Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Movie Critics Are Royal Jerks!


Palmerin
 Share

Recommended Posts

When I was a teenager==mid 1960s to the 1970s==I actually took seriously the opinion of critics.

However, I soon learned to intensely dislike Rex Reed. Of every twenty movies he reviewed, he liked ONE, and maybe another one would get a passing grade, albeit with reservations; the other EIGHTEEN or NINETEEN would get a flunk. Eventually the guy got such a deservedly bad reputation that producers quit inviting him to their premieres.

In my Puerto Rico THE SAN JUAN STAR, the newspaper I delivered, had a whiner who never stopped complaining about the lack of art films in the country. Once he published an obviously contrived anecdote about how he complained to a distributor about the lack of movies of WERTMULLER and INGMAR BERGMAN, and the distributor assured him that he had all the movies of WEISSMULLER and INGRID BERGMAN.

If I had had that precious pedant in front of me, I would have made him drink a full liter of printer's ink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, ya know Palmerin, maybe Rex was around in order to counterbalance another critic known for sportin' a big shaggy mustache, and who seemed to like almost EVERY movie that was released during his time.

 

(...I'm talkin' about Gene Shalit here, of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I payed no attention to critics until I entered my middle-age years, and then only because I was watching more tv and reading more magazines and newspapers.

 

I never saw (or didn't) a film based on a review. Almost always, I would see a film and then, at some later date, happen across a review - and most of them, nearly 98% I'd say, were the exact opposite of mine. I began to notice that nearly every film that was panned or simply downplayed was a movie I liked very much - and vice versa.

 

The only critic I connected with was Roger Ebert. We agreed on films roughly 95% of the time - I miss him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem with movie critics is they have always resented the masses liking films they they don't.

siskel & ebert for instance.

they would only begrudgingly bestow a right to the masses to like or dislike a film only if the two of them disagreed with each other.

but if in accord with each other, the public was stupid if not in accordance with their expertise.

two films Roger and Gene both trashed and were completely wrong about imo...

 

History of the World Part 1

 

and

 

National Lampoon's European Vacation

 

they both felt european vacation's humor was demeaning to women and chided director Amy Heckerling.

 

I knew what there and then what arrogant stupes they both were. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always amused by the amount of times I read Pauline Kael's opinion after the fact and find that I disagree with it.

 

Pauline Kael was always fun to read for her ability to turn a phrase and for the ferocity of her opinions, but I'd pay about as much attention to those opinions as I'd pay to the opinions of 50 random people selected from the Muskogee telephone directory.  She suckered me into seeing Last Tango in Paris, and that was all she wrote.  I find it much better to screen movies by the genre and the actors than by any other method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, I agree with your method of screening a film based on the actor and/or genre.  Myself, I don't pay much attention to the critics.  I can usually know if I'll want to see a film based on the trailer, who is in it and if it's a film by a particular studio known for a particular type film, that may play more of a role in my decision to watch it or not.

 

I used (I have to use past tense right now, since I don't have TCM right now) the actor/genre screening method to decide what films I wanted to DVR.  Pretty much anything with my favorite actors that I didn't already own or hadn't seen yet (or wanted to see again) I would DVR it.  I would also look for films that I hadn't seen, but knew they were acclaimed, just to say that I had seen it. 

 

I have neither the time to watch, nor the DVR space to record everything; so I have to be selective in what I record.  I count on TCM re-airing a film again so I can catch it if I missed it the first time around.  The actor, what I've heard about the film and the genre play greatly into my decision to watch it or not.  Unlike the movie theater, at least with DVR stuff, if the movie is terrible, you can just stop it and delete.  You aren't out any money.  With the movie theater, I try to make sure to just go to films that I'm fairly certain that I'll like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem with movie critics is they have always resented the masses liking films they they don't.

siskel & ebert for instance.

they would only begrudgingly bestow a right to the masses to like or dislike a film only if the two of them disagreed with each other.

but if in accord with each other, the public was stupid if not in accordance with their expertise.

two films Roger and Gene both trashed and were completely wrong about imo...

 

History of the World Part 1

 

and

 

National Lampoon's European Vacation

 

they both felt european vacation's humor was demeaning to women and chided director Amy Heckerling.

 

I knew what there and then what arrogant stupes they both were. :)

 

Sorry ND, but I have to agree with their assessment of both those films, because as much as I love Mel Brooks, in MY opinion he "jumped the shark" somewhat with THOTWP1 and because I found few "surprises" coming my way while watching it and unlike I had with his earlier two blockbuster comedies.

 

And, the only thing I remember laughing at in that National Lampoon Vacation sequel was the part where Chevy Chase dons the lederhosen and because of a misplaced slap, he inadvertently starts a fight with all the Germans dancing around him.

 

(...THOUGH I must admit I WAS always fascinated by Beverly D'Angelo's sexy OVERBITE!!!) LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only watched those movie critic shows to see what the movies were about and to see some clips. I never cared about their opinions. After a while, I learned that:

 

  • If the film is slow and the actors have English accents, they will like it.
  • If the film has any technology like computers, data transfers etc... they won't like it because they couldn't understand it.
  • If the films has silly comedy from the 30's or 40's they will love it.
  • Silly comedies from the present day: couldn't be bothered, thumbs way down
  • Lots of special effects, fighting, spaceships: thumbs down
  • Someone in the film dying of some disease: Oscar nominee !

They are so predictable, you can guess their answers before they say them. I think critics write for other critics to read. They live in their own little world, a world I don't live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • If the films has silly comedy from the 30's or 40's they will love it.
  • Silly comedies from the present day: couldn't be bothered, thumbs way down

 

So then I guess we have a WHOLE lot of "critics" around THESE here parts then, eh Gerald?! ;)

 

(...'cause dude, if there's ONE constant around "these here parts", it's all the people who think AND start threads with THIS very thought in mind, ya know!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dargo:  If you're fascinated by Beverly D'Angelo's overbite; have you ever seen what she does with her hand in 1977's 'THE SENTINEL'?  You'll be fascinated by that, too, if you've not seen it.  Heh heh.

 

ALSO:  The most useless movie critic whose reviews I read enough of to form an opinion was Roger Ebert.  Ergo, I've forgotten nearly all of the ones I read as I made mental notes of how little value they were to my movie-watching tastes. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MovieMadness is correct- you have NO IDEA what it is like to be a movie critic. I do. I had 2 very good friends who were movie critics and often accompanied them to movies they had to review. I saw a lot of dreadful movies.

 

YOU, the reader, are supposed to discern whether YOU'D like the film based upon their reviews. In the case of very popular Siskel & Ebert, I found Ebert to be rather small minded & childish, so if he thought a movie was "full of laughs" or entertaining, I knew not to bother seeing it. I much more agreed with Siskel, although I learned to read between his lines too.

 

As in the case:

they both felt european vacation's humor was demeaning to women

 

So they are reporting that IF you are a feminist (I am) you may find some of the humor offensive. Thanks for the warning.

 

They also warn of objectionable language, sex scenes, violence or any other aspects of the movie the average viewer may not enjoy.

 

Wouldn't you have liked to know (upon it's release) that ROCKY HORROR was a musical parody of horror films? From the title you may have expected an exciting sci-fi movie to take your kids to.

 

Yes, movie critics at best are reporting their opinions of what the average viewer might think about seeing the particular film. It's up to YOU to understand the review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best thing to do about many film critics is try to discern THEIR likes and dislikes.

 

Ther was one critic here in Detroit's DETROIT NEWS, named SUSAN STARK, who'd favorably review ANY foreign film, even sight unseen.  SHE was of the opinion that ANY foriegn film was vastly superior to ANY American made "dreck".

 

Personally, my favorite movie critic here in the Detroit area was TERRY LAWSON, who also did some music criiques.( it was HE who came up with the name "Hotel Catatonia"  for that dreadful Eagles tune!).  Lawson seemed to see movies though OUR eyes, instead of the eyes of a jaded movie critic.

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...I'm talkin' about Gene Shalit here, of course)

 

Gene Shalit's the best!

 

I remember his entertainment tonight review of 'Slap Shot' (1977).

 

He said, "any parent that would take their child to this movie should be slapped - or shot!"

 

Seriously, though - they're all a-holes at some time or other. I NEVER read their reviews or listen to what they say until AFTER I've seen the movie.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................I think all this negativity and jabbing cutting words being directed towards paid film critics on this thread are just so much sour grapes and jealousy.  All of us little posters on TCM forums are little "misunderstood" film critics too.  A whole lotta spite being directed on these "movie critics are royal jerks" postings.  In reality we are just spouting off about ourselves aren't we??  As Paul Harvey always said:  "Good Day".    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.................I think all this negativity and jabbing cutting words being directed towards paid film critics on this thread are just so much sour grapes and jealousy.  All of us little posters on TCM forums are little "misunderstood" film critics too.  A whole lotta spite being directed on these "movie critics are royal jerks" postings.  In reality we are just spouting off about ourselves aren't we??  As Paul Harvey always said:  "Good Day".    

 

Gotta say I LIKE what rr just said here folks, and evidenced by what I just said down there to GGGGearld's comments in list form a little ways back.

 

(...remember?!...my whole "Then we must have a whole lot of 'critics' around HERE then!" comment?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#15 icon_share.png speedracer5

Posted Yesterday, 10:50 PM

 

Andy, I agree with your method of screening a film based on the actor and/or genre.  Myself, I don't pay much attention to the critics.  I can usually know if I'll want to see a film based on the trailer, who is in it and if it's a film by a particular studio known for a particular type film, that may play more of a role in my decision to watch it or not.

 

I used (I have to use past tense right now, since I don't have TCM right now) the actor/genre screening method to decide what films I wanted to DVR.  Pretty much anything with my favorite actors that I didn't already own or hadn't seen yet (or wanted to see again) I would DVR it.  I would also look for films that I hadn't seen, but knew they were acclaimed, just to say that I had seen it.

 

Since I only see about one or two movies a year in theaters these days (parking, ticket prices, those godawful preview trailers, mawkish background music, etc.), my "moviegoing" is pretty much restricted to TCM, one of the last bastions of cheap culture for us pauperized masses.

 

And since I record onto DVDs rather than DVR, I can be very non-picky in what I choose to record and watch. Here's how I decide.

 

Noirs, gangsters and mob movies:  Record em all, no matter the year they were made.  They're the gold standard.

 

Movies with any of my 50 or so favorite actors or actresses:  Record em all except for swashbucklers, costume dramas, "adventure" stories,  or historical biopics. 

 

Silents:  Record em all. except for those set in royal courts or with the actors all dressed up in Jerry Seinfeld's puffy shirts.

 

Pre-codes:  I record all but the musicals (though I have the three major Berkeleys), but as a whole I've discovered they're strictly hit and miss when I get around to watching them.

 

Foreign movies:  Record all the black & whites, be much more selective about the ones in color. 

 

Courtroom or corporate dramas:  Never miss a one.  These were among the few saviors of the 50's and early 60's Hollywood product.  I can't think of any I couldn't watch repeatedly.

 

Caper movies:  All but the comedies, which tend to be way overdone and much too obvious.

 

Comedies:  Depends on the actors, but generally as a group the silents and the 30's are the best.

 

Musicals:  I've got about 15 of them, from 42nd Street through My Fair Lady and The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, and that's enough to last me 10 lifetimes.

 

Hope, Crosby, Skelton, Jerry Lewis, and all the other m o r o n i c comedians and crooners from the war and postwar years:  Read a book, watch a ballgame, take a 10 mile walk.  Anything but watch or record those preening horror shows.

 

"Family" movies, meaning those featuring animals or floppy-haired children as the main characters:  Reach for my revolver.  (I'm not talking about The Little Rascals, since they're in a whole different (and infinitely superior) category.)

 

All in all, you win some and you lose some, but for about a quarter a pop, how can you lose?  It's a lot better than relying on some reviewer you don't even know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me here Andy, but you're doin' it again, ya know...quoting others in your posts in a manner which I(and others, I'm sure) have no idea from whom that quote came.

 

(...I always love reading our insightful thoughts around here, but this drives me a little bonkers, ol' buddy...okay, okay...MORE bonkers than normal)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gene Shalit's the best!

 

I remember his entertainment tonight review of 'Slap Shot' (1977).

 

He said, "any parent that would take their child to this movie should be slapped - or shot!"

 

Seriously, though - they're all a-holes at some time or other. I NEVER read their reviews or listen to what they say until AFTER I've seen the movie.

That's the point. They are more interested (like some people on these boards) in coming up with one-liners than in analyzing the films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...