There's always outliers such as The Burbs...
Back during the mid-'80s, Dan Aykroyd has a hotter streak than Hanks did. Arguably Aykroyd hit his peak with DRAGNET, while Hanks filled the second lead. Also back then, Bill Murray and Hanks attempted serious dramas such as RAZOR'S EDGE and EVERY TIME WE SAY GOODBYE.
So you've never allowed whether anyone else said they liked or didn't like a movie to factor into whether you decided to see it for yourself?
Critics are just people like anyone else...except that they actually have (theoretically) some sort of background in film education and theory and can bring up insights that might not have occcurred to me otherwise. And as such, they're paid because their opinions are valued. Much as I get paid to edit because my insights on English Writing are valued, even though much of what I offer in return is arguably an opinion.
If I'm going to decide whether I want to see a film, then yes, I want to know what critics think. I don't let critics' opinions control my decision, but I do let them guide me. And why not? If I'm reading a review of a horror movie, I probably won't see it no matter how good the reviews are, because that's generally not my preferred genre. But in many cases reading what critics thought of a film I had little familiarity with led me to see a film I never would have pursued on my own initiative.
The funny thing is that while I loved Gregory Maguire's novel, which the Wicked musical was based on, and found it to be a breath of fresh air in terms of fantasy as it expanded on the world and made it feel grounded, I never felt compelled to see these movies.
Elsewhere on this forum are multiple instances of where I stated that I absolutely did not like the 2009 Star Trek movie reboot. Therefore I refused to waste my time on the second one.
Some people here didn't like that view. And literally the only reason I eventually did watch the second one is because I was relentlessly bullied. Here, on a Star Trek forum, where one might suppose people would understand the concept of IDIC. I'm not required to be in lockstep with everyone else, just as I don't require everyone else to be in lockstep with me.
And after I watched it, I was pressured to come up with two things I liked about it. Trust me, the actors/their acting 'skill' were not among the answers I eventually came up with.
NOBODY gets to assume I'm going to like a movie just because they say it's good, and bringing up Rotten Tomatoes just elicits an
because I really don't care. They can recommend it, sure. I will decide for myself if I want to follow that recommendation, and I want it understood that I'm not required to have the same opinion about it as the person who recommended it. I might like it as much as they do, or even more. But I might hate it. Or I might decide not to watch it. Just as I hope people give Much Ado About Nothing a chance (which is why I posted the clip and mentioned where it can be watched for free). But my life won't be ruined if nobody here does. I won't hold a grudge or be judgmental about it. Not even if they say they hate the entire Shakespeare genre. It'd be a bit disappointing, but I'm not going to bully anyone over it. I know Shakespeare isn't everyone's cup of tea.
Editing serves a useful purpose. It's a necessary part of publishing. Editors are people who understand how the language works, how whatever the work they're editing should be structured (usually; more on that after this sentence), and without editors a lot of what's published would be a mess.
I used to have a home typing business, and most of my clients were college and university students. I used my own student experiences as a partial guide in how I treated my clients. The way I saw it, their job was to research, understand, and write, doing whatever interpretations or analyses the assignment called for. I saw my job as including where to put the commas and semicolons in the reference list or citations. I'd once been downgraded from an A to a B because I misplaced two punctuation marks in my references (in an essay about Sonnet 18). I never forgot that, and didn't want my clients to suffer the same - their analysis could be spot-on but they'd be downgraded because they slipped up on punctuation.
Sometimes they'd ask my opinion of their assignment. If it was a subject I knew something about (my major was anthropology, minors in geography and history), I could answer with some degree of knowing what I was talking about (always after it was finished; I never tried to influence them beforehand). I once did a philosophy paper that seemed pure gibberish to me, and when the student asked my opinion, I said, "I'll take your word for it - all of them." And then admitted I didn't understand philosophy, and the student said, "Neither do I, really." I hope they got a good grade. I know I tried to have all the formatting and spelling, grammar, and punctuation as perfect as it could be.
But as for movie critics' opinions being on par with editing? Nope. Not even close. It's just an opinion, not backed up by objective rules. And society can chug along quite nicely without movie critics. They are nowhere near as useful as editors.
Information is okay. Guidance? Meh. I've never run out and watched a movie just because Siskel & Ebert said it was good. And I'd never stay home just because they said it was bad. It wasn't a critic's opinion that made me go watch The Last Temptation of Christ. Normally I wouldn't have bothered with that one, but I got curious to see what all the fuss was about, whether it was really so awful as to merit picket lines and protests.
Turns out it was all an overblown "what-if" scene that was interesting but I couldn't see why it would merit the theatres being picketed, the staff being threatened, and all the rest of the BS that happened. If anything, that scene should have reinforced their faith, because the temptation in question was a powerful one that their deity overcame. But they didn't bother to find out for themselves. They listened to faith-based "critics", some of whom were just parroting what they'd heard others say and hadn't even seen it themselves.
They let themselves be controlled by critics. Rotten Tomatoes wasn't a thing back then. I wonder if they'd have been controlled by whatever rating it's given this movie (I assume it has one).
I liked 2009 enough and I'm enough of a Star Trek junkie that I likely would have given Into Darkness a try regardless, though if I started hearing it was a bad film then I might have gone online to see whether it was bombing on RT or such. Similar to how I haven't seen the last few Jurassic World films. I liked the first one, but I thought the second one was dreck, and so I waited to read reviews of the sequels (which I've not seen).
If I hadn't liked 2009 at all, I probably would have waited to see what people thought of ID. If they said it was good, I'd see it. If the consensus seemed to be that I should spare myself, I probably would have. I have no intention of seeing Section 31 because almost everything I've heard about it is disappointing.
So, as I said, I'll let what I'm hearing of films guide my decisions, but I won't let it control my decisions. I sure wouldn't have seen any movie if I felt I was being "bullied" into it; if anything, that tends to polarize me in the opposite direction. If you really were treated that way though, I'm sorry. I'll tell people I think they're missing out on seeing a good film when I feel that's the case, but the most negative impact that comes of them not seeing it, for me, is that I can't talk about it with them. Not a big deal.
I think it's doing professional critics a disservice to suggest that the work they do doesn't serve any purpose. I always found Roger Ebert's reviews of films ranged from amusing to insightful, not just in the content itself but in his presentation, and I very much appreciate his commentary tracks on the three films I have where he ccontributed. I'm obviously not going to claim that every film critic is a Roger Ebert, but I also didn't always agree with him.
I edited for a college student friend of mine once, but shortly afterward realized that in effect I was helping him to commit a sort of academic fraud, because he wasn't just being graded on his ideas but also on how he presented them; something that my edits were fundamentally changing. I suppose it's arguable and possibly scenario-dependent whether editing the formatting of references is different from editing content.
However, most of my editing has been fiction editing, and opinion very much plays a part in that. Is the protagonist behaving in a manner consistent with how they've been established to this point? Is the anithero being such a jerk that readers won't respond to them the way the author hopes? Does the author realize that in this chapter the two main characters arguably committed rape? A good fiction editor needs to be able to see the things that the author may have missed, beyond the facts of grammar and mechanics, and I considered it high praise (though a little concerning) when the author for whom I've edited the most told me that I'm also one of his best beta readers. But it's even more basic things: If the author writes: "He wasn't sure of himself, not really, but he felt it was important to seem so," and I change that to, "He wasn't sure of himself, but felt it was important to seem that way," it's my opinion that my version is better. I can provide reasons why I think my opinion is better (e.g. less wordy), but it's still opinion in the end.
I wouldn't run out and see a movie just because Siskel & Ebert said, "It's good", but I presume they'd provide more information than that, some of which might lead me to say, "Huh; based on what they're saying I think I might enjoy seeing that..."
If I hadn't liked 2009 at all, I probably would have waited to see what people thought of ID. If they said it was good, I'd see it. If the consensus seemed to be that I should spare myself, I probably would have. I have no intention of seeing Section 31 because almost everything I've heard about it is disappointing.
So, as I said, I'll let what I'm hearing of films guide my decisions, but I won't let it control my decisions. I sure wouldn't have seen any movie if I felt I was being "bullied" into it; if anything, that tends to polarize me in the opposite direction. If you really were treated that way though, I'm sorry. I'll tell people I think they're missing out on seeing a good film when I feel that's the case, but the most negative impact that comes of them not seeing it, for me, is that I can't talk about it with them. Not a big deal.
I think it's doing professional critics a disservice to suggest that the work they do doesn't serve any purpose. I always found Roger Ebert's reviews of films ranged from amusing to insightful, not just in the content itself but in his presentation, and I very much appreciate his commentary tracks on the three films I have where he ccontributed. I'm obviously not going to claim that every film critic is a Roger Ebert, but I also didn't always agree with him.
I edited for a college student friend of mine once, but shortly afterward realized that in effect I was helping him to commit a sort of academic fraud, because he wasn't just being graded on his ideas but also on how he presented them; something that my edits were fundamentally changing. I suppose it's arguable and possibly scenario-dependent whether editing the formatting of references is different from editing content.
However, most of my editing has been fiction editing, and opinion very much plays a part in that. Is the protagonist behaving in a manner consistent with how they've been established to this point? Is the anithero being such a jerk that readers won't respond to them the way the author hopes? Does the author realize that in this chapter the two main characters arguably committed rape? A good fiction editor needs to be able to see the things that the author may have missed, beyond the facts of grammar and mechanics, and I considered it high praise (though a little concerning) when the author for whom I've edited the most told me that I'm also one of his best beta readers. But it's even more basic things: If the author writes: "He wasn't sure of himself, not really, but he felt it was important to seem so," and I change that to, "He wasn't sure of himself, but felt it was important to seem that way," it's my opinion that my version is better. I can provide reasons why I think my opinion is better (e.g. less wordy), but it's still opinion in the end.
I wouldn't run out and see a movie just because Siskel & Ebert said, "It's good", but I presume they'd provide more information than that, some of which might lead me to say, "Huh; based on what they're saying I think I might enjoy seeing that..."
I appreciate sci-fi more than fantasy, so I was never interested in reading the novel. I never even read the original Oz books. When I was a kid, I was reading Foundation and 2001.
I've definitely watched movies because of the actors in it. Two of a kind with Olivia and John, just because it was them. Xanadu with Olivia. A few best men, Olivia again (its hilarious by the way)
Force 10 because of Harrison Ford.
Streetfighter because of Kylie.
In the 90s id have said Jim Carrey would sell a movie to me, Bill Murray too.
Today, not really.
Force 10 because of Harrison Ford.
Streetfighter because of Kylie.
In the 90s id have said Jim Carrey would sell a movie to me, Bill Murray too.
Today, not really.
It’s been years since I’ve seen it and I can’t remember much about it but it seems to have its fans.
Admittedly I haven’t seen that Elvis movie or Pinnochio among others, but in the last decade there has been Sully, A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood, Greyhound, News of the World and A Man Called Otto. A great run, IMHO.
Don't forget Training Day, that's a great film.
I only got more into fantasy as I got older, but I've grown up on the Foundation books as well
What Gregory Maguire did with his Oz books was expand on the world and the lore and made it feel more a living breathing space, in turn creating more depth. I've never seen the musical, but I expect that the tone of the two are very different and that they only really share broad strokes.I've never really liked Jim Carrey much in the first place, and I find Bill Murray has been grating on me more and more as I get older. I find him much better in his earlier movies, but as he gets older, I find he has less range and just gets grumpier and grumpier like a wet cat. That shtick might have been cute early on, but now it feels one-note, and I've had a tendency to steer clear of most of his newer roles.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
