Building High-Performance Muscle™
Get a Life
 
Superman...done right?
 

roybot
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 6586

Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
csulli wrote:
four60 wrote:
Most of the paid critics did not enjoy it. Most of the public enjoyed it.

This is why I am wondering what the point of most movie critics is nowadays. In general they seem to share virtually no common opinions with the public at large, so who do they benefit?

No offense Kahuna. In all honesty you're better than any of the people I read about getting paid to review movies rofl.


No worries friendo, you're largely right.

A critic's intent is to dissect the good and the bad of the movie from a somewhat specific but mostly general selection of categories that gain or lose priority determined by the director/producer and genre. I try to come to a conclusion based on things like Direction, Script, Set Production, Cinematography, Casting and Acting, Character design, Scene Significance and Genre Relevance/Conformity. Those are most of the big generalities that I tend to cover a film by, and they'll serve me a basic idea of how good/bad it is as a whole, but then I filter it through things like budget, director experience (with both film-making and the genre at hand), the director's intent and his personal opinions about what he's made. Taking into account all of those second ones, they may gradually draw my opinions on the first set of categories into a slightly different territory. Sometimes the good will be a little worse in retrospect (the cast potential and chemistry making up for weak direction), and sometimes I will give the bad some more leeway (the cinematography being off due to a shallow budget).

A lot of the time us critics tend to play by logic and analysis when faced with a film and throw our instincts on a back-burner when some cheesy attention-drawing bullshit shows up (Michael Bay explosions anyone?). Sometimes a mass audience will do the exact opposite. Each party will get annoyed at the other for doing so, and rarely will either party swap sides too frequently. There are some films that I may rate a little lower as a critic that I appreciate greatly based on instinct, and a lot where the brilliantly made and wonderfully crafted films may seem boring outside of a state of analysis.

A shoddy director can rely on a shitty, yet loud movie to draw in profits even if the thing itself isn't really anything at all from a logical perspective and most of the less experienced or not very passionate audience members will fall for it, that's why M. Night Shyamalan and Michael Bay are still working. In reference to Man Of Steel, some of the spoilers I've heard do sound a little iffy, but the vast majority of people did like it and I don't expect such a huge amount of people to jump in that direction with the hype so huge if it's a bad movie, but I'll really have to see it for myself and try to balance my logic and my emotional instinct before I come to a conclusion I feel is right (which I should do soon if I have the amount of time left over that I expect today).

Most of the time the critic will serve the more passionate and analytic of the audience, along with those involved in film-making, most notably the directors and producers of the films, but the distance between critical outcome and commercial outcome stems far and wide based on a different perspective of view. Anyway, I'll probably jump more into this after I've seen Man Of Steel, I've been a little vague and there is a lot more to cover on the difference between an individual critic and a general populace's reviews.


Bullshit. You either like a movie after leaving or you don't. Critics will always let their knowledge of cinema and genre and personal tastes influence their opinion.


That's not necessarily true. I hated M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable until I watched it for a third time around and talked to some people about it, upon which I garnered an appreciation, even for the ending which can at least be partly excusable when the details of Shyamalan's intent emerge. I also hated Drive until I read the final draft of it's script in full and saw all of Winding Refn's notes for the character and the deep chasms of his personality. You're telling me you've never seen a movie once and hated it, then watched it at another time and changed your mind? Or vice versa? I hated half the Jean Luc-Godard films I saw the first time round, now I adore them, or "j'adore" them. Film is a subjective art and there are never black and whites, as much as I would like there to be, even on what are regarded as some of the greatest films of all time. You're right, critics will always let that influence their opinion, everyone will. There's nobody on Earth that doesn't justify a film by some sort of personal bias once or twice, let alone regularly. You ever see someone that takes themselves way too seriously bash every Nicolas Cage film to step out of the water since the birth of his career, without fail? Or see a teenage girl blush over a Woody Allen romance just as much as a Sarah Jessica Parker one? It works on both sides, it works on all sides, it's just a thing we do.

I can enjoy certain reviews without ever having to see a movie (Roger Ebert and Kim Newman) but I'd never rely on a single critic's opinion on how to watch a film.


That's admirable, it's important to gather your sources. I wouldn't either.

You've simultaneously managed to lambast critics, described yourself as one and put their opinions above that of the general populace.


Of course, I recognise our imperfections as much as I recognise our value. There exists no black and white here, we are not gods sent down from the heavens to enlighten and inform the masses of undeniable wisdom, yet our toil in the art of film-making and our (self-)education into the distinctions that make or break the genuine quality of a film lead us to at the very least be a respectable figure of authority when it comes to judging a film. If I were to learn philosophy, it would be wise to seek a man who makes his trade as a philosopher, the same kind of thought process should apply here, as it does with anyone educated or experienced in a particular subject over those that aren't.

There comes a point where you can completely talk the enjoyment out of a movie.


And there is perhaps one of our major imperfections. I find myself caught in the analysis too much sometimes and there are plenty of times when I realise my past opinions may stale with age until I let loose and allow a film to flow properly. I have a Moonrise Kingdom review in the Even More Movies thread that details that well. I don't trust my own reviews to be a perfect representation of how a film is to every other person that reads them with a fine degree of accuracy, I just expect at least a slightly above normal batting average.

It's strange trying to debate against this when half of our opinions on the matter hold some sort of common ground. However I'm glad you agree with me here, even if I didn't so much explore these the first time around to make it evidently known.


I wrote less than a paragraph explaining why I disagreed with you and you've managed to stretch it into an essay with digressions to philosophy, religion and Woody Allen where the conclusion is that I agree with you. You keep describing yourself as a critic which automatically endows you with status and elevates your opinion above everyone else's (respectable figure of authority?). The mock humility doesn't really go with that.

The last words I want to read in a review, paid or unpaid, are 'I am a critic'...

  Report
 

Big Kahuna
Level

Join date: Feb 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 2262

roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
csulli wrote:
four60 wrote:
Most of the paid critics did not enjoy it. Most of the public enjoyed it.

This is why I am wondering what the point of most movie critics is nowadays. In general they seem to share virtually no common opinions with the public at large, so who do they benefit?

No offense Kahuna. In all honesty you're better than any of the people I read about getting paid to review movies rofl.


No worries friendo, you're largely right.

A critic's intent is to dissect the good and the bad of the movie from a somewhat specific but mostly general selection of categories that gain or lose priority determined by the director/producer and genre. I try to come to a conclusion based on things like Direction, Script, Set Production, Cinematography, Casting and Acting, Character design, Scene Significance and Genre Relevance/Conformity. Those are most of the big generalities that I tend to cover a film by, and they'll serve me a basic idea of how good/bad it is as a whole, but then I filter it through things like budget, director experience (with both film-making and the genre at hand), the director's intent and his personal opinions about what he's made. Taking into account all of those second ones, they may gradually draw my opinions on the first set of categories into a slightly different territory. Sometimes the good will be a little worse in retrospect (the cast potential and chemistry making up for weak direction), and sometimes I will give the bad some more leeway (the cinematography being off due to a shallow budget).

A lot of the time us critics tend to play by logic and analysis when faced with a film and throw our instincts on a back-burner when some cheesy attention-drawing bullshit shows up (Michael Bay explosions anyone?). Sometimes a mass audience will do the exact opposite. Each party will get annoyed at the other for doing so, and rarely will either party swap sides too frequently. There are some films that I may rate a little lower as a critic that I appreciate greatly based on instinct, and a lot where the brilliantly made and wonderfully crafted films may seem boring outside of a state of analysis.

A shoddy director can rely on a shitty, yet loud movie to draw in profits even if the thing itself isn't really anything at all from a logical perspective and most of the less experienced or not very passionate audience members will fall for it, that's why M. Night Shyamalan and Michael Bay are still working. In reference to Man Of Steel, some of the spoilers I've heard do sound a little iffy, but the vast majority of people did like it and I don't expect such a huge amount of people to jump in that direction with the hype so huge if it's a bad movie, but I'll really have to see it for myself and try to balance my logic and my emotional instinct before I come to a conclusion I feel is right (which I should do soon if I have the amount of time left over that I expect today).

Most of the time the critic will serve the more passionate and analytic of the audience, along with those involved in film-making, most notably the directors and producers of the films, but the distance between critical outcome and commercial outcome stems far and wide based on a different perspective of view. Anyway, I'll probably jump more into this after I've seen Man Of Steel, I've been a little vague and there is a lot more to cover on the difference between an individual critic and a general populace's reviews.


Bullshit. You either like a movie after leaving or you don't. Critics will always let their knowledge of cinema and genre and personal tastes influence their opinion.


That's not necessarily true. I hated M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable until I watched it for a third time around and talked to some people about it, upon which I garnered an appreciation, even for the ending which can at least be partly excusable when the details of Shyamalan's intent emerge. I also hated Drive until I read the final draft of it's script in full and saw all of Winding Refn's notes for the character and the deep chasms of his personality. You're telling me you've never seen a movie once and hated it, then watched it at another time and changed your mind? Or vice versa? I hated half the Jean Luc-Godard films I saw the first time round, now I adore them, or "j'adore" them. Film is a subjective art and there are never black and whites, as much as I would like there to be, even on what are regarded as some of the greatest films of all time. You're right, critics will always let that influence their opinion, everyone will. There's nobody on Earth that doesn't justify a film by some sort of personal bias once or twice, let alone regularly. You ever see someone that takes themselves way too seriously bash every Nicolas Cage film to step out of the water since the birth of his career, without fail? Or see a teenage girl blush over a Woody Allen romance just as much as a Sarah Jessica Parker one? It works on both sides, it works on all sides, it's just a thing we do.

I can enjoy certain reviews without ever having to see a movie (Roger Ebert and Kim Newman) but I'd never rely on a single critic's opinion on how to watch a film.


That's admirable, it's important to gather your sources. I wouldn't either.

You've simultaneously managed to lambast critics, described yourself as one and put their opinions above that of the general populace.


Of course, I recognise our imperfections as much as I recognise our value. There exists no black and white here, we are not gods sent down from the heavens to enlighten and inform the masses of undeniable wisdom, yet our toil in the art of film-making and our (self-)education into the distinctions that make or break the genuine quality of a film lead us to at the very least be a respectable figure of authority when it comes to judging a film. If I were to learn philosophy, it would be wise to seek a man who makes his trade as a philosopher, the same kind of thought process should apply here, as it does with anyone educated or experienced in a particular subject over those that aren't.

There comes a point where you can completely talk the enjoyment out of a movie.


And there is perhaps one of our major imperfections. I find myself caught in the analysis too much sometimes and there are plenty of times when I realise my past opinions may stale with age until I let loose and allow a film to flow properly. I have a Moonrise Kingdom review in the Even More Movies thread that details that well. I don't trust my own reviews to be a perfect representation of how a film is to every other person that reads them with a fine degree of accuracy, I just expect at least a slightly above normal batting average.

It's strange trying to debate against this when half of our opinions on the matter hold some sort of common ground. However I'm glad you agree with me here, even if I didn't so much explore these the first time around to make it evidently known.


I wrote less than a paragraph explaining why I disagreed with you and you've managed to stretch it into an essay with digressions to philosophy, religion and Woody Allen where the conclusion is that I agree with you. You keep describing yourself as a critic which
automatically endows you wwith status and elevates your opinion of everyone else's (respectable figure of authority?). The mock humility doesn't really go with that.






Yes that's right, sometimes I like to use a lot of metaphors and similes, bad habit of mine. Essays also, having a passion for reviewing movies 'n' all.

Well do you agree with me? To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.

Beyond the cheesy references and such, what I'm trying to say is that a critic has become a critic for a reason, and that reason is centred on a passion and a desire to learn and understand film. It kind of does endow you with status somewhat, in that people would likely run something by a critic they knew if they wanted to learn more on some branch of cinema history, of course they could do that with a director/producer/screenwriter/film company CEO/cameraman as well because we're all linked to the same bubble in some degree, with some sense of hierarchy of course. If someone has a passion for something and a reasonable amount of time and effort educating themselves on the matter to where they can be somewhat informative and helpful to others, then why should they not be the ones to talk to about that? There are plenty of people like that in any respective field, and all of them will vary, whether it be a little or a lot, but the collection of ideas/research/opinions from those people will likely be more useful on average than if you were to collect the opinions of those with no strong interest or experience in that field.

My opinion on film is from me, as a human, and comes with the negative aspects associated with that, but I do like to think that my strong interest in film offers my views some sense of value when compared to the views of a more casual movie-goer, or one that rarely sees or thinks about them at all. Maybe I'm not humble, but I have no delusions that my "wisdom" hits a wall at a certain point where other more experienced film aficionados break through with ease, I just expect that on average that my wall is further along than a lot of other people I know outside of film culture. I review films because I feel that what I have to offer will at least help boost the thought processes and knowledge of those that might not quite share the same level of interest as me but still enjoy the subject itself and are willing to read up on it a little. And also that people may debate me, so that I may debate back and either re-mould a newer understanding of my opinion or explain why the pillars of my opinions still stand steadfast.

I don't expect that my knowledge is far and beyond everyone else's, I appreciate that there are people who know far more than me and can pinpoint precise aspects of film far better than I can, but I also retain that I am more towards the middle than I am to the bottom and that my opinion may be helpful to some, if not all, and I am willing to take that chance. It is good to have reviewers and it is good to have reviews. If one does not agree with a reviewer and decides not to read their reviews (which they shouldn't ideally do if they have the chance not to), then that does not mean the review is entirely useless. If some people don't take much from my reviews, then they can continue to not read them, but if some do then I am glad that I could be of assistance to them. Maybe I am not all important, but it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that I have an inkling of importance, and I like to display that in the case that it may be of use to someone who shares the same train of thought as I do on films we've already seen, and is at least somewhat trusting of my opinion on films I may get to before them.

  Report
 

Derek542
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 11966

Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
csulli wrote:
four60 wrote:
Most of the paid critics did not enjoy it. Most of the public enjoyed it.

This is why I am wondering what the point of most movie critics is nowadays. In general they seem to share virtually no common opinions with the public at large, so who do they benefit?

No offense Kahuna. In all honesty you're better than any of the people I read about getting paid to review movies rofl.


No worries friendo, you're largely right.

A critic's intent is to dissect the good and the bad of the movie from a somewhat specific but mostly general selection of categories that gain or lose priority determined by the director/producer and genre. I try to come to a conclusion based on things like Direction, Script, Set Production, Cinematography, Casting and Acting, Character design, Scene Significance and Genre Relevance/Conformity. Those are most of the big generalities that I tend to cover a film by, and they'll serve me a basic idea of how good/bad it is as a whole, but then I filter it through things like budget, director experience (with both film-making and the genre at hand), the director's intent and his personal opinions about what he's made. Taking into account all of those second ones, they may gradually draw my opinions on the first set of categories into a slightly different territory. Sometimes the good will be a little worse in retrospect (the cast potential and chemistry making up for weak direction), and sometimes I will give the bad some more leeway (the cinematography being off due to a shallow budget).

A lot of the time us critics tend to play by logic and analysis when faced with a film and throw our instincts on a back-burner when some cheesy attention-drawing bullshit shows up (Michael Bay explosions anyone?). Sometimes a mass audience will do the exact opposite. Each party will get annoyed at the other for doing so, and rarely will either party swap sides too frequently. There are some films that I may rate a little lower as a critic that I appreciate greatly based on instinct, and a lot where the brilliantly made and wonderfully crafted films may seem boring outside of a state of analysis.

A shoddy director can rely on a shitty, yet loud movie to draw in profits even if the thing itself isn't really anything at all from a logical perspective and most of the less experienced or not very passionate audience members will fall for it, that's why M. Night Shyamalan and Michael Bay are still working. In reference to Man Of Steel, some of the spoilers I've heard do sound a little iffy, but the vast majority of people did like it and I don't expect such a huge amount of people to jump in that direction with the hype so huge if it's a bad movie, but I'll really have to see it for myself and try to balance my logic and my emotional instinct before I come to a conclusion I feel is right (which I should do soon if I have the amount of time left over that I expect today).

Most of the time the critic will serve the more passionate and analytic of the audience, along with those involved in film-making, most notably the directors and producers of the films, but the distance between critical outcome and commercial outcome stems far and wide based on a different perspective of view. Anyway, I'll probably jump more into this after I've seen Man Of Steel, I've been a little vague and there is a lot more to cover on the difference between an individual critic and a general populace's reviews.


Bullshit. You either like a movie after leaving or you don't. Critics will always let their knowledge of cinema and genre and personal tastes influence their opinion.


That's not necessarily true. I hated M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable until I watched it for a third time around and talked to some people about it, upon which I garnered an appreciation, even for the ending which can at least be partly excusable when the details of Shyamalan's intent emerge. I also hated Drive until I read the final draft of it's script in full and saw all of Winding Refn's notes for the character and the deep chasms of his personality. You're telling me you've never seen a movie once and hated it, then watched it at another time and changed your mind? Or vice versa? I hated half the Jean Luc-Godard films I saw the first time round, now I adore them, or "j'adore" them. Film is a subjective art and there are never black and whites, as much as I would like there to be, even on what are regarded as some of the greatest films of all time. You're right, critics will always let that influence their opinion, everyone will. There's nobody on Earth that doesn't justify a film by some sort of personal bias once or twice, let alone regularly. You ever see someone that takes themselves way too seriously bash every Nicolas Cage film to step out of the water since the birth of his career, without fail? Or see a teenage girl blush over a Woody Allen romance just as much as a Sarah Jessica Parker one? It works on both sides, it works on all sides, it's just a thing we do.

I can enjoy certain reviews without ever having to see a movie (Roger Ebert and Kim Newman) but I'd never rely on a single critic's opinion on how to watch a film.


That's admirable, it's important to gather your sources. I wouldn't either.

You've simultaneously managed to lambast critics, described yourself as one and put their opinions above that of the general populace.


Of course, I recognise our imperfections as much as I recognise our value. There exists no black and white here, we are not gods sent down from the heavens to enlighten and inform the masses of undeniable wisdom, yet our toil in the art of film-making and our (self-)education into the distinctions that make or break the genuine quality of a film lead us to at the very least be a respectable figure of authority when it comes to judging a film. If I were to learn philosophy, it would be wise to seek a man who makes his trade as a philosopher, the same kind of thought process should apply here, as it does with anyone educated or experienced in a particular subject over those that aren't.

There comes a point where you can completely talk the enjoyment out of a movie.


And there is perhaps one of our major imperfections. I find myself caught in the analysis too much sometimes and there are plenty of times when I realise my past opinions may stale with age until I let loose and allow a film to flow properly. I have a Moonrise Kingdom review in the Even More Movies thread that details that well. I don't trust my own reviews to be a perfect representation of how a film is to every other person that reads them with a fine degree of accuracy, I just expect at least a slightly above normal batting average.

It's strange trying to debate against this when half of our opinions on the matter hold some sort of common ground. However I'm glad you agree with me here, even if I didn't so much explore these the first time around to make it evidently known.


I wrote less than a paragraph explaining why I disagreed with you and you've managed to stretch it into an essay with digressions to philosophy, religion and Woody Allen where the conclusion is that I agree with you. You keep describing yourself as a critic which
automatically endows you wwith status and elevates your opinion of everyone else's (respectable figure of authority?). The mock humility doesn't really go with that.






Yes that's right, sometimes I like to use a lot of metaphors and similes, bad habit of mine. Essays also, having a passion for reviewing movies 'n' all.

Well do you agree with me? To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.

Beyond the cheesy references and such, what I'm trying to say is that a critic has become a critic for a reason, and that reason is centred on a passion and a desire to learn and understand film. It kind of does endow you with status somewhat, in that people would likely run something by a critic they knew if they wanted to learn more on some branch of cinema history, of course they could do that with a director/producer/screenwriter/film company CEO/cameraman as well because we're all linked to the same bubble in some degree, with some sense of hierarchy of course. If someone has a passion for something and a reasonable amount of time and effort educating themselves on the matter to where they can be somewhat informative and helpful to others, then why should they not be the ones to talk to about that? There are plenty of people like that in any respective field, and all of them will vary, whether it be a little or a lot, but the collection of ideas/research/opinions from those people will likely be more useful on average than if you were to collect the opinions of those with no strong interest or experience in that field.

My opinion on film is from me, as a human, and comes with the negative aspects associated with that, but I do like to think that my strong interest in film offers my views some sense of value when compared to the views of a more casual movie-goer, or one that rarely sees or thinks about them at all. Maybe I'm not humble, but I have no delusions that my "wisdom" hits a wall at a certain point where other more experienced film aficionados break through with ease, I just expect that on average that my wall is further along than a lot of other people I know outside of film culture. I review films because I feel that what I have to offer will at least help boost the thought processes and knowledge of those that might not quite share the same level of interest as me but still enjoy the subject itself and are willing to read up on it a little. And also that people may debate me, so that I may debate back and either re-mould a newer understanding of my opinion or explain why the pillars of my opinions still stand steadfast.

I don't expect that my knowledge is far and beyond everyone else's, I appreciate that there are people who know far more than me and can pinpoint precise aspects of film far better than I can, but I also retain that I am more towards the middle than I am to the bottom and that my opinion may be helpful to some, if not all, and I am willing to take that chance. It is good to have reviewers and it is good to have reviews. If one does not agree with a reviewer and decides not to read their reviews (which they shouldn't ideally do if they have the chance not to), then that does not mean the review is entirely useless. If some people don't take much from my reviews, then they can continue to not read them, but if some do then I am glad that I could be of assistance to them. Maybe I am not all important, but it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that I have an inkling of importance, and I like to display that in the case that it may be of use to someone who shares the same train of thought as I do on films we've already seen, and is at least somewhat trusting of my opinion on films I may get to before them.

I think you are DB Coopers long lost brother. Both of you guys love to write

















:) just fucking with you

  Report
 

Big Kahuna
Level

Join date: Feb 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 2262

Derek542 wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
csulli wrote:
four60 wrote:
Most of the paid critics did not enjoy it. Most of the public enjoyed it.

This is why I am wondering what the point of most movie critics is nowadays. In general they seem to share virtually no common opinions with the public at large, so who do they benefit?

No offense Kahuna. In all honesty you're better than any of the people I read about getting paid to review movies rofl.


No worries friendo, you're largely right.

A critic's intent is to dissect the good and the bad of the movie from a somewhat specific but mostly general selection of categories that gain or lose priority determined by the director/producer and genre. I try to come to a conclusion based on things like Direction, Script, Set Production, Cinematography, Casting and Acting, Character design, Scene Significance and Genre Relevance/Conformity. Those are most of the big generalities that I tend to cover a film by, and they'll serve me a basic idea of how good/bad it is as a whole, but then I filter it through things like budget, director experience (with both film-making and the genre at hand), the director's intent and his personal opinions about what he's made. Taking into account all of those second ones, they may gradually draw my opinions on the first set of categories into a slightly different territory. Sometimes the good will be a little worse in retrospect (the cast potential and chemistry making up for weak direction), and sometimes I will give the bad some more leeway (the cinematography being off due to a shallow budget).

A lot of the time us critics tend to play by logic and analysis when faced with a film and throw our instincts on a back-burner when some cheesy attention-drawing bullshit shows up (Michael Bay explosions anyone?). Sometimes a mass audience will do the exact opposite. Each party will get annoyed at the other for doing so, and rarely will either party swap sides too frequently. There are some films that I may rate a little lower as a critic that I appreciate greatly based on instinct, and a lot where the brilliantly made and wonderfully crafted films may seem boring outside of a state of analysis.

A shoddy director can rely on a shitty, yet loud movie to draw in profits even if the thing itself isn't really anything at all from a logical perspective and most of the less experienced or not very passionate audience members will fall for it, that's why M. Night Shyamalan and Michael Bay are still working. In reference to Man Of Steel, some of the spoilers I've heard do sound a little iffy, but the vast majority of people did like it and I don't expect such a huge amount of people to jump in that direction with the hype so huge if it's a bad movie, but I'll really have to see it for myself and try to balance my logic and my emotional instinct before I come to a conclusion I feel is right (which I should do soon if I have the amount of time left over that I expect today).

Most of the time the critic will serve the more passionate and analytic of the audience, along with those involved in film-making, most notably the directors and producers of the films, but the distance between critical outcome and commercial outcome stems far and wide based on a different perspective of view. Anyway, I'll probably jump more into this after I've seen Man Of Steel, I've been a little vague and there is a lot more to cover on the difference between an individual critic and a general populace's reviews.


Bullshit. You either like a movie after leaving or you don't. Critics will always let their knowledge of cinema and genre and personal tastes influence their opinion.


That's not necessarily true. I hated M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable until I watched it for a third time around and talked to some people about it, upon which I garnered an appreciation, even for the ending which can at least be partly excusable when the details of Shyamalan's intent emerge. I also hated Drive until I read the final draft of it's script in full and saw all of Winding Refn's notes for the character and the deep chasms of his personality. You're telling me you've never seen a movie once and hated it, then watched it at another time and changed your mind? Or vice versa? I hated half the Jean Luc-Godard films I saw the first time round, now I adore them, or "j'adore" them. Film is a subjective art and there are never black and whites, as much as I would like there to be, even on what are regarded as some of the greatest films of all time. You're right, critics will always let that influence their opinion, everyone will. There's nobody on Earth that doesn't justify a film by some sort of personal bias once or twice, let alone regularly. You ever see someone that takes themselves way too seriously bash every Nicolas Cage film to step out of the water since the birth of his career, without fail? Or see a teenage girl blush over a Woody Allen romance just as much as a Sarah Jessica Parker one? It works on both sides, it works on all sides, it's just a thing we do.

I can enjoy certain reviews without ever having to see a movie (Roger Ebert and Kim Newman) but I'd never rely on a single critic's opinion on how to watch a film.


That's admirable, it's important to gather your sources. I wouldn't either.

You've simultaneously managed to lambast critics, described yourself as one and put their opinions above that of the general populace.


Of course, I recognise our imperfections as much as I recognise our value. There exists no black and white here, we are not gods sent down from the heavens to enlighten and inform the masses of undeniable wisdom, yet our toil in the art of film-making and our (self-)education into the distinctions that make or break the genuine quality of a film lead us to at the very least be a respectable figure of authority when it comes to judging a film. If I were to learn philosophy, it would be wise to seek a man who makes his trade as a philosopher, the same kind of thought process should apply here, as it does with anyone educated or experienced in a particular subject over those that aren't.

There comes a point where you can completely talk the enjoyment out of a movie.


And there is perhaps one of our major imperfections. I find myself caught in the analysis too much sometimes and there are plenty of times when I realise my past opinions may stale with age until I let loose and allow a film to flow properly. I have a Moonrise Kingdom review in the Even More Movies thread that details that well. I don't trust my own reviews to be a perfect representation of how a film is to every other person that reads them with a fine degree of accuracy, I just expect at least a slightly above normal batting average.

It's strange trying to debate against this when half of our opinions on the matter hold some sort of common ground. However I'm glad you agree with me here, even if I didn't so much explore these the first time around to make it evidently known.


I wrote less than a paragraph explaining why I disagreed with you and you've managed to stretch it into an essay with digressions to philosophy, religion and Woody Allen where the conclusion is that I agree with you. You keep describing yourself as a critic which
automatically endows you wwith status and elevates your opinion of everyone else's (respectable figure of authority?). The mock humility doesn't really go with that.






Yes that's right, sometimes I like to use a lot of metaphors and similes, bad habit of mine. Essays also, having a passion for reviewing movies 'n' all.

Well do you agree with me? To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.

Beyond the cheesy references and such, what I'm trying to say is that a critic has become a critic for a reason, and that reason is centred on a passion and a desire to learn and understand film. It kind of does endow you with status somewhat, in that people would likely run something by a critic they knew if they wanted to learn more on some branch of cinema history, of course they could do that with a director/producer/screenwriter/film company CEO/cameraman as well because we're all linked to the same bubble in some degree, with some sense of hierarchy of course. If someone has a passion for something and a reasonable amount of time and effort educating themselves on the matter to where they can be somewhat informative and helpful to others, then why should they not be the ones to talk to about that? There are plenty of people like that in any respective field, and all of them will vary, whether it be a little or a lot, but the collection of ideas/research/opinions from those people will likely be more useful on average than if you were to collect the opinions of those with no strong interest or experience in that field.

My opinion on film is from me, as a human, and comes with the negative aspects associated with that, but I do like to think that my strong interest in film offers my views some sense of value when compared to the views of a more casual movie-goer, or one that rarely sees or thinks about them at all. Maybe I'm not humble, but I have no delusions that my "wisdom" hits a wall at a certain point where other more experienced film aficionados break through with ease, I just expect that on average that my wall is further along than a lot of other people I know outside of film culture. I review films because I feel that what I have to offer will at least help boost the thought processes and knowledge of those that might not quite share the same level of interest as me but still enjoy the subject itself and are willing to read up on it a little. And also that people may debate me, so that I may debate back and either re-mould a newer understanding of my opinion or explain why the pillars of my opinions still stand steadfast.

I don't expect that my knowledge is far and beyond everyone else's, I appreciate that there are people who know far more than me and can pinpoint precise aspects of film far better than I can, but I also retain that I am more towards the middle than I am to the bottom and that my opinion may be helpful to some, if not all, and I am willing to take that chance. It is good to have reviewers and it is good to have reviews. If one does not agree with a reviewer and decides not to read their reviews (which they shouldn't ideally do if they have the chance not to), then that does not mean the review is entirely useless. If some people don't take much from my reviews, then they can continue to not read them, but if some do then I am glad that I could be of assistance to them. Maybe I am not all important, but it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that I have an inkling of importance, and I like to display that in the case that it may be of use to someone who shares the same train of thought as I do on films we've already seen, and is at least somewhat trusting of my opinion on films I may get to before them.

I think you are DB Coopers long lost brother. Both of you guys love to write

















:) just fucking with you


Pah, maybe, I like DB he's very into his film noirs and old Golden Age films, been very inactive here lately though if I recall. Every single time these responses turn out to be far longer than I expect them to be, even when I preview them I find it too time-consuming to try to edit it and squash it into a smaller package. I guess that's another issue of mine, I'm no good at being effectively concise.

Get ready for the review I guess, god knows by the time I get to writing the MoS review I'll be taking up a quarter of the page.

  Report
 

roybot
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 6586

Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
csulli wrote:
four60 wrote:
Most of the paid critics did not enjoy it. Most of the public enjoyed it.

This is why I am wondering what the point of most movie critics is nowadays. In general they seem to share virtually no common opinions with the public at large, so who do they benefit?

No offense Kahuna. In all honesty you're better than any of the people I read about getting paid to review movies rofl.


No worries friendo, you're largely right.

A critic's intent is to dissect the good and the bad of the movie from a somewhat specific but mostly general selection of categories that gain or lose priority determined by the director/producer and genre. I try to come to a conclusion based on things like Direction, Script, Set Production, Cinematography, Casting and Acting, Character design, Scene Significance and Genre Relevance/Conformity. Those are most of the big generalities that I tend to cover a film by, and they'll serve me a basic idea of how good/bad it is as a whole, but then I filter it through things like budget, director experience (with both film-making and the genre at hand), the director's intent and his personal opinions about what he's made. Taking into account all of those second ones, they may gradually draw my opinions on the first set of categories into a slightly different territory. Sometimes the good will be a little worse in retrospect (the cast potential and chemistry making up for weak direction), and sometimes I will give the bad some more leeway (the cinematography being off due to a shallow budget).

A lot of the time us critics tend to play by logic and analysis when faced with a film and throw our instincts on a back-burner when some cheesy attention-drawing bullshit shows up (Michael Bay explosions anyone?). Sometimes a mass audience will do the exact opposite. Each party will get annoyed at the other for doing so, and rarely will either party swap sides too frequently. There are some films that I may rate a little lower as a critic that I appreciate greatly based on instinct, and a lot where the brilliantly made and wonderfully crafted films may seem boring outside of a state of analysis.

A shoddy director can rely on a shitty, yet loud movie to draw in profits even if the thing itself isn't really anything at all from a logical perspective and most of the less experienced or not very passionate audience members will fall for it, that's why M. Night Shyamalan and Michael Bay are still working. In reference to Man Of Steel, some of the spoilers I've heard do sound a little iffy, but the vast majority of people did like it and I don't expect such a huge amount of people to jump in that direction with the hype so huge if it's a bad movie, but I'll really have to see it for myself and try to balance my logic and my emotional instinct before I come to a conclusion I feel is right (which I should do soon if I have the amount of time left over that I expect today).

Most of the time the critic will serve the more passionate and analytic of the audience, along with those involved in film-making, most notably the directors and producers of the films, but the distance between critical outcome and commercial outcome stems far and wide based on a different perspective of view. Anyway, I'll probably jump more into this after I've seen Man Of Steel, I've been a little vague and there is a lot more to cover on the difference between an individual critic and a general populace's reviews.


Bullshit. You either like a movie after leaving or you don't. Critics will always let their knowledge of cinema and genre and personal tastes influence their opinion.


That's not necessarily true. I hated M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable until I watched it for a third time around and talked to some people about it, upon which I garnered an appreciation, even for the ending which can at least be partly excusable when the details of Shyamalan's intent emerge. I also hated Drive until I read the final draft of it's script in full and saw all of Winding Refn's notes for the character and the deep chasms of his personality. You're telling me you've never seen a movie once and hated it, then watched it at another time and changed your mind? Or vice versa? I hated half the Jean Luc-Godard films I saw the first time round, now I adore them, or "j'adore" them. Film is a subjective art and there are never black and whites, as much as I would like there to be, even on what are regarded as some of the greatest films of all time. You're right, critics will always let that influence their opinion, everyone will. There's nobody on Earth that doesn't justify a film by some sort of personal bias once or twice, let alone regularly. You ever see someone that takes themselves way too seriously bash every Nicolas Cage film to step out of the water since the birth of his career, without fail? Or see a teenage girl blush over a Woody Allen romance just as much as a Sarah Jessica Parker one? It works on both sides, it works on all sides, it's just a thing we do.

I can enjoy certain reviews without ever having to see a movie (Roger Ebert and Kim Newman) but I'd never rely on a single critic's opinion on how to watch a film.


That's admirable, it's important to gather your sources. I wouldn't either.

You've simultaneously managed to lambast critics, described yourself as one and put their opinions above that of the general populace.


Of course, I recognise our imperfections as much as I recognise our value. There exists no black and white here, we are not gods sent down from the heavens to enlighten and inform the masses of undeniable wisdom, yet our toil in the art of film-making and our (self-)education into the distinctions that make or break the genuine quality of a film lead us to at the very least be a respectable figure of authority when it comes to judging a film. If I were to learn philosophy, it would be wise to seek a man who makes his trade as a philosopher, the same kind of thought process should apply here, as it does with anyone educated or experienced in a particular subject over those that aren't.

There comes a point where you can completely talk the enjoyment out of a movie.


And there is perhaps one of our major imperfections. I find myself caught in the analysis too much sometimes and there are plenty of times when I realise my past opinions may stale with age until I let loose and allow a film to flow properly. I have a Moonrise Kingdom review in the Even More Movies thread that details that well. I don't trust my own reviews to be a perfect representation of how a film is to every other person that reads them with a fine degree of accuracy, I just expect at least a slightly above normal batting average.

It's strange trying to debate against this when half of our opinions on the matter hold some sort of common ground. However I'm glad you agree with me here, even if I didn't so much explore these the first time around to make it evidently known.


I wrote less than a paragraph explaining why I disagreed with you and you've managed to stretch it into an essay with digressions to philosophy, religion and Woody Allen where the conclusion is that I agree with you. You keep describing yourself as a critic which
automatically endows you wwith status and elevates your opinion of everyone else's (respectable figure of authority?). The mock humility doesn't really go with that.






Yes that's right, sometimes I like to use a lot of metaphors and similes, bad habit of mine. Essays also, having a passion for reviewing movies 'n' all.

Well do you agree with me? To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.



No, I don't agree with you, 'Clint'.

  Report
 

roybot
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 6586

Big Kahuna wrote:
Derek542 wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
csulli wrote:
four60 wrote:
Most of the paid critics did not enjoy it. Most of the public enjoyed it.

This is why I am wondering what the point of most movie critics is nowadays. In general they seem to share virtually no common opinions with the public at large, so who do they benefit?

No offense Kahuna. In all honesty you're better than any of the people I read about getting paid to review movies rofl.


No worries friendo, you're largely right.

A critic's intent is to dissect the good and the bad of the movie from a somewhat specific but mostly general selection of categories that gain or lose priority determined by the director/producer and genre. I try to come to a conclusion based on things like Direction, Script, Set Production, Cinematography, Casting and Acting, Character design, Scene Significance and Genre Relevance/Conformity. Those are most of the big generalities that I tend to cover a film by, and they'll serve me a basic idea of how good/bad it is as a whole, but then I filter it through things like budget, director experience (with both film-making and the genre at hand), the director's intent and his personal opinions about what he's made. Taking into account all of those second ones, they may gradually draw my opinions on the first set of categories into a slightly different territory. Sometimes the good will be a little worse in retrospect (the cast potential and chemistry making up for weak direction), and sometimes I will give the bad some more leeway (the cinematography being off due to a shallow budget).

A lot of the time us critics tend to play by logic and analysis when faced with a film and throw our instincts on a back-burner when some cheesy attention-drawing bullshit shows up (Michael Bay explosions anyone?). Sometimes a mass audience will do the exact opposite. Each party will get annoyed at the other for doing so, and rarely will either party swap sides too frequently. There are some films that I may rate a little lower as a critic that I appreciate greatly based on instinct, and a lot where the brilliantly made and wonderfully crafted films may seem boring outside of a state of analysis.

A shoddy director can rely on a shitty, yet loud movie to draw in profits even if the thing itself isn't really anything at all from a logical perspective and most of the less experienced or not very passionate audience members will fall for it, that's why M. Night Shyamalan and Michael Bay are still working. In reference to Man Of Steel, some of the spoilers I've heard do sound a little iffy, but the vast majority of people did like it and I don't expect such a huge amount of people to jump in that direction with the hype so huge if it's a bad movie, but I'll really have to see it for myself and try to balance my logic and my emotional instinct before I come to a conclusion I feel is right (which I should do soon if I have the amount of time left over that I expect today).

Most of the time the critic will serve the more passionate and analytic of the audience, along with those involved in film-making, most notably the directors and producers of the films, but the distance between critical outcome and commercial outcome stems far and wide based on a different perspective of view. Anyway, I'll probably jump more into this after I've seen Man Of Steel, I've been a little vague and there is a lot more to cover on the difference between an individual critic and a general populace's reviews.


Bullshit. You either like a movie after leaving or you don't. Critics will always let their knowledge of cinema and genre and personal tastes influence their opinion.


That's not necessarily true. I hated M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable until I watched it for a third time around and talked to some people about it, upon which I garnered an appreciation, even for the ending which can at least be partly excusable when the details of Shyamalan's intent emerge. I also hated Drive until I read the final draft of it's script in full and saw all of Winding Refn's notes for the character and the deep chasms of his personality. You're telling me you've never seen a movie once and hated it, then watched it at another time and changed your mind? Or vice versa? I hated half the Jean Luc-Godard films I saw the first time round, now I adore them, or "j'adore" them. Film is a subjective art and there are never black and whites, as much as I would like there to be, even on what are regarded as some of the greatest films of all time. You're right, critics will always let that influence their opinion, everyone will. There's nobody on Earth that doesn't justify a film by some sort of personal bias once or twice, let alone regularly. You ever see someone that takes themselves way too seriously bash every Nicolas Cage film to step out of the water since the birth of his career, without fail? Or see a teenage girl blush over a Woody Allen romance just as much as a Sarah Jessica Parker one? It works on both sides, it works on all sides, it's just a thing we do.

I can enjoy certain reviews without ever having to see a movie (Roger Ebert and Kim Newman) but I'd never rely on a single critic's opinion on how to watch a film.


That's admirable, it's important to gather your sources. I wouldn't either.

You've simultaneously managed to lambast critics, described yourself as one and put their opinions above that of the general populace.


Of course, I recognise our imperfections as much as I recognise our value. There exists no black and white here, we are not gods sent down from the heavens to enlighten and inform the masses of undeniable wisdom, yet our toil in the art of film-making and our (self-)education into the distinctions that make or break the genuine quality of a film lead us to at the very least be a respectable figure of authority when it comes to judging a film. If I were to learn philosophy, it would be wise to seek a man who makes his trade as a philosopher, the same kind of thought process should apply here, as it does with anyone educated or experienced in a particular subject over those that aren't.

There comes a point where you can completely talk the enjoyment out of a movie.


And there is perhaps one of our major imperfections. I find myself caught in the analysis too much sometimes and there are plenty of times when I realise my past opinions may stale with age until I let loose and allow a film to flow properly. I have a Moonrise Kingdom review in the Even More Movies thread that details that well. I don't trust my own reviews to be a perfect representation of how a film is to every other person that reads them with a fine degree of accuracy, I just expect at least a slightly above normal batting average.

It's strange trying to debate against this when half of our opinions on the matter hold some sort of common ground. However I'm glad you agree with me here, even if I didn't so much explore these the first time around to make it evidently known.


I wrote less than a paragraph explaining why I disagreed with you and you've managed to stretch it into an essay with digressions to philosophy, religion and Woody Allen where the conclusion is that I agree with you. You keep describing yourself as a critic which
automatically endows you wwith status and elevates your opinion of everyone else's (respectable figure of authority?). The mock humility doesn't really go with that.






Yes that's right, sometimes I like to use a lot of metaphors and similes, bad habit of mine. Essays also, having a passion for reviewing movies 'n' all.

Well do you agree with me? To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.

Beyond the cheesy references and such, what I'm trying to say is that a critic has become a critic for a reason, and that reason is centred on a passion and a desire to learn and understand film. It kind of does endow you with status somewhat, in that people would likely run something by a critic they knew if they wanted to learn more on some branch of cinema history, of course they could do that with a director/producer/screenwriter/film company CEO/cameraman as well because we're all linked to the same bubble in some degree, with some sense of hierarchy of course. If someone has a passion for something and a reasonable amount of time and effort educating themselves on the matter to where they can be somewhat informative and helpful to others, then why should they not be the ones to talk to about that? There are plenty of people like that in any respective field, and all of them will vary, whether it be a little or a lot, but the collection of ideas/research/opinions from those people will likely be more useful on average than if you were to collect the opinions of those with no strong interest or experience in that field.

My opinion on film is from me, as a human, and comes with the negative aspects associated with that, but I do like to think that my strong interest in film offers my views some sense of value when compared to the views of a more casual movie-goer, or one that rarely sees or thinks about them at all. Maybe I'm not humble, but I have no delusions that my "wisdom" hits a wall at a certain point where other more experienced film aficionados break through with ease, I just expect that on average that my wall is further along than a lot of other people I know outside of film culture. I review films because I feel that what I have to offer will at least help boost the thought processes and knowledge of those that might not quite share the same level of interest as me but still enjoy the subject itself and are willing to read up on it a little. And also that people may debate me, so that I may debate back and either re-mould a newer understanding of my opinion or explain why the pillars of my opinions still stand steadfast.

I don't expect that my knowledge is far and beyond everyone else's, I appreciate that there are people who know far more than me and can pinpoint precise aspects of film far better than I can, but I also retain that I am more towards the middle than I am to the bottom and that my opinion may be helpful to some, if not all, and I am willing to take that chance. It is good to have reviewers and it is good to have reviews. If one does not agree with a reviewer and decides not to read their reviews (which they shouldn't ideally do if they have the chance not to), then that does not mean the review is entirely useless. If some people don't take much from my reviews, then they can continue to not read them, but if some do then I am glad that I could be of assistance to them. Maybe I am not all important, but it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that I have an inkling of importance, and I like to display that in the case that it may be of use to someone who shares the same train of thought as I do on films we've already seen, and is at least somewhat trusting of my opinion on films I may get to before them.

I think you are DB Coopers long lost brother. Both of you guys love to write

















:) just fucking with you


Pah, maybe, I like DB he's very into his film noirs and old Golden Age films, been very inactive here lately though if I recall. Every single time these responses turn out to be far longer than I expect them to be, even when I preview them I find it too time-consuming to try to edit it and squash it into a smaller package. I guess that's another issue of mine, I'm no good at being effectively concise.

Get ready for the review I guess, god knows by the time I get to writing the MoS review I'll be taking up a quarter of the page.


Oh fuck it's you.

  Report
 

Big Kahuna
Level

Join date: Feb 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 2262

roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
csulli wrote:
four60 wrote:
Most of the paid critics did not enjoy it. Most of the public enjoyed it.

This is why I am wondering what the point of most movie critics is nowadays. In general they seem to share virtually no common opinions with the public at large, so who do they benefit?

No offense Kahuna. In all honesty you're better than any of the people I read about getting paid to review movies rofl.


No worries friendo, you're largely right.

A critic's intent is to dissect the good and the bad of the movie from a somewhat specific but mostly general selection of categories that gain or lose priority determined by the director/producer and genre. I try to come to a conclusion based on things like Direction, Script, Set Production, Cinematography, Casting and Acting, Character design, Scene Significance and Genre Relevance/Conformity. Those are most of the big generalities that I tend to cover a film by, and they'll serve me a basic idea of how good/bad it is as a whole, but then I filter it through things like budget, director experience (with both film-making and the genre at hand), the director's intent and his personal opinions about what he's made. Taking into account all of those second ones, they may gradually draw my opinions on the first set of categories into a slightly different territory. Sometimes the good will be a little worse in retrospect (the cast potential and chemistry making up for weak direction), and sometimes I will give the bad some more leeway (the cinematography being off due to a shallow budget).

A lot of the time us critics tend to play by logic and analysis when faced with a film and throw our instincts on a back-burner when some cheesy attention-drawing bullshit shows up (Michael Bay explosions anyone?). Sometimes a mass audience will do the exact opposite. Each party will get annoyed at the other for doing so, and rarely will either party swap sides too frequently. There are some films that I may rate a little lower as a critic that I appreciate greatly based on instinct, and a lot where the brilliantly made and wonderfully crafted films may seem boring outside of a state of analysis.

A shoddy director can rely on a shitty, yet loud movie to draw in profits even if the thing itself isn't really anything at all from a logical perspective and most of the less experienced or not very passionate audience members will fall for it, that's why M. Night Shyamalan and Michael Bay are still working. In reference to Man Of Steel, some of the spoilers I've heard do sound a little iffy, but the vast majority of people did like it and I don't expect such a huge amount of people to jump in that direction with the hype so huge if it's a bad movie, but I'll really have to see it for myself and try to balance my logic and my emotional instinct before I come to a conclusion I feel is right (which I should do soon if I have the amount of time left over that I expect today).

Most of the time the critic will serve the more passionate and analytic of the audience, along with those involved in film-making, most notably the directors and producers of the films, but the distance between critical outcome and commercial outcome stems far and wide based on a different perspective of view. Anyway, I'll probably jump more into this after I've seen Man Of Steel, I've been a little vague and there is a lot more to cover on the difference between an individual critic and a general populace's reviews.


Bullshit. You either like a movie after leaving or you don't. Critics will always let their knowledge of cinema and genre and personal tastes influence their opinion.


That's not necessarily true. I hated M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable until I watched it for a third time around and talked to some people about it, upon which I garnered an appreciation, even for the ending which can at least be partly excusable when the details of Shyamalan's intent emerge. I also hated Drive until I read the final draft of it's script in full and saw all of Winding Refn's notes for the character and the deep chasms of his personality. You're telling me you've never seen a movie once and hated it, then watched it at another time and changed your mind? Or vice versa? I hated half the Jean Luc-Godard films I saw the first time round, now I adore them, or "j'adore" them. Film is a subjective art and there are never black and whites, as much as I would like there to be, even on what are regarded as some of the greatest films of all time. You're right, critics will always let that influence their opinion, everyone will. There's nobody on Earth that doesn't justify a film by some sort of personal bias once or twice, let alone regularly. You ever see someone that takes themselves way too seriously bash every Nicolas Cage film to step out of the water since the birth of his career, without fail? Or see a teenage girl blush over a Woody Allen romance just as much as a Sarah Jessica Parker one? It works on both sides, it works on all sides, it's just a thing we do.

I can enjoy certain reviews without ever having to see a movie (Roger Ebert and Kim Newman) but I'd never rely on a single critic's opinion on how to watch a film.


That's admirable, it's important to gather your sources. I wouldn't either.

You've simultaneously managed to lambast critics, described yourself as one and put their opinions above that of the general populace.


Of course, I recognise our imperfections as much as I recognise our value. There exists no black and white here, we are not gods sent down from the heavens to enlighten and inform the masses of undeniable wisdom, yet our toil in the art of film-making and our (self-)education into the distinctions that make or break the genuine quality of a film lead us to at the very least be a respectable figure of authority when it comes to judging a film. If I were to learn philosophy, it would be wise to seek a man who makes his trade as a philosopher, the same kind of thought process should apply here, as it does with anyone educated or experienced in a particular subject over those that aren't.

There comes a point where you can completely talk the enjoyment out of a movie.


And there is perhaps one of our major imperfections. I find myself caught in the analysis too much sometimes and there are plenty of times when I realise my past opinions may stale with age until I let loose and allow a film to flow properly. I have a Moonrise Kingdom review in the Even More Movies thread that details that well. I don't trust my own reviews to be a perfect representation of how a film is to every other person that reads them with a fine degree of accuracy, I just expect at least a slightly above normal batting average.

It's strange trying to debate against this when half of our opinions on the matter hold some sort of common ground. However I'm glad you agree with me here, even if I didn't so much explore these the first time around to make it evidently known.


I wrote less than a paragraph explaining why I disagreed with you and you've managed to stretch it into an essay with digressions to philosophy, religion and Woody Allen where the conclusion is that I agree with you. You keep describing yourself as a critic which
automatically endows you wwith status and elevates your opinion of everyone else's (respectable figure of authority?). The mock humility doesn't really go with that.






Yes that's right, sometimes I like to use a lot of metaphors and similes, bad habit of mine. Essays also, having a passion for reviewing movies 'n' all.

Well do you agree with me? To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.



No, I don't agree with you, 'Clint'.


Mmkay, well then I guess there's nothing more to debate and as such it is now over.

  Report
 

Big Kahuna
Level

Join date: Feb 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 2262

roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
Derek542 wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
csulli wrote:
four60 wrote:
Most of the paid critics did not enjoy it. Most of the public enjoyed it.

This is why I am wondering what the point of most movie critics is nowadays. In general they seem to share virtually no common opinions with the public at large, so who do they benefit?

No offense Kahuna. In all honesty you're better than any of the people I read about getting paid to review movies rofl.


No worries friendo, you're largely right.

A critic's intent is to dissect the good and the bad of the movie from a somewhat specific but mostly general selection of categories that gain or lose priority determined by the director/producer and genre. I try to come to a conclusion based on things like Direction, Script, Set Production, Cinematography, Casting and Acting, Character design, Scene Significance and Genre Relevance/Conformity. Those are most of the big generalities that I tend to cover a film by, and they'll serve me a basic idea of how good/bad it is as a whole, but then I filter it through things like budget, director experience (with both film-making and the genre at hand), the director's intent and his personal opinions about what he's made. Taking into account all of those second ones, they may gradually draw my opinions on the first set of categories into a slightly different territory. Sometimes the good will be a little worse in retrospect (the cast potential and chemistry making up for weak direction), and sometimes I will give the bad some more leeway (the cinematography being off due to a shallow budget).

A lot of the time us critics tend to play by logic and analysis when faced with a film and throw our instincts on a back-burner when some cheesy attention-drawing bullshit shows up (Michael Bay explosions anyone?). Sometimes a mass audience will do the exact opposite. Each party will get annoyed at the other for doing so, and rarely will either party swap sides too frequently. There are some films that I may rate a little lower as a critic that I appreciate greatly based on instinct, and a lot where the brilliantly made and wonderfully crafted films may seem boring outside of a state of analysis.

A shoddy director can rely on a shitty, yet loud movie to draw in profits even if the thing itself isn't really anything at all from a logical perspective and most of the less experienced or not very passionate audience members will fall for it, that's why M. Night Shyamalan and Michael Bay are still working. In reference to Man Of Steel, some of the spoilers I've heard do sound a little iffy, but the vast majority of people did like it and I don't expect such a huge amount of people to jump in that direction with the hype so huge if it's a bad movie, but I'll really have to see it for myself and try to balance my logic and my emotional instinct before I come to a conclusion I feel is right (which I should do soon if I have the amount of time left over that I expect today).

Most of the time the critic will serve the more passionate and analytic of the audience, along with those involved in film-making, most notably the directors and producers of the films, but the distance between critical outcome and commercial outcome stems far and wide based on a different perspective of view. Anyway, I'll probably jump more into this after I've seen Man Of Steel, I've been a little vague and there is a lot more to cover on the difference between an individual critic and a general populace's reviews.


Bullshit. You either like a movie after leaving or you don't. Critics will always let their knowledge of cinema and genre and personal tastes influence their opinion.


That's not necessarily true. I hated M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable until I watched it for a third time around and talked to some people about it, upon which I garnered an appreciation, even for the ending which can at least be partly excusable when the details of Shyamalan's intent emerge. I also hated Drive until I read the final draft of it's script in full and saw all of Winding Refn's notes for the character and the deep chasms of his personality. You're telling me you've never seen a movie once and hated it, then watched it at another time and changed your mind? Or vice versa? I hated half the Jean Luc-Godard films I saw the first time round, now I adore them, or "j'adore" them. Film is a subjective art and there are never black and whites, as much as I would like there to be, even on what are regarded as some of the greatest films of all time. You're right, critics will always let that influence their opinion, everyone will. There's nobody on Earth that doesn't justify a film by some sort of personal bias once or twice, let alone regularly. You ever see someone that takes themselves way too seriously bash every Nicolas Cage film to step out of the water since the birth of his career, without fail? Or see a teenage girl blush over a Woody Allen romance just as much as a Sarah Jessica Parker one? It works on both sides, it works on all sides, it's just a thing we do.

I can enjoy certain reviews without ever having to see a movie (Roger Ebert and Kim Newman) but I'd never rely on a single critic's opinion on how to watch a film.


That's admirable, it's important to gather your sources. I wouldn't either.

You've simultaneously managed to lambast critics, described yourself as one and put their opinions above that of the general populace.


Of course, I recognise our imperfections as much as I recognise our value. There exists no black and white here, we are not gods sent down from the heavens to enlighten and inform the masses of undeniable wisdom, yet our toil in the art of film-making and our (self-)education into the distinctions that make or break the genuine quality of a film lead us to at the very least be a respectable figure of authority when it comes to judging a film. If I were to learn philosophy, it would be wise to seek a man who makes his trade as a philosopher, the same kind of thought process should apply here, as it does with anyone educated or experienced in a particular subject over those that aren't.

There comes a point where you can completely talk the enjoyment out of a movie.


And there is perhaps one of our major imperfections. I find myself caught in the analysis too much sometimes and there are plenty of times when I realise my past opinions may stale with age until I let loose and allow a film to flow properly. I have a Moonrise Kingdom review in the Even More Movies thread that details that well. I don't trust my own reviews to be a perfect representation of how a film is to every other person that reads them with a fine degree of accuracy, I just expect at least a slightly above normal batting average.

It's strange trying to debate against this when half of our opinions on the matter hold some sort of common ground. However I'm glad you agree with me here, even if I didn't so much explore these the first time around to make it evidently known.


I wrote less than a paragraph explaining why I disagreed with you and you've managed to stretch it into an essay with digressions to philosophy, religion and Woody Allen where the conclusion is that I agree with you. You keep describing yourself as a critic which
automatically endows you wwith status and elevates your opinion of everyone else's (respectable figure of authority?). The mock humility doesn't really go with that.






Yes that's right, sometimes I like to use a lot of metaphors and similes, bad habit of mine. Essays also, having a passion for reviewing movies 'n' all.

Well do you agree with me? To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.

Beyond the cheesy references and such, what I'm trying to say is that a critic has become a critic for a reason, and that reason is centred on a passion and a desire to learn and understand film. It kind of does endow you with status somewhat, in that people would likely run something by a critic they knew if they wanted to learn more on some branch of cinema history, of course they could do that with a director/producer/screenwriter/film company CEO/cameraman as well because we're all linked to the same bubble in some degree, with some sense of hierarchy of course. If someone has a passion for something and a reasonable amount of time and effort educating themselves on the matter to where they can be somewhat informative and helpful to others, then why should they not be the ones to talk to about that? There are plenty of people like that in any respective field, and all of them will vary, whether it be a little or a lot, but the collection of ideas/research/opinions from those people will likely be more useful on average than if you were to collect the opinions of those with no strong interest or experience in that field.

My opinion on film is from me, as a human, and comes with the negative aspects associated with that, but I do like to think that my strong interest in film offers my views some sense of value when compared to the views of a more casual movie-goer, or one that rarely sees or thinks about them at all. Maybe I'm not humble, but I have no delusions that my "wisdom" hits a wall at a certain point where other more experienced film aficionados break through with ease, I just expect that on average that my wall is further along than a lot of other people I know outside of film culture. I review films because I feel that what I have to offer will at least help boost the thought processes and knowledge of those that might not quite share the same level of interest as me but still enjoy the subject itself and are willing to read up on it a little. And also that people may debate me, so that I may debate back and either re-mould a newer understanding of my opinion or explain why the pillars of my opinions still stand steadfast.

I don't expect that my knowledge is far and beyond everyone else's, I appreciate that there are people who know far more than me and can pinpoint precise aspects of film far better than I can, but I also retain that I am more towards the middle than I am to the bottom and that my opinion may be helpful to some, if not all, and I am willing to take that chance. It is good to have reviewers and it is good to have reviews. If one does not agree with a reviewer and decides not to read their reviews (which they shouldn't ideally do if they have the chance not to), then that does not mean the review is entirely useless. If some people don't take much from my reviews, then they can continue to not read them, but if some do then I am glad that I could be of assistance to them. Maybe I am not all important, but it's not entirely unreasonable to suggest that I have an inkling of importance, and I like to display that in the case that it may be of use to someone who shares the same train of thought as I do on films we've already seen, and is at least somewhat trusting of my opinion on films I may get to before them.

I think you are DB Coopers long lost brother. Both of you guys love to write

















:) just fucking with you


Pah, maybe, I like DB he's very into his film noirs and old Golden Age films, been very inactive here lately though if I recall. Every single time these responses turn out to be far longer than I expect them to be, even when I preview them I find it too time-consuming to try to edit it and squash it into a smaller package. I guess that's another issue of mine, I'm no good at being effectively concise.

Get ready for the review I guess, god knows by the time I get to writing the MoS review I'll be taking up a quarter of the page.


Oh fuck it's you.


:)

  Report
 

roybot
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 6586

Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
csulli wrote:
four60 wrote:
Most of the paid critics did not enjoy it. Most of the public enjoyed it.

This is why I am wondering what the point of most movie critics is nowadays. In general they seem to share virtually no common opinions with the public at large, so who do they benefit?

No offense Kahuna. In all honesty you're better than any of the people I read about getting paid to review movies rofl.


No worries friendo, you're largely right.

A critic's intent is to dissect the good and the bad of the movie from a somewhat specific but mostly general selection of categories that gain or lose priority determined by the director/producer and genre. I try to come to a conclusion based on things like Direction, Script, Set Production, Cinematography, Casting and Acting, Character design, Scene Significance and Genre Relevance/Conformity. Those are most of the big generalities that I tend to cover a film by, and they'll serve me a basic idea of how good/bad it is as a whole, but then I filter it through things like budget, director experience (with both film-making and the genre at hand), the director's intent and his personal opinions about what he's made. Taking into account all of those second ones, they may gradually draw my opinions on the first set of categories into a slightly different territory. Sometimes the good will be a little worse in retrospect (the cast potential and chemistry making up for weak direction), and sometimes I will give the bad some more leeway (the cinematography being off due to a shallow budget).

A lot of the time us critics tend to play by logic and analysis when faced with a film and throw our instincts on a back-burner when some cheesy attention-drawing bullshit shows up (Michael Bay explosions anyone?). Sometimes a mass audience will do the exact opposite. Each party will get annoyed at the other for doing so, and rarely will either party swap sides too frequently. There are some films that I may rate a little lower as a critic that I appreciate greatly based on instinct, and a lot where the brilliantly made and wonderfully crafted films may seem boring outside of a state of analysis.

A shoddy director can rely on a shitty, yet loud movie to draw in profits even if the thing itself isn't really anything at all from a logical perspective and most of the less experienced or not very passionate audience members will fall for it, that's why M. Night Shyamalan and Michael Bay are still working. In reference to Man Of Steel, some of the spoilers I've heard do sound a little iffy, but the vast majority of people did like it and I don't expect such a huge amount of people to jump in that direction with the hype so huge if it's a bad movie, but I'll really have to see it for myself and try to balance my logic and my emotional instinct before I come to a conclusion I feel is right (which I should do soon if I have the amount of time left over that I expect today).

Most of the time the critic will serve the more passionate and analytic of the audience, along with those involved in film-making, most notably the directors and producers of the films, but the distance between critical outcome and commercial outcome stems far and wide based on a different perspective of view. Anyway, I'll probably jump more into this after I've seen Man Of Steel, I've been a little vague and there is a lot more to cover on the difference between an individual critic and a general populace's reviews.


Bullshit. You either like a movie after leaving or you don't. Critics will always let their knowledge of cinema and genre and personal tastes influence their opinion.


That's not necessarily true. I hated M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable until I watched it for a third time around and talked to some people about it, upon which I garnered an appreciation, even for the ending which can at least be partly excusable when the details of Shyamalan's intent emerge. I also hated Drive until I read the final draft of it's script in full and saw all of Winding Refn's notes for the character and the deep chasms of his personality. You're telling me you've never seen a movie once and hated it, then watched it at another time and changed your mind? Or vice versa? I hated half the Jean Luc-Godard films I saw the first time round, now I adore them, or "j'adore" them. Film is a subjective art and there are never black and whites, as much as I would like there to be, even on what are regarded as some of the greatest films of all time. You're right, critics will always let that influence their opinion, everyone will. There's nobody on Earth that doesn't justify a film by some sort of personal bias once or twice, let alone regularly. You ever see someone that takes themselves way too seriously bash every Nicolas Cage film to step out of the water since the birth of his career, without fail? Or see a teenage girl blush over a Woody Allen romance just as much as a Sarah Jessica Parker one? It works on both sides, it works on all sides, it's just a thing we do.

I can enjoy certain reviews without ever having to see a movie (Roger Ebert and Kim Newman) but I'd never rely on a single critic's opinion on how to watch a film.


That's admirable, it's important to gather your sources. I wouldn't either.

You've simultaneously managed to lambast critics, described yourself as one and put their opinions above that of the general populace.


Of course, I recognise our imperfections as much as I recognise our value. There exists no black and white here, we are not gods sent down from the heavens to enlighten and inform the masses of undeniable wisdom, yet our toil in the art of film-making and our (self-)education into the distinctions that make or break the genuine quality of a film lead us to at the very least be a respectable figure of authority when it comes to judging a film. If I were to learn philosophy, it would be wise to seek a man who makes his trade as a philosopher, the same kind of thought process should apply here, as it does with anyone educated or experienced in a particular subject over those that aren't.

There comes a point where you can completely talk the enjoyment out of a movie.


And there is perhaps one of our major imperfections. I find myself caught in the analysis too much sometimes and there are plenty of times when I realise my past opinions may stale with age until I let loose and allow a film to flow properly. I have a Moonrise Kingdom review in the Even More Movies thread that details that well. I don't trust my own reviews to be a perfect representation of how a film is to every other person that reads them with a fine degree of accuracy, I just expect at least a slightly above normal batting average.

It's strange trying to debate against this when half of our opinions on the matter hold some sort of common ground. However I'm glad you agree with me here, even if I didn't so much explore these the first time around to make it evidently known.


I wrote less than a paragraph explaining why I disagreed with you and you've managed to stretch it into an essay with digressions to philosophy, religion and Woody Allen where the conclusion is that I agree with you. You keep describing yourself as a critic which
automatically endows you wwith status and elevates your opinion of everyone else's (respectable figure of authority?). The mock humility doesn't really go with that.






Yes that's right, sometimes I like to use a lot of metaphors and similes, bad habit of mine. Essays also, having a passion for reviewing movies 'n' all.

Well do you agree with me? To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.



No, I don't agree with you, 'Clint'.


Mmkay, well then I guess there's nothing more to debate and as such it is now over.


Yeah. Don't bother reviewing the movie.

  Report
 

Big Kahuna
Level

Join date: Feb 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 2262

roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
csulli wrote:
four60 wrote:
Most of the paid critics did not enjoy it. Most of the public enjoyed it.

This is why I am wondering what the point of most movie critics is nowadays. In general they seem to share virtually no common opinions with the public at large, so who do they benefit?

No offense Kahuna. In all honesty you're better than any of the people I read about getting paid to review movies rofl.


No worries friendo, you're largely right.

A critic's intent is to dissect the good and the bad of the movie from a somewhat specific but mostly general selection of categories that gain or lose priority determined by the director/producer and genre. I try to come to a conclusion based on things like Direction, Script, Set Production, Cinematography, Casting and Acting, Character design, Scene Significance and Genre Relevance/Conformity. Those are most of the big generalities that I tend to cover a film by, and they'll serve me a basic idea of how good/bad it is as a whole, but then I filter it through things like budget, director experience (with both film-making and the genre at hand), the director's intent and his personal opinions about what he's made. Taking into account all of those second ones, they may gradually draw my opinions on the first set of categories into a slightly different territory. Sometimes the good will be a little worse in retrospect (the cast potential and chemistry making up for weak direction), and sometimes I will give the bad some more leeway (the cinematography being off due to a shallow budget).

A lot of the time us critics tend to play by logic and analysis when faced with a film and throw our instincts on a back-burner when some cheesy attention-drawing bullshit shows up (Michael Bay explosions anyone?). Sometimes a mass audience will do the exact opposite. Each party will get annoyed at the other for doing so, and rarely will either party swap sides too frequently. There are some films that I may rate a little lower as a critic that I appreciate greatly based on instinct, and a lot where the brilliantly made and wonderfully crafted films may seem boring outside of a state of analysis.

A shoddy director can rely on a shitty, yet loud movie to draw in profits even if the thing itself isn't really anything at all from a logical perspective and most of the less experienced or not very passionate audience members will fall for it, that's why M. Night Shyamalan and Michael Bay are still working. In reference to Man Of Steel, some of the spoilers I've heard do sound a little iffy, but the vast majority of people did like it and I don't expect such a huge amount of people to jump in that direction with the hype so huge if it's a bad movie, but I'll really have to see it for myself and try to balance my logic and my emotional instinct before I come to a conclusion I feel is right (which I should do soon if I have the amount of time left over that I expect today).

Most of the time the critic will serve the more passionate and analytic of the audience, along with those involved in film-making, most notably the directors and producers of the films, but the distance between critical outcome and commercial outcome stems far and wide based on a different perspective of view. Anyway, I'll probably jump more into this after I've seen Man Of Steel, I've been a little vague and there is a lot more to cover on the difference between an individual critic and a general populace's reviews.


Bullshit. You either like a movie after leaving or you don't. Critics will always let their knowledge of cinema and genre and personal tastes influence their opinion.


That's not necessarily true. I hated M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable until I watched it for a third time around and talked to some people about it, upon which I garnered an appreciation, even for the ending which can at least be partly excusable when the details of Shyamalan's intent emerge. I also hated Drive until I read the final draft of it's script in full and saw all of Winding Refn's notes for the character and the deep chasms of his personality. You're telling me you've never seen a movie once and hated it, then watched it at another time and changed your mind? Or vice versa? I hated half the Jean Luc-Godard films I saw the first time round, now I adore them, or "j'adore" them. Film is a subjective art and there are never black and whites, as much as I would like there to be, even on what are regarded as some of the greatest films of all time. You're right, critics will always let that influence their opinion, everyone will. There's nobody on Earth that doesn't justify a film by some sort of personal bias once or twice, let alone regularly. You ever see someone that takes themselves way too seriously bash every Nicolas Cage film to step out of the water since the birth of his career, without fail? Or see a teenage girl blush over a Woody Allen romance just as much as a Sarah Jessica Parker one? It works on both sides, it works on all sides, it's just a thing we do.

I can enjoy certain reviews without ever having to see a movie (Roger Ebert and Kim Newman) but I'd never rely on a single critic's opinion on how to watch a film.


That's admirable, it's important to gather your sources. I wouldn't either.

You've simultaneously managed to lambast critics, described yourself as one and put their opinions above that of the general populace.


Of course, I recognise our imperfections as much as I recognise our value. There exists no black and white here, we are not gods sent down from the heavens to enlighten and inform the masses of undeniable wisdom, yet our toil in the art of film-making and our (self-)education into the distinctions that make or break the genuine quality of a film lead us to at the very least be a respectable figure of authority when it comes to judging a film. If I were to learn philosophy, it would be wise to seek a man who makes his trade as a philosopher, the same kind of thought process should apply here, as it does with anyone educated or experienced in a particular subject over those that aren't.

There comes a point where you can completely talk the enjoyment out of a movie.


And there is perhaps one of our major imperfections. I find myself caught in the analysis too much sometimes and there are plenty of times when I realise my past opinions may stale with age until I let loose and allow a film to flow properly. I have a Moonrise Kingdom review in the Even More Movies thread that details that well. I don't trust my own reviews to be a perfect representation of how a film is to every other person that reads them with a fine degree of accuracy, I just expect at least a slightly above normal batting average.

It's strange trying to debate against this when half of our opinions on the matter hold some sort of common ground. However I'm glad you agree with me here, even if I didn't so much explore these the first time around to make it evidently known.


I wrote less than a paragraph explaining why I disagreed with you and you've managed to stretch it into an essay with digressions to philosophy, religion and Woody Allen where the conclusion is that I agree with you. You keep describing yourself as a critic which
automatically endows you wwith status and elevates your opinion of everyone else's (respectable figure of authority?). The mock humility doesn't really go with that.






Yes that's right, sometimes I like to use a lot of metaphors and similes, bad habit of mine. Essays also, having a passion for reviewing movies 'n' all.

Well do you agree with me? To tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.



No, I don't agree with you, 'Clint'.


Mmkay, well then I guess there's nothing more to debate and as such it is now over.


Yeah. Don't bother reviewing the movie.


Oh no I'm still going to review the movie.

  Report
 

roybot
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 6586

Big Kahuna wrote:

Oh no I'm still going to review the movie.


I'm actually looking forward to it now.

  Report
 

Big Kahuna
Level

Join date: Feb 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 2262

roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:

Oh no I'm still going to review the movie.


I'm actually looking forward to it now.


Am glad, going to watch it later on but I might not have it up for a few hours or so.

  Report
 

roybot
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 6586

Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:

Oh no I'm still going to review the movie.


I'm actually looking forward to it now.


Am glad, going to watch it later on but I might not have it up for a few hours or so.


Don't dally, my popcorn is getting cold.

  Report
 

Big Kahuna
Level

Join date: Feb 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 2262

roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:
roybot wrote:
Big Kahuna wrote:

Oh no I'm still going to review the movie.


I'm actually looking forward to it now.


Am glad, going to watch it later on but I might not have it up for a few hours or so.


Don't dally, my popcorn is getting cold.


Always get suckered into popcorn, and usually I'm finished with it very early into the film. I don't know whether it's a blessing that I can stop myself from being distracted from a great film, or a curse in that by the time I realise what I'm watching is bad I have nothing positively reaffirming to fall back on. Not sure there's many better food choices though.

  Report
 

Big Kahuna
Level

Join date: Feb 2013
Location: Spain
Posts: 2262

My review of Man Of Steel is now up in the Even More Movies thread, for anyone that may be interested in reading it.

  Report
First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11