Is it just me, or does society in general pretty much ignore film critics? Well, maybe we don’t ignore them, but we certainly tend to ignore their comments when they slice up a movie we had long anticipated coming out.
Why?
Because they are wrong so darned often they could rival the weather peddlers on the nightly news.
Film critics generally like to think of themselves as having a higher set of entertainment values than the rest of us. They’ve seen so many movies over the course of doing their job that perhaps they’ve become jaded in what they consider entertainment. It may take a little extra to keep them from fidgeting in their seats while previewing upcoming releases — you know, plush seats in prime movie theatres that come without a price tag as film companies give them private showings in the days leading up to a film’s widespread release.
Critics seem to favour foreign films. If it’s got a subtitle, it gets a thumbs up, by and large.
Perhaps North Americanmade movies should add subtitles. Leave the English dialogue for the general public, but add the title to appeal to the movie scribes.
Maybe I’m being a little hard on the average film critic. They do have to sit through the good and the bad. From my perspective, I’d rather have hot needles shoved into my pupils than have to regularly sit through such nausea as “Maid in Manhattan,” “Gigli,” “Sex and the City” (the movie), “The English Patient,” “Captain Corelli’s Mandolin,” or “Thelma and Louise” to name a few.
Heck, put a DVD player in my car and start showing that cinematic dirge and I’ll drive off a cliff just like poor Thelma and Louise. Barf.
But I’m not film critic; I just know what I like and don’t like.
Every film critic has their “Ishtar” moments of indigestion. Too many of those can create a jaded view.
And the further the view gets from that of the general public, the less relevant their critiques can become.
Critics get way out of bounds when spending the time to examine a children’s movie.
What six-year-old kid picks up on the nuances and cinematography a critic might find interesting or missing?
Talk about out of touch and a step past irrelevant. If the movie’s target audience is an age group of kids who can barely spell their own names, the critic is wasting his or her time.
We’ve all seen it. Critics review Disney or DreamWorks animated movies. “Kung Fu Panda” and “WALL*E” are two of the latest victims. Critics had issues with the fact one went for looks over plot depth, and said the other had a weak story line.
Sit in the theatre with a bunch of kids. Watch how their eyes are glued to the screen. Feel the power of their combined laughter.
We, as parents, do that on a regular basis. I have a feeling too many film critics spend too much time being force-fed cinema while sitting beside their personality-challenged peers, harrumphing their way through flatulence-based humour that would have the kids rolling in the aisles.
Critics should remember their target audiences and that of the movies they critique to keep everything in perspective.
Bruce Corcoran is the managing editor of The Chatham Daily News.
*sigh* Did anyone ever tell you that critics do not predict what films will be popular? That is not the point of a critic’s job. Film is an art form. Critics focus on the things about a film that make is well-done art or not. Not every person who goes to see a film goes merely for the surface stroy or theme. Many of us go because we appreciate how well the story was told, how skillfully the director led us in the direction intended, how believable the actor was as the character. For example, although I enjoyed Clint Eastwood as an a performer, in most of his movies he turns his role into the same character. Even in “Bridges of Madison County”. Contrast him to Ron Perlman who chooses to play similar roles in all of his work, but yet somehow manages to convey them differently, with complexity and depth. This is what I enjoy about films. The idea of remakes of an older version is not merely to introduce the story to a new generation, but also to see if there are different elements to the story. For those who just want to see a good story, critics are not helpful, nor will they give any clues as to whether someone will enjoy any given film. But if you are looking for more, a critic’s opinion can help you decide if you want to spend the money now to see it, or wait until the DVD comes out.
Yikes, saying Ron Perlman is deeper than the icon Clint Eastwood. I must say we have different tastes.
For one thing, Clint didn’t do a dog of a television seriies such as “Beauty and the Beast” (my opinion).
I can’t believe you mentioned “Bridges of Madison County.” I should have put that on my list of movies from hell that i’d pity a critic to have to watch. I pity Clint Eastwood for doing that flick, and for “Paint Your Wagon,” with another pat on the back for the late Lee Marvin.
Yoikes.
My comments there may very well have upset you. You may be a fan of “Beauty and the Beast,” “Paint Your Wagon” or “Bridges of Madison County.” I am being critical of these films; i am a critic.
A critic’s view is their own view, and I just suggested it is often quite tarnished as they have seen so many films it is quite likely it takes more to gain their interest in a movie.
If a person enjoys a movie, they find it entertaining. If they don’t, it’s no stretch to say they weren’t entertained by it.
As for your comment that “for those who just want to see a good story, critics are not helpful,” i disagree. They regularly inject their opinions. “A rollicking good yarn,” “The funniest movie of the year,” or “edge-of-your-seat excitement” are just a sampling of terms I’ve seen used. They do comment on storylines.
I just think too many film critics have developed a bit of snobbery. If movies were a form of music and dance entertainment, they’d prefer the ballet or opera to a Nickelback or Toby Keith concert. In that regard, they tend to be too far removed from the general public’s perception.