The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Isn't anyone else getting fed up with this seeming trend Movie Critics (and the self-important 'intellectuals' who follow the same stigma) have to slate the current blockbusters?
Movie Critics are just normal people like you and me. The only reason their opinion is published is because of their flair for writing and extensive knowledge of movies. That doesn't make their opinion any more credible than yours or mine though.
The original Matrix was hailed as a masterpiece by the critics, and the media rightly gave the film the recognition it deserved - widely recognised as a groundbreaking film both in concept and delivery, it took the movie industry by storm and both the public and critics lapped it up. Naturally when the second and third chapters in the Matrix saga were announced and went into production, everyone got very, very excited. When the films were actually released, though, things changed quite quickly.
"Hang on, we're intellectuals! We can't get caught up in this hype like those common people of the public! It's time for an about face!"
And then it seemed that Reloaded and Revolutions fell victim of critics slating films because it's 'arty' and 'cool' to do so. Surely the critic's credibility is far less important than the quality of the film? It IS possible for things to live up to their hype. Perhaps in these circumstances the critics got more carried away than Joe Public.
Let's look at Kill Bill also. It follows the same formula - massive bandwagon of hype, critics go against it. Because they 'dare' to rebel against the corporate monolith of Miramax advertising and the unprecedented reputation of Tarantino, their opinions are respected and trusted. Also once again, volume 2 gets far more stick than volume 1. Going against the grain because they can?
Is it really that uncool to just follow everyone else and enjoy a movie because it's good and entertaining? Unfortunately for the critics out there, this is one review-reader who has become severely disillusioned.
Movie Critics are just normal people like you and me. The only reason their opinion is published is because of their flair for writing and extensive knowledge of movies. That doesn't make their opinion any more credible than yours or mine though.
The original Matrix was hailed as a masterpiece by the critics, and the media rightly gave the film the recognition it deserved - widely recognised as a groundbreaking film both in concept and delivery, it took the movie industry by storm and both the public and critics lapped it up. Naturally when the second and third chapters in the Matrix saga were announced and went into production, everyone got very, very excited. When the films were actually released, though, things changed quite quickly.
"Hang on, we're intellectuals! We can't get caught up in this hype like those common people of the public! It's time for an about face!"
And then it seemed that Reloaded and Revolutions fell victim of critics slating films because it's 'arty' and 'cool' to do so. Surely the critic's credibility is far less important than the quality of the film? It IS possible for things to live up to their hype. Perhaps in these circumstances the critics got more carried away than Joe Public.
Let's look at Kill Bill also. It follows the same formula - massive bandwagon of hype, critics go against it. Because they 'dare' to rebel against the corporate monolith of Miramax advertising and the unprecedented reputation of Tarantino, their opinions are respected and trusted. Also once again, volume 2 gets far more stick than volume 1. Going against the grain because they can?
Is it really that uncool to just follow everyone else and enjoy a movie because it's good and entertaining? Unfortunately for the critics out there, this is one review-reader who has become severely disillusioned.
Page:
i think kill bill was good, but nearly as good as Tarantino's pulp fiction(top class)
Kill Bill was sh!te.
Different people have different opinions, just because you enjoyed certain films that critics didn't doesn't mean they're criticising it to be a rebel or something similarly stupid.
Reloaded was alright for a bit, then when it reached the end went all very crap. The first Matrix was brilliant, but I didn't enjoy the second half as much. That's my opinion, and many other people's, it's got nothing to do with trying to be a 'critic'.
I'm allowed to have an opinion, and so is everyone else. Bar maybe Forest Fan.
Reloaded was alright for a bit, then when it reached the end went all very crap. The first Matrix was brilliant, but I didn't enjoy the second half as much. That's my opinion, and many other people's, it's got nothing to do with trying to be a 'critic'.
I'm allowed to have an opinion, and so is everyone else. Bar maybe Forest Fan.
I think that perhaps you're making something of an over generalisation here, Mess. I can see where you're coming from, and I've also seen examples of this in other places. For example, a lot of people found Amelie and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon to be superb. I expect some were sincere, but I can't help but feel that other people overcredited the films purely because they were foreign and thus, different.
Were they really different, though? They were mainstream 'different' films, if you catch my drift. The kind of films your average Joe will get to see and then proclaim his love for in an effort to garner some artistic integrity. I doubt these people seen some of the classic French or Kung-Fu movies.
On the subject of Kill Bill, Reloaded and Revolutions, I felt that all three were above average films. With Kill Bill, I think that much of the praise was due it being a Tarantino film and so people felt they should like it. Because it isn't evil Hollywood. As you say, hype can be a large factor in how well a film is ultimately received by the reviewers. Kill Bill, from my friends at least, had very positive hype and so I was rather disappointed when I saw it.
The same goes for Reloaded and Revolutions, and unfortunately the disappointment some people had for them in light of the excellence of the first perhaps overshadowed what were, when it all boils down to it, a couple of decent films. A lot of people left the cinema not really understanding the plot and labelling the two films a rubbish, long fight-scene. Rather sad really, when they did have a fair amount of substance that you had to properly pay attention to comprehend.
Well, that's my two cents. I personally will always say what I honestly think of a film, regardless of the hype or any others in the series. There's a lot of pretense in any kind of criticism, but to say movie critics purposefully go against the masses is rather harsh.
Were they really different, though? They were mainstream 'different' films, if you catch my drift. The kind of films your average Joe will get to see and then proclaim his love for in an effort to garner some artistic integrity. I doubt these people seen some of the classic French or Kung-Fu movies.
On the subject of Kill Bill, Reloaded and Revolutions, I felt that all three were above average films. With Kill Bill, I think that much of the praise was due it being a Tarantino film and so people felt they should like it. Because it isn't evil Hollywood. As you say, hype can be a large factor in how well a film is ultimately received by the reviewers. Kill Bill, from my friends at least, had very positive hype and so I was rather disappointed when I saw it.
The same goes for Reloaded and Revolutions, and unfortunately the disappointment some people had for them in light of the excellence of the first perhaps overshadowed what were, when it all boils down to it, a couple of decent films. A lot of people left the cinema not really understanding the plot and labelling the two films a rubbish, long fight-scene. Rather sad really, when they did have a fair amount of substance that you had to properly pay attention to comprehend.
Well, that's my two cents. I personally will always say what I honestly think of a film, regardless of the hype or any others in the series. There's a lot of pretense in any kind of criticism, but to say movie critics purposefully go against the masses is rather harsh.
I saw kill bill yesterday courtesy of Qflicks and i have to say it was rather enjoyable indeed.
Bejam wrote:
> I wonder what they'd make of Commando?
Commando should automatically get 5 starts no matter what. It reduces me to tears of laugher each and every time I see it.
As to the critics, to hell with them. I judge a movie on its own merits.
> I wonder what they'd make of Commando?
Commando should automatically get 5 starts no matter what. It reduces me to tears of laugher each and every time I see it.
As to the critics, to hell with them. I judge a movie on its own merits.
I'm off to see the second Kill Bill tonight and so carn't comment on that now. All I know is that the first one was a great film that made me laugh throughout and knowing Tarantino the second one will be just as good.
As for the Matrix I actually agree with the critics on this one. The first film was one of the best films i had seen and when they announced a second I was thrilled. The problem however wasn't with the second film which I loved when I watched it but with the fact that it made you have to watch the third one which was an utter pile of useless tosh and could have ended sooo much better.
The thing with critics is it's all about money. They have opinions like everyone and sometimes they agree with mine, but most of the time the big critics don't go against the grain in case there wrong and they lose there newspaper slot. Remember if you say a films bad and it's good who cares you just didn't like it, but if you say it's great and it's not then people blame you for them spending money/time to go see the film.
As for the Matrix I actually agree with the critics on this one. The first film was one of the best films i had seen and when they announced a second I was thrilled. The problem however wasn't with the second film which I loved when I watched it but with the fact that it made you have to watch the third one which was an utter pile of useless tosh and could have ended sooo much better.
The thing with critics is it's all about money. They have opinions like everyone and sometimes they agree with mine, but most of the time the big critics don't go against the grain in case there wrong and they lose there newspaper slot. Remember if you say a films bad and it's good who cares you just didn't like it, but if you say it's great and it's not then people blame you for them spending money/time to go see the film.
Bejam wrote:
>
> I wonder what they'd make of Commando?
"Nice pecs, but red soo doesn't go with those army colours daaaaarling." (3.5 stars) Cosmo
>
> I wonder what they'd make of Commando?
"Nice pecs, but red soo doesn't go with those army colours daaaaarling." (3.5 stars) Cosmo
I like honesty when I read a film review. I want to feel that the reviewer is telling me their honest opinion, not some Paul Ross-esque regurgitated press release. It wouldn't suprise me if Paul Ross holds the world record for the most amount of quotes on all movie posters.
It also makes me laugh when I see a movie poster for some cliched naff weepy chick flick, which is given a 5-star rating by a cliched naff chick magazine like Cosmopolitan. They really shouldn't be allowed to review films and stick to covering the usual superficial stuff like hair, make-up, fashion and celebrity gossip.
I wonder what they'd make of Commando?
It also makes me laugh when I see a movie poster for some cliched naff weepy chick flick, which is given a 5-star rating by a cliched naff chick magazine like Cosmopolitan. They really shouldn't be allowed to review films and stick to covering the usual superficial stuff like hair, make-up, fashion and celebrity gossip.
I wonder what they'd make of Commando?
Bejam wrote:
> If you didn’t have film critics who were ready and willing to slate
> films, then you’d end up in a world where every movie reviewer was
> Paul Ross, proclaiming every naff film to be “superb”, “terrific
> family fun” or “one of the best films of the year”.
>
But at least it gives the film companies something to put on the back of their DVD. Imagine looking at a DVD cover in the shops otherwise:
"This movie is pants, don't watch it" The Sun
"The worst movie I've seen this year" The Mirror
"A waste of 2 hours" Film 2004
> If you didn’t have film critics who were ready and willing to slate
> films, then you’d end up in a world where every movie reviewer was
> Paul Ross, proclaiming every naff film to be “superb”, “terrific
> family fun” or “one of the best films of the year”.
>
But at least it gives the film companies something to put on the back of their DVD. Imagine looking at a DVD cover in the shops otherwise:
"This movie is pants, don't watch it" The Sun
"The worst movie I've seen this year" The Mirror
"A waste of 2 hours" Film 2004
Page: