in need of change. When politicians go wrong, or when our leaders or heros or even celebrities need to be brought down to a human level, a critic can knock them down to size.

What I enjoy most about movie critics is not so much the thumbs up/thumbs down approach -- I don't need someone to tell me whether or not I will like a movie or if it's good or bad. What I love most about movie critics are the ones that help me to see something I did not see in the movie. Ones that teach and inform and guide and recommend something I might have missed unless I read their work. I love a critic that can show me something that was right there in the movie, but passed me by entirely.

I always try to tell our writers here at Film Threat, once you get past the "rating" or recommendation or non-recommendation addressing the quality of a film, tell me something more.

Talk about, for example, the subtext of a film. Such as what the original 1968 "Planet of the Apes" movie is really about. No, it's not just a sci-fi film about a society of talking monkeys. It's about white paranoia about Black power in the 1960s. I love stuff like that.

However, I think your opinion is based on the fact that there just aren't very many good critics (true film critic) writing about film nowadays. It's sad really.

2) The internet critics
You bring up a good point, most of the critics on the web are fairly worthless. The reason is that I believe you need three things to effectively critique film:

- Passion
You must have a passion, a deep affection, a love for movies. Otherwise, it becomes work. On this, the web critics have passion in abundance. On the next two, however...

- Knowledge
You must have a knowledge of film history in order to put things into a context and have a perspective of where the film you are writing about fits into the world of film at large. Most web-based critics only know the last 5-10 years of the movies, then beyond that, they are lost. A thorough knowledge of film history will help set an accurate barometer for where a film fits into the best and worst. How can one accurately gauge how good a film really is if their viewing experience is limited?

- Good Writing Skills
On this, well, look at the web. Clearly our high schools are having difficulty turning out students capable of forming a thought, much less, a sentence. The web is rife with bad writing and grammar which is incredibly distracting when trying to communicate complex ideas related to film. Hey, I'm no grammar Nazi, I spot typos in my posts all the time, but I think I am able to get across most of my ideas.

So, if you can combine your passion, knowledge of film history and solid writing skills, you can, through continued practice, basically writing reviews every week (I know, this is a run-on sentence, just hold on) you should, with years of experience, be capable of writing strong film reviews and criticism. I wish I could say that all the Film Threat review writers were strong in all these areas, they are not. I think we have a lot of writers with strengths in certain areas of film, and we're better than most sites, but it's a tough thing to maintain.

For myself, I am my own worst critic and I will be the first to tell you that I am not one of the best writers at Film Threat. And when it comes to reviews, I am fairly weak. I have never been a great critic. In fact, I am still trying to figure out exactly what I am good at. One thing you will get from me is the truth. I can't BS you ever. I hope you notice that about me.

So archon_666, don't be so hard on movie critics. You've just been reading the bad ones. Seek out those you can learn from. I like a critic who entertains and teaches me something. Honestly, there aren't very many of them. But don't attack them as a whole or as an insitution. The idea of criticism is a much needed one in our society. A constructive critic has the power to make something better by pointing out a flaw or finding a way it might have been done better.

On that note, I leave it to everyone else to add their own thoughts...

[jmoronic]

Chris, you've bascially nailed what a critic should be right on the head.

The biggest problem with critics is more on certain movies genres/types as they discuss a film with no real knowledge of the genre/type of film. A lot of times even in well known critics, they seem out of there depth discussing certain films and it shows up badly in their writing (usually by giving a bad review for the film without explaining why).

I know this may sound like sucking up, but it isn't supposed to be, anyway, I find that Film Threat is one of the few places where you can get critics who specialise in a certain genre/type of film and get a pretty accurate portrayal of the film. Sure, there are times when I see reviews that I think are pretty ordinary, but you get that everywhere.

In short, reviews are definitely better written and fleshed out by specialists in areas of film and genre lovers (to a lesser extent).

...jmoronic

[Chris Gore]

Hey jmoronic - thanks for your kind words of support. Well, we try here, but I always look for ways to improve Film Threat. I always think we can do better. I don't expect our writers to know everything about everything, I look for ones that have an area of expertise that they can bring to the site. Usually this is brought out by some kind of deficiency.

Once I commented that I despised experimental films, and a writer David Finkelstein took me to task for my uninformed opinion. He then volunteered his services to write about experimental cinema and he has been with us ever since.

My goal has always been to be like the Justice League of film writers on the net -- collecting the best from each field and having them post their writing here.

Anyway, I hope my ramblings offer some insight into how we see things here.

[Chris Gore]

The reason I think people get so angry at film critics is because movies are such a personal experience.

Insulting a movie you love is like telling you that you have no taste. Or like saying you have an ugly child. When someone says something bad about a film you adore, some take it as a personal attack.

I take it like tastes in ice cream. I mean, some people's favorites are chocolate. Some are vanilla. Some are strawberry. For me, it's a double scoop, Superman and Blue Moon on a sugar cone. Those that like chocolate are not wrong, it's a question of taste.

Same goes for movies. So, just don't take it all so personal. See it for what it is -- a reflection of the personal taste of that individual.

[mondoshane]

I think Film Threat reviews are important because I learn about movies that I wouldn't hear about anywhere else like the independant movies. I wouldn't ever see or not see a Hollywood movie based on a FT review though.

[AmaiStina]

Originally posted by Chris Gore
The reason I think people get so angry at film critics is because movies are such a personal experience.

Insulting a movie you love is like telling you that you have no taste. Or like saying you have an ugly child. When someone says something bad about a film you adore, some take it as a personal attack.

and in some cases, a person doesnt want to hear "youve got an ugly child" or "yes, you do look fat in those pants..."


(that made so much more sense in my head).

[The Baron]

Originally posted by AmaiStina
and in some cases, a person doesnt want to hear "youve got an ugly child" or "yes, you do look fat in those pants..."

And as any man knows, the only correct answer to the question, "Honey, do these pants make my ass look fat?" is, "You look fabulous." Anything else, and you'll be sleeping on the couch.

And as far as reviewers are concerned, sometimes you agree with them, sometimes you don't. Does that make their opinions right or wrong? Neither. Last time I looked, everybody was entitled to his or her own opinion. At least on this forum, you have a place to state your opinion and interact with the reviewers. When was the last time you were able to tell Roger Ebert that his review sucked, and get a rebuttal?

(And remember the above advice, boys. Those three words, "you look fabulous," are a high-end deposit in the Booty Bank.)

;)

[Peter_Lowry]

Wow. That was about the best thing I've ever read on this forum. And every bit of it is true. As a self-ordained critic, I openly confess that I am far from perfect, especially with regards to the writing/grammar part of Chris' definition. It's something I work on all the time but I do the work willingly because I love writing and I love movies. I don't do it for profit or for any type of career. I do it out of a sheer love for all things movies. If I never make a penny from it... so what? Just being here and discussing it is enough, but I enjoy posting for film threat and it's been a great opportunity to just write stuff and get it out there for others to read, obsorb and even critique if they choose to. It's something I try not to take too seriously but if I ever do, feel free to slap me back into reality. Chances are I'll likely thank you for it later.

Peter

[Mark Bell]

Originally posted by AmaiStina
and in some cases, a person doesnt want to hear "youve got an ugly child" or "yes, you do look fat in those pants..." Yeah, but the beauty of film criticism on the web, in writing, on television, etc. is that if I don't want to hear, read, or see it, I don't have to. Film critics have always functioned, for me, as a form of additional perspective that I may not have. The best bring with them that knowledge of film history, the worst bring a 3rd grade reading level. I very rarely have been swayed away or towards a movie based on a critic's opinion, but I have been able to explore the aspects of the film that I did or did not like by reading someone else's thoughts on the subject. It's like having a conversation with a friend, the potential is there to make a movie that much greater (or worse) by exploring it afterwards through opinions besides my own.

What I don't like about movie critics is the power they seem to have in the film industry. Some movies live or die by a positive or negative review in Variety. There's a reason studios wine and dine Harry Knowles for his recommendation to see their movies. Critics have turned into a marketing tool, and a powerful one at that, and an uninformed, or purposefully malicious film critic can be the deathnail to a great film trying to break through. THAT is what I don't like. Critics should be a suggestion, not a condemnation.

And Chris Gore touched me in my No-No spot...

[erbenz]

One of the strengths of FT is that it has different people with different views, and the fact the worse kind of criticism came from Hellions slaughtering of a review by P Lowry over ROTK. Yes it may have been a little harsh of Pete (sorry, Pete), but what Hellion did was so childish.

[Peter_Lowry]

Originally posted by erbenz
One of the strengths of FT is that it has different people with different views, and the fact the worse kind of criticism came from Hellions slaughtering of a review by P Lowry over ROTK. Yes it may have been a little harsh of Pete (sorry, Pete), but what Hellion did was so childish.

That's okay e. After three and half ass numbing hours, I was actually in a very harsh mood when I wrote that review. So I agree with your view of it. It was harsh... very, very harsh. ;)

However, if it wasn't for the childish antics of dupes like the Hellions of this world... it would be harder for us to notice and appreciate the good people who grace the FT forums. Even though they disagreed with my review, they were nice enough to hash out their points with tact and grace (examples: Bong, D and Baron)

I didn't mind the harsh responses either. I had a lot of fun fencing with the critics... and they were always good for a laugh, just like the original post of this thread.

Peter

[AmaiStina]

Originally posted by Hamster69
Yeah, but the beauty of film criticism on the web, in writing, on television, etc. is that if I don't want to hear, read, or see it, I don't have to.

absolutely..

i wasnt sure where i was going with that analogy.

[drsweetscience]

More than ever critics should be defended. It has become popular to use taste as an excuse for quality.
It didn't suck, it just didn't suit your taste.
I'm here to say that some things do in fact suck. Taste is too often used to defend a lack of talent. "Maybe you just don't like the kind of movies Michael Bay likes to make?"

Also, I hate when people defend crap by saying it's for kids.
It wasn't meant to entertain you, it's for kids.
This implies one of two things, either that crap is okay to foist on the youth because they're just kids or kids are only able to digest crap.
Children are a blank slate. Their childhood imprints on them the mentality they will have in adulthood. If they feast on shit when they're young, they'll eat shit as adults.

[Ricky Retardo]

First of all I want to congratulate Gore for taking what was originally supposed to be a monkeywrench and turning it around into a thoughful topic. Great job!

As a longtime reader of Film Threat, here's my take on the proceedings. When I first discovered FT back in the 80's the thing that I enjoyed most about it was that it just seemed like a bunch of movie punks talking about the things they did/didn't like about the films they were seeing. The fact that I tended to agree with most of the opinions stated was bonus. Also, while there is truth to some of what archon 666 stated, I do not get the impression that any reviewer at FT has the bloated sense of self-importance that Ebert/Roeper or Richard Schnitzel (lol) of Time have. Hell, I have NEVER seen a review blurb out of FT accompanying any film ads in my local paper. I like to read reviews, but I certainly don't need any critic telling me to go see HELLBOY or to avoid THE CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK. I'm quite capable of making up my own mind about that stuff. I do however, need the FT staff to inform me about small films such as SUPER SIZE ME or DIG!. That is an invaluble service you provide in that respect. Thanks!

As a final word, read my sig.

[erbenz]

I only found out FT one year ago via the web, but I look up the site every day.

Critics only state their opinions. While some critics say movies like Scary Movie 3 are devoid of art (true to some extent) others say its a guilty pleasure (I loved it, but I felt guilty)

Some people have different opinions

[GiGi]

There is a certain art to critique in my humble opinion.

It seems for some, to critique means "criticize". And some critics I suppose feel it necessary to find fault with everything they see. This really irks me and cracks me up that some people can be so limited.

crit·i·cize ( P ) Pronunciation Key (krt-sz)
v. crit·i·cized, crit·i·ciz·ing, crit·i·ciz·es
v. tr.
To find fault with: criticized the decision as unrealistic.

To judge the merits and faults of; analyze and evaluate.

The latter is the most fair description that should be used in film analysis.

Critics are everywhere. A single viewer is a critc and will pass judgement on to friends and family. I.E. "That film ROCKED" or "Don't waste your money. It sucked a big crusty one." Fair enough.

I think, however, a career critic needs to reach a little father. Below are some thoughts.

1. Can you seperate your feelings on the subject matter (I.E. if you hate chick flicks, can you watch one and be fair in other attributes that make up a film?)

2. Acting: Does the actor fit the role? If not, what went wrong? If it is a matter of error in physical features (I.e. a skinny Henry the 8th) can you look beyond that?

3. Aesthetic quality. Some films can be crap, but may be worth a view for technique or beauitufl cinematography.

4. Direction, of course.

5. Continutity. Is the film easy to follow?

6. Format: There is a standard formula for hollywood movies. Set up, character has obstacle, character overcomes to become changed some how, however you want to describe it. Pretty much fits everything in one way. But sometimes, there are exceptions (Pulp Fiction, for example) that have new and innovative ways of story telling. Sometimes movies are trashed because it does or doesn't follow a basic formula.

7. Editing: Very important. A film can drag if stuff is left in that need not be there. A good director will part with scenes they love if it doesn't work in a film. Also, if someone hacks a movie to pieces, there are things left out that make the story hard to absorb.

8. Music: Music I feel can be very important to a film. It can set the time period, the feel, and mood; it can add suspense or be distracting.

9. Screenplay: Sometimes good actors and directors are victims of bad writing. To give a overall biased view without trashing everything about a movie, this must be seperated sometimes.

Anyway, there are a few thoughts. It isn't always as easy as black and white "hate it/love it". And sometimes critics are vague in making us understand this. Also in realizing a director is trying to convey a certain message, a good critic will look deeper to understand this even though they may not like or appreciate other elements of the film.


Just some rambles...

[Furious D]

The only opinion anyone has to listen to... is my opinion.:cool:

That's the terrible burden I must bear for always being right about everything.:rolleyes:

Now that this issues is settled, maybe Archon can stop griping about critics.;)

[automanic]

Speaking of Archon, where o where has he/she gone? There have been several well-thought-out responses to his/her original post, and he/she has been strangely silent!

Archon? Anything to add?

[El Duderino Diablo]

Originally posted by automanic

Archon? Anything to add?

I doubt it. I think archon was just venting.

[GiGi]

I think it would be interesting to see where Archon's rant came from. Archon, was it because films you embraced were trashed, or something you personally made? :)

Discuss.