What gives a critic a right to criticize?

DrumSteve

I often see Movie reviews from recognised and well known critics that absolutely slate films that are actually quite enjoyable. Especially that guy from the Herald... unless its some obscure East German arthouse pic that gets 5/5. I mean i loved the A team but that got lukewarm reviews at best.

what qualifications do you need to be a critic. i mean anyone can criticize but why should they be taken serious... on a different note what function do they actually serve? Im still trying to figure that out myself.

Denerick

The bottom line is that if you don't like reading film critics, don't read them.

What qualifications do you need? Fundamentally it would be best to be witty. All too many try this and fail epically. Secondary would be a strong analytical mind. Again, all too many critics have puddle deep perspective.

If you don't like them, don't read them... Critics aren't for everyone...

Renn

Look, if it's not The Exorcist I don't want to know about it.

LilMsss

Ideally many film critics will have either journalism or film degrees or have worked in the industry. Quite often, however, this is not the case.

Having studied film extensively, I can now no longer watch a lot of films that I loved growing up, because I see the massive plot holes, formulaic dialogue and generally unbelieveable characters. I get too worked up watching them because I know the elements that went into the scriptwriting and production.

In saying that, I can also appreciate excellently produced and put-together films because of my background.

Film critics who slate a film that others may love, are coming at the film from an entirely different perspective than members of the public. Everyone has an opinion on films, unfortunately most of us do not have a forum for publishing those opinions in the same way as film reviewers do.

I tend not to pay attention to what is written about films and do my own research. I tend to ignore the snippet of a review and the star rating on some websites and newspapers. Some of my favourite films would be ones that didn't achieve a high level of commericial success, and so may not have tonnes of positive reviews.

From time-to-time, I will read an excellent and comprehensive review of a film that will delve into the finer points of the film and put it into context. Gordon Hayes (I think it's Spin 103.8) is also very good as a film reviewer/critic.

Denerick

journalism degree's aren't worth the paper they are written on. Newspapers should attract witty and intelligent people, regardless of their educational background. I don't see the purpose of a journalism degree - the best journalists, such as Robert Fisk, are widely read people with a range of interests. You cannot 'manufacture' a good journalist.

LilMsss

Denerick wrote: »

journalism degree's aren't worth the paper they are written on. Newspapers should attract witty and intelligent people, regardless of their educational background. I don't see the purpose of a journalism degree - the best journalists, such as Robert Fisk, are widely read people with a range of interests. You cannot 'manufacture' a good journalist.

Do you have a journalism degree?

Because I do, and I know the time, work and effort that goes into achieving them. And while a journalism degree or qualification is not a prerequisite for a career in journalism, it is becoming increasingly necessary. Journalism is far more than simply going out and interviewing someone and then compiling a selection of quotes.

Journalists need to understand the mechanisms of political economy theories and also media and newspaper industries, in addition to research and writing skills and a high level of knowledge in the particular area of specialism.

Yes, you cannot 'manufacture a good journalist', but you can certainly manufacture news. Have you read Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent?

I agree that Robert Fiske is an excellent journalist, and some of the best journalists are those that came from a different background or industry but you can't discount those journalists who have degrees in their chosen profession, as a high number of working journalists in Ireland and elsewhere do and use elements of these qualifications in their day-to-day jobs.

Denerick

No I don't have a journalism degree.

You can learn about the intricacies of political economy by having a library subscription. You do not need to face the conforming pressure of university education in order to gain an insight into the defining features of what shapes and moulds the world.

Basically what I'm saying is that the skills required to be a good journalist cannot be taught as those skills are a combination of insight (Which is inherent but also aided by being widely read) and wit (Again inherent, but aided by being widely read) The bottom line is that a good journalist is the one who thinks about the world, reads about it, and writes about it. Not the one who sat in the front row of the lecture theatre. THough I do stress that the two aren't mutually exclusive

Galvasean

While I would like to agree with Denerick, if I was hiring a critic for say a newspaper I would make sure that all applicants had a degree in something realated (eg: journalism or film studies). It might seem harsh, but without it I can only imagine being swamped by thousands of applicants.

LilMsss

Galvasean wrote: »

While I would like to agree with Denerick, if I was hiring a critic for say a newspaper I would make sure that all applicants had a degree in something realated (eg: journalism or film studies). It might seem harsh, but without it I can only imagine being swamped by thousands of applicants.

Agreed. And I said earlier that the ideal candidate for a film reviewers job would have a journalism or film degree, but I did not say that this is essential. And many of the points that Denerick made above are relevant and can be applied to many other industries outside of media and journalism.

Unfortunately, a degree in an area related to the job is becoming a requirement for most jobs as recruitment becomes more and more competitive.

Galvasean

True. It's a sad fact that the world's greatest film reviewer could be sitting at home twiddling his/her thumbs unemployable due to a lcak of third level qualification. That's what we get for living in a country with an overqualified workforce I suppose.

johnny_ultimate

The thing that differentiates the good from the bad critics IMO is simply passion for cinema. I may not always agree with him (in fact often completely disagree), but Roger Ebert's reviews particularly just ooze with a genuine love for the medium, and hence I respect his views and writings. On the other hand, there are some critics who simply seem intent to criticise and dismantle films. I always mention him, but Cosmo Landesman in the Sunday Times is my least favourite film critic - there are times when I really doubt that the man has any interest in cinema, and his reviews often read as cynical, pointless deconstructions.

Film is a medium that is well open to criticism - personally, I find great joy in looking at a film and then deciding afterwards what it was that made it work or made it fail. You really need to know and embrace the artform to be a successful critics, and in my opinion it is that passionate knowledge that gives the best critics the right to critique, and is ultimately what will define them far more than degrees or qualifications (although they'll clearly need that in the first place ).

Galvasean

Or that guy from the Daily Mail who just reviews films based on his own moral/ethical standards as opposed to the film's actual merits or lacktherof.

Wolflikeme

What I usually find with film critics is that when an obviously immense movie comes out (Inception for example), you'll get a few critics who'll simply take a punt on audiences not connecting strongly with it and thus write a bad or average review...and so often they couldn't be more wrong. It's a joke profession if you ask me. I know it doesn't matter whether or not they can do better (and let's face, they couldn't) because they're there to critique but, I couldn't go about my day slating others for their achievements when my own efforts simply wouldn't compare.

Not saying all bad reviews aren't jusitified though. I'm looking from the 'that's entertainment' angle.

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

Or that guy from the Daily Mail who just reviews films based on his own moral/ethical standards as opposed to the film's actual merits or lacktherof.

Par for the course for the Daily Mail then

Cantona's Collars

One mans meat is another man's poison-I like to read or listen to a critics point of view and then make up my own mind.That's what makes the world turn.I hate Chick Flicks but the missus loves em.In my critical opinion they're a waste of time but obviously have a market no matter what critics say.
There is a certain snobbishness among some critics for whom a good movie has to be an obscure arthouse flick and seem to forget what the masses enjoy-take The A Team movie for example.
I tend to drift toward Metacritic for my source of film reviews as it gives an aggregate score based on many reviews which seems fair,even so there's certain critics that hate every movie out.

Galvasean

Actually who was that evil dude who slated Toy Story 3? A clear case of trying to look hard core by going against the grain. Like the Sunday World reviewer who, upon it's DVD release, gave The Dark Knight a one or two star review.
When the world loves something and you are the only one who hates it, it's not us who have the problem.

It's you.

johnny_ultimate

There are certainly a few critics for hire out there. Check out any major DVD release box quotes, and you can pretty much instantly spot the ones not worth the money the studios probably paid.

If it's an action movie, Zoo and Nuts are worth ignoring (they're always worth ignoring).
If it's a generic crappy rom-com, any magazine such as Woman! or OK! or the likes are sure to praise it: "Rom-com gold! Bullock is excellent".
If it's a tabloid newspaper giving the good review - The Mirror, The Daily Star, The Sun - run away.

Galvasean

Alas even once well respected film magazines like Empire and Total film are prone to bribery. Indiana Jones 4 gets a 4 star review - "Next month our guest editor is Stephen Spielberg!"
I'll never forgive them for that 5 star review of Attack of the Clones... NEVER! (edit: not surewhich one it was, i cant tell them apart anymore)

edit edit: oh and the Mirror gave Jurassic Park /// five stars. "The best of the series!" my frickin tailpipe it is :rolleyes:

Wolflikeme

Galvasean wrote: »

Alas even once well respected film magazines like Empire and Total film are prone to bribery. Indiana Jones 4 gets a 4 star review - "Next month our guest editor is Stephen Spielberg!"
I'll never forgive them for that 5 star review of Attack of the Clones... NEVER! (edit: not surewhich one it was, i cant tell them apart anymore)

Empire's been an absolute joke for years.

Superman Returns - 5 stars. OK.

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

Alas even once well respected film magazines like Empire and Total film are prone to bribery. Indiana Jones 4 gets a 4 star review - "Next month our guest editor is Stephen Spielberg!"
I'll never forgive them for that 5 star review of Attack of the Clones... NEVER! (edit: not surewhich one it was, i cant tell them apart anymore)

edit edit: oh and the Mirror gave Jurassic Park /// five stars. "The best of the series!" my frickin tailpipe it is :rolleyes:

Yup, they've both become dreadful (Total Film always has been in my experience). The only print-magazine I'd have any minor interest in these days is Sight & Sound, but they can be a bit overly academic in their approach to reviews - they at least have a bit of backbone though. Otherwise, a few choice online critics and a glance at metacritics or rottentomatoes is the way to go, although the Ticket reviews are pretty solid and trustworthy too.

Cantona's Collars

The snippets of reviews that are printed on movie posters and dvd covers are very misleading.The film company can simply take selected parts of a review and mash them together to give an impression the movie is actually good.
Example : The acting is wooden,plot non existent but action is explosive and at times very funny and laugh out loud but these scenes are few and far between. Translates to : Explosive action,hilarious,laugh out loud funny.

pickarooney

The only real point of critics is that there are bound to be some with similar tastes to you and their recommending a film will save you time researching or watching films you won't enjoy. A good critic is well able to review films with different ideals in mind and give a balanced opinion on that. Just as we as viewers enjoy a brainless comedy one day and an intellectual Polish thriller on another, so a decent critic can evaluate each on its relative merits.

Outside of this, a critic's opinion is essentially meaningless although you do occasionally get people watching films and pretending to enjoy them because a critic said it was good, which is obviously risible.

Liam O

The guy who does the reviews in I think the NOTW(might be the Star Sunday) is quite good imo. I tend to work weekends so end up reading the papers other people have left behind which is mainly the NOTW and The Star and the guy that I'm thinking of must be late 20s and seems to take every film on how much he enjoyed watching it so a movie could be absolute tripe in cinematic terms but if he enjoyed watching it would get a favourable review. Really, this is the type of review that I enjoy reading rather than the ones based on the plot holes and bad acting etc.

Jako8

A good film critic should have an extensive knowledge of film and a passion for all parts of film. Most probably have a journalism degree and some free time. It helps to be able to look at the "bigger picture" too. I mean sometimes you just have to look at the film, what it's going for and base your rating on that. I mean The Expendables is hardly going to be some cinematic masterpiece with interesting cinematography and a riveting plot. It'll be explosions, guns and testosterone. If a film critic can take something like that for what it is, without getting worked up about it then they're probably reviewing in the right vein, imo.

Renn

Ugh, now we're getting into the critic-proof film section?

losthorizon

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually who was that evil dude who slated Toy Story 3? A clear case of trying to look hard core by going against the grain. Like the Sunday World reviewer who, upon it's DVD release, gave The Dark Knight a one or two star review.
When the world loves something and you are the only one who hates it, it's not us who have the problem.

It's you.

People give about that one instance all the time. They also attack critics on Rotten Tomatoes who prevent films getting a 100% rating but in my mind no film ever made deserves a complete 100%. I mean get 10 in a room to watch a film and what are the chances on all ten people agreeing its a good film. But 300 people? Just stick to the critic you like best? For me that used to be Michael Dwyer. I suppose his replacement Donald Clarke isn't too bad. Mark Kermode is fairly good.

Renn

Mark Kermode is fairly good.

clived2

I do my best to avoid any critics, as usually there reviews will contain some spoilers, I like watching fims with no preconceptions and a clear mind

that being said, if i am on the lookout for a movie to watch, ill check out rotten tomatoes average scoring of a film by numerous critics, there scoring always seem to be spot on to me, with a few exceptions of course

Otis Driftwood

I very,very rarely read movie reviews.I have a couple of sites that I value the opinion of the members there and would take their thoughts on the movies with much greater stock than most critics.

Eg the Elm Street or Crazies remakes,I hated them and the vast majority of members hated them too yet both movies were pretty well received by alot of sections.Same goes for The Dark Knight,raved about by critics and fans alike but I personally found it mildly entertaining and hugely over rated.

Moral of the story is,movies are subjective and as Zerks said,one mans meat is another mans poison.

Playboy

I think you need to find a critic who has the same level of appreication / same taste in movies as you. Critics tailor their reviews to their audience .. for example the NOTW critic will probably be a populist film critic who rates big summer blockbusters quite highly. If you like arthouse cinema and despise remakes then there are plenty of film critics out there who will share the same sensibilities as you for probably the same reasons. Magazines like Empire and Total Film are imo poor fot this reason. When you have a number of critics working for the magazine then how do you pick which critic to review which film? Do you pick the Star Wars fanboy, the arthouse guy, or the neutral? Star Wars fan boy will give a Star Wars movie 5 stars, an arthouse critic will give it one star and a neutral will give it 3 stars. Empire has to make its decisions on who it thinks its audience is .. and they are lots of massive star wars fans who read empire therefore thats why the fan boy critic will get to write the review because he mirrors the perspective of a large number of readers ... but in the process he pisses off all the neutrals, some of the more critical fanboys and the arthouse guys probably dont read the review in the first place.

So find a critic you like.. stick with him, ignore the others and dont buy Empire!

krudler

Journalists need to understand the mechanisms of political economy theories and also media and newspaper industries, in addition to research and writing skills and a high level of knowledge in the particular area of specialism.

Was that an answer to a question in an exam you had or something?

I dont really pay much attention to critics, an academic background doesnt mean you have better taste in anything. The ones who constantly slate blockbusters and laude b&w Russian arthouse movies about blind violin playing child prodigies are just as wrong about movies as Paul "I love everything!" Ross.

Then you get guys like Christopher "ban this filth now!" Tookey and that asshole who thinks Pixar are rubbish, The Dark Knight sucked and Inception was terrible. purely becuase they're well recieved movies, and us movie going public are clearly morons.

I know a couple of people who did "film studies" who only know what their lecturer spouted at them, you'd wonder do they even enjoy watching movies anymore.

][cEMAN**

Galvasean wrote: »

When the world loves something and you are the only one who hates it, it's not us who have the problem.

It's you.

You can no longer comment negatively on big box office smashes even when they're absolute crap. If we're going with the idea that the masses know better than individuals, shouldn't we all still think the world is flat?

Galvasean

Quite the difference from someone having different taste to the majority and someone who is going against the grain deliberately to look edgy.

][cEMAN**

I agree, but from a distance they can both look the same.

Renn

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually who was that evil dude who slated Toy Story 3? A clear case of trying to look hard core by going against the grain. Like the Sunday World reviewer who, upon it's DVD release, gave The Dark Knight a one or two star review.
When the world loves something and you are the only one who hates it, it's not us who have the problem.

It's you.

What? That's a bizarre take on things. I really enjoyed Toy Story 3 but if someone was to come out with a decent analysis of why he/she didn't like it then that's fine. Back it up with some good reasoning (same goes for liking the damn thing) and it's all good. What's wrong with giving TDK a one/two star review?

I hate this sort of thing. It always reminds me of the sort of people that go "OMG, Shawshank isn't in your top ten movies of all time?????".

Valmont

Just stick with Roger Ebert. I don't read any other critics. The only time I've seen any bias slip through his reviews was his rant against Lars von Trier's anti-Americanism in Dogville. I can forgive him that though!

Valmont

Galvasean wrote: »

When the world loves something and you are the only one who hates it, it's not us who have the problem.

It's you.

That will get you places. I suppose it's Big Brother tonight? :pac:

L'prof

DrumSteve wrote: »

What gives a critic a right to criticize?

Everyone has a right to an opinion. You say you loved The A-Team, I personally thought it was a bit meh to be honest. Maybe if either of us were eloquent enough or bothered to take the time to analyse that and all other films properly, we could be critics too. Personally, I wouldn't enjoy it. Would you?

LilMsss

krudler wrote: »

Was that an answer to a question in an exam you had or something?

No, unfortunately not. I actually teach journalism and media, among other things, and political economy of the media would be a big part of that ... maybe I'm just too nerdy for my own good!

rovert

Valmont wrote: »

Just stick with Roger Ebert. I don't read any other critics. The only time I've seen any bias slip through his reviews was his rant against Lars von Trier's anti-Americanism in Dogville. I can forgive him that though!

He does have some serious man love for Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.

take everything

Renn wrote: »

Look, if it's not The Exorcist I don't want to know about it.

Mr Kermode i presume?

Playboy

LilMsss wrote: »

No, unfortunately not. I actually teach journalism and media, among other things, and political economy of the media would be a big part of that ... maybe I'm just too nerdy for my own good!

To be honest arts degrees like journalism are just exercises in reading... someone just tells you what to read. Chomsky et al can all be found in any local library/bookshop... just because I read them doesnt make me any better a critic, just a critic with certain influences.

LilMsss

Playboy wrote: »

To be honest arts degrees like journalism are just exercises in reading... someone just tells you what to read. Chomsky et al can all be found in any local library/bookshop... just because I read them doesnt make me any better a critic, just a critic with certain influences.

I would disagree with this, as in there is a lot more than just reading going on, as in most degrees. But reading is a very important part of the subject, like anything and there are exams, but most journalism degrees these days are more practical and vocationally based - as in getting the students ready for the working world, as opposed to an entirely theoretical degree.

I didn't say you need a journalism/film degree to be a critic, but the OP asked what qualifications are usually required, and quite often (but not always) it is one of the above.

speedboatchase

This doesn't need to be analysed - what makes a good film critic is someone who expresses themselves well, can make interesting points, has a wide breadth of knowledge and has good taste. Everyone would like to believe that their opinion is just as important as someone elses but that's utter nonsense, some people just have better taste, are better read and bring better insight. I think the only problem I encounter with film critics is that they watch so many films they can become very disconnected from the public at large, and I think that's why film critics, more so than any other critics, suffer their bad reputation. If you find a critic who shares your taste though, that's a wonderful thing and you're pretty much set i.e. I finally started listening to Kermode a few years ago and I can't miss a weeks podcast now

TiGeR KiNgS

A critic for me should know more than the average punter in his particular field. Should be able to articulate well. Should be able to give some insight the average punter would miss. Should be able to write entertaing pieces (esp when movie stinks, hahaha, so it doesn't give the impression the reader wasted his/her time reading the review). Should give his/hers faithful impression of a movie.

Basically critics are very important to the movie industry. They separate the good from the bad and mediocre. Most people go to a film based on good review/certain actor/trailer or combination of all three, remove the review and you could end up wasting your time on complete muck.

To sum up A critic criticizes because people have limited resources and time. I want to know if a movie is worth seeing before I set foot in the theater not after I just watched it. This gives the critic the right to criticize.

TK

losthorizon

speedboatchase wrote: »

This doesn't need to be analysed - what makes a good film critic is someone who expresses themselves well, can make interesting points, has a wide breadth of knowledge and has good taste. Everyone would like to believe that their opinion is just as important as someone elses but that's utter nonsense, some people just have better taste, are better read and bring better insight. I think the only problem I encounter with film critics is that they watch so many films they can become very disconnected from the public at large, and I think that's why film critics, more so than any other critics, suffer their bad reputation. If you find a critic who shares your taste though, that's a wonderful thing and you're pretty much set i.e. I finally started listening to Kermode a few years ago and I can't miss a weeks podcast now

Although he became out of touch by his death Leslie Halliwell is a great introduction to the films of the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and maybe 70s.http://www.lesliehalliwell.com/ He was getting somewhat disdainful of filmmaking after that. The last two or three editions of his guide were not by him and didnt reflect his opinions. For me Halliwell from the past, Michael Dwyer (RIP) from the past decade and Kermode from the present make the perfect critic.
The final decision though always rests with yourself and yourself alone and of course what your local cinema will show :mad:

norrie rugger

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually who was that evil dude who slated Toy Story 3? A clear case of trying to look hard core by going against the grain. Like the Sunday World reviewer who, upon it's DVD release, gave The Dark Knight a one or two star review.
When the world loves something and you are the only one who hates it, it's not us who have the problem.

It's you.

I am actually finding that TDK is not standing up to repeat viewing.
I find that any scenes with Bale in them are becomming more and more annoying. I thought that is was a personal feeling (based around a tainted image of Bale himself) but recently watched Equilibrium and The Prestige and did not have that same feeling.
I think that he makes Wayne too smug and "slimey" for lack of better words.
Also his Batman is beginning to look very forced and unreal. It looks like, becasue half his face is covered, that he tries to use the visible half to convey all his emotion and just looks in pain. Especislly the way he forces his lower jaw forward when growling/talking and then there is the growling/talking bit anyway.
On repeat viewing, I would mark it down to a 3/5 from 5/5, based on this. I struggle to view it through at this stage.
It is saved, for me, by Heath Ledger, Morgan Freeman and especially Aaron Eckhart whom I would have loved to see get the part of Wayne.

Renn

You're just going against the grain for the sake of it...

jaykhunter

I think when you love a film so much, it's only upon repeat viewings that you begin to see flaws in the armour -- but that shouldn't actually be a problem; if you had to watch something over and over to see them, it should be a 'made man' and pretty much beyond reproach.

Before i start, TDK is in my favourite top 3 films of all time. I love that movie so much I f**k it (that's a line from RedLetterMedia about Empire :pac:)

_Small_ Nit-picking problems with TDK :
Joker seems a bit too invincible. Not being affected by a blast that kills lots of cops, escaping easily via cop car, logistically bringing in so many drums of kerosine etc into a hospital, wow this guy can do it all, very easily.

Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance is the worst in the movie. There's no feeling of actual affection to/from Bruce or Harvey. We're just 'told' they're in love. And that's all she's there to do.

Batman's growly voice (especially in the final scene) really begins to grate.

Anyway these are all very small problems in a celestial sea of awesomeness. Nit-picking a film to death to lower it's score to seem cool (I know I've done it before, subconsciously or not) shouldn't affect your view of the film as a whole.

Galvasean

Renn wrote: »

You're just going against the grain for the sake of it...

Touché!
Allow me to elaborate.

norrie rugger wrote: »

I am actually finding that TDK is not standing up to repeat viewing.
I find that any scenes with Bale in them are becomming more and more annoying. I thought that is was a personal feeling (based around a tainted image of Bale himself) but recently watched Equilibrium and The Prestige and did not have that same feeling.
I think that he makes Wayne too smug and "slimey" for lack of better words.
Also his Batman is beginning to look very forced and unreal. It looks like, becasue half his face is covered, that he tries to use the visible half to convey all his emotion and just looks in pain. Especislly the way he forces his lower jaw forward when growling/talking and then there is the growling/talking bit anyway.
On repeat viewing, I would mark it down to a 3/5 from 5/5, based on this. I struggle to view it through at this stage.
It is saved, for me, by Heath Ledger, Morgan Freeman and especially Aaron Eckhart whom I would have loved to see get the part of Wayne.

norrie rugger presents a balanced and fair view here. While I don't agree with it entirely it is a matter of contrasting tastes. What I was referring to earlier is the type of review that is written in an unblalanced and unfair way purely to gain notoriety. While certainly no film should be 'critic proof' I really can't stand seeing a critic who bashes something popular because they want to stand out as opposed to offering proper insight as to why the film may not be as good as everyone says.

Renn

nvm