The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Do you think it's far more credible to criticise films than show some humility and accept that they are good?
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> But Reloaded and Revolutions suck...
> Cyclone wrote:
> But Reloaded and Revolutions suck...
So, there was no chance that perhaps...just maybe...somehow...the second and third Matrix films were not quite as good as the first. Or, maybe even, not even half as good as the first?
If lots of people suggest that a film isn't as good as they were expecting, there's a small chance that it might be because the film isn't...well....as good as they were expecting.
It's just a thought.
If lots of people suggest that a film isn't as good as they were expecting, there's a small chance that it might be because the film isn't...well....as good as they were expecting.
It's just a thought.
Cyclone wrote:
> But Reloaded and Revolutions suck...
> But Reloaded and Revolutions suck...
But Reloaded and Revolutions suck...
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: