Professional critics: seriously, f*ck them.

[Army of GOD]

I see a need in the past for professional critics. Not everybody could watch a movie and then give their opinions about it, so critics were needed to voice their opinion on the movie thus giving people a decision.

But in the age of the internet, am I the only one who thinks they're just god damn tiresome?

Here's an example: Even though I don't like the site very much, Rotten Tomatoes at least shows the difference between "critics'" scores and the audience's score. For one of my chlidhood favorites, The Mighty Ducks, the critics gave it a 12% and the audience gave it a 64%. I mean, really? Isn't the tyranny of the majority more reliable than a few jerks who don't even know the true meaning of Christmas?

Plus, every half-educated punk with an English degree can pull a review of the film on IMDB without getting money for it. I say we lynch them all.

[Army of GOD]

Here's a gem from a "critic" on the second Mighty Ducks movie (which scored 40% higher with the audience):

Non-stop commercialism and a bunch of boring hockey stuff.

Sounds suspiciously like xeno.

[xeno]

You caught me! In between baby killing and wife stealing I double as a cynical movie critic. But seriously it's well known these people hate life and everything about it. Unless your movie starts with toy and ends with story in which case that movie can do no wrong. I don't get it. I know because I used to frequent the rotten tomatoe forums before they banned me for spamming all their narcissistic movie bullshit threads

[BigBallinStalin]

What I like about user reviews, the so-called amateurs, is that they tend to communicate more directly. They provide more useful commentary on why I should or shouldn't watch a film--because that's what I'm looking for before I decide to watch the film.

If I want an in-depth analysis of a film, then I'll turn to the professional critics, but I'm not really interested in that, so to hell with them.


Give me 10% of what the film is about, and the rest should be about whythey enjoyed or disliked it. The professionals don't seem to do this.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I say we lynch them all.

Wait, what about the 12% that agree with you?

[nietzsche]

What I like about user reviews, the so-called amateurs, is that they tend to communicate more directly. They provide more useful commentary on why I should or shouldn't watch a film--because that's what I'm looking for before I decide to watch the film.

If I want an in-depth analysis of a film, then I'll turn to the professional critics, but I'm not really interested in that, so to hell with them.


Give me 10% of what the film is about, and the rest should be about whythey enjoyed or disliked it. The professionals don't seem to do this.

Except in Amazon. where the so called user reviews are sometimes advertising. It was so great that you could trust Amazon reviews in the past, now you have to be a detective too.

[AndyDufresne]

Very rarely do I look to see what a professional critic is saying about a movie, but sometimes it is interesting to read their views. Really though, I am the type of person that loves going into a movie not really knowing much more than maybe who is in it, and the title. Since that is often difficult to do with domestic movies of recent issue, I usually like going back to older films and foreign films.

However, when it comes to Video Games, I am quite a bit likely to read a few professional reviews to get a sense if there are any big nuggets of information consistent across said reviews.

Give me 10% of what the film is about, and the rest should be about whythey enjoyed or disliked it. The professionals don't seem to do this.

Roger Ebert I think actually does this pretty well.


--Andy

[muy_thaiguy]

Nostalgia Critic?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Nostalgia Critic?

[Army of GOD]

Give me 10% of what the film is about, and the rest should be about whythey enjoyed or disliked it. The professionals don't seem to do this.

Meh, I don't even want 10%.

I don't know about everyone else but my reference for every movie that isn't in theaters is IMDB. If a movie is a 7+ (rating, obviously) on IMDB, I'll watch it. Otherwise, it can wait.

For movies in the theaters, unless it catches my eye (Django, for example), it probably isn't worth shelling out money for.

[Funkyterrance]

I see a need in the past for professional critics. Not everybody could watch a movie and then give their opinions about it, so critics were needed to voice their opinion on the movie thus giving people a decision.

But in the age of the internet, am I the only one who thinks they're just god damn tiresome?

Here's an example: Even though I don't like the site very much, Rotten Tomatoes at least shows the difference between "critics'" scores and the audience's score. For one of my chlidhood favorites, The Mighty Ducks, the critics gave it a 12% and the audience gave it a 64%. I mean, really? Isn't the tyranny of the majority more reliable than a few jerks who don't even know the true meaning of Christmas?

Plus, every half-educated punk with an English degree can pull a review of the film on IMDB without getting money for it. I say we lynch them all.

A critic tends to gauge the quality of a movie, as a movie, while the audience tends to gauge the likeability of a movie for whatever reason. People who watched mighty ducks 4 growing up are likely to enjoy the movie but a critic will tell you how well it's made. They are considered experts in their field and meant to be a guiding light in respect to film. Nobody is going to tell you what to enjoy but don't assume the average viewer can tell the difference between shit and shinola.