Vitriol at film critics

I think most of the critics these days are pretty bad. I think the bulk of them fall into the extreme category of either liking everything or liking nothing unless it's a silent film from Iceland that is never released in the U.S.

The critic at a paper where I worked, once had his top 10 list feature six foreign films and three independent films and one studio film. Of the 10, eight were never released in the city where we lived, and this was a pretty big city. He would regularly write 20-inch reviews of movies that were not available to be seen locally, and if a big movie was coming out that everybody wanted to see, it would get sidebar treatment to whatever art house film was opening or not opening.

I try to find critics whose tastes seem to mesh with mine. Peter Travers is a favorite. Ebert is always great.

 

By and large, I don't think movie, restaurant, film or book critics give a rat's ass about opinions from fanbois, any more than, say, Toronto sports writers/columnists give a shit about Gord from Scarborough's opinion on the Leafs.

We live in this odd world where for some reason we're supposed to treat all opinions equally. In the pre-internet age, the losers only annoyed the people sitting next to them at the bar.

 

I don't watch a lot of movies but I do occasionally browse Travers's reviews in RS. I remember years ago some website - might have been Ain't It Cool - broke down his reviews and found out how many movies he just loved (that many others panned) coincided with studio junkets he had been on.

 

Frankly, that's what everyone should do: Find a critic they trust whose tastes mesh with their own.

The power of the Internet is that it gives a buffet of choices. If you want to read someone who really likes the new G.I. Joe movie, and discusses it in a way that doesn't talk down to you if you're really into G.I. Joes, then you can find that. I think there are some newspaper film critics who fail their readers by not being a bit more accessible, but at the same time, I'm not sure why people wouldn't simply look elsewhere if the local critic recommended nothing but foreign language films. (And for the record, some foreign language films are great, and those films probably need help way more than, say, The Watch does on its opening weekend.)

If you're a Batman fanboi, I guess I don't really understand why you care that a stuffy film critic might not like a movie you're so emotionally invested in. Is it going to detract from your ability to enjoy the film? Are you insecure that it might actually suck and you don't want anyone to reveal the emperor has no clothes? I really liked Inception. I'm fully aware Dick Whitman hated it. His critical analysis of the film doesn't retroactively take away from my viewing experience. I like the idea of defending something I enjoyed. I presume the Batman fanbois have other issues going on if it's really important for OTHER PEOPLE -- especially ones I imagine they deem unqualified to weigh in on the trilogy -- to enjoy something they so desperately want to love themselves.

I read a lot of TV criticism, because I love TV way more than movies. (It's the far more daring and creative medium these days.) And the critics I read, they're almost always fans of the shows they review obsessively, but they still hold those shows to a very high standard. Sepinwall, Todd VanDerWerft, Matt Zoller Seitz, all of them love Mad Men, and praised the most recent season repeatedly. But all of them -- independently -- thought the season finale was very flawed, and had no problem saying so, and detailing their reasons. I find that kind of honest valuable, even if I do really like Mad Men and admire how hard it is.

Criticism, in general, ought to be a nuanced art. If all you do is trash things, then you're not going to have credibility. If all you do is praise everything (coughcoughPeterTraverscough) then I think your credibility suffers.

 

Somehow, the theory that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion has come to be corrupted into the misconception that everyone's opinion deserves equal weight. How many times have I heard someone end an argument with, "Well, that's my opinion!"

Sorry. Doesn't make it right. Or valid.

 

This is idiotic. First, they don't hate everything. Second, if you don't care what critics think, don't read the reviews. Some folks are interested.

 

We've got one of these fucking idiots in our office. Walks around all day just ranting ranting ranting about how the Avengers is the greatest comic book movie ever made AND DON'T YOU DARE DISAGREE. Oh yeah, and Star Wars. Star Wars, Star Wars, Star Wars.

Jesus Christ. Grow up.

 

Bingo

 

Critics have to see millions more movies than fans, just like sportswriters have to see many more games than fans. Therefore, their opinions are based on evidence that counts for something. Not everything, but something. PS: Starman, I loved Avengers, too. I am a lifelong Marvel Comics fan. But I'm not delusional enough to say Daredevil was any good.
PPS: I reiterate my opinion that newspaper Websites should not allow comments not subject to the same review process as letters to the editor. Why empower the world's gutless losers? No advertiser wants them.

 

Yes, but they have a BLOG!!!

 

The problem with film critics is they see a lot of movies. Fans only see movies they WANT to see. It IS like people view sports writers. Sports writers generally don't care who wins and aren't emotionally invested in a team's success. Fans of both movies and sports teams generally are.