lost even MORE respect for the new AT the Movie guys

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/ in their review of the horror film Splinter..the kid, Lyons, says "rent it" becuase,as he says, he doesn't like horror films"

WTF he's a paid film critic, he should appreciate all film, all genres. Even if Ebert hated a genre, he wouldn't mark down a well made film

 

[Small White Car]

Wrong.

A good critic gives his opinion and explains why. That's it.

It's up to the reader to know the personality of the critic and adapt to it. I remember when I was in high school there was a local critic who didn't really like sci-fi that much. He gave mediocre ratings to Star Trek 7 and 8. But he explained WHY he felt that way, and each and every reason he didn't like it was a reason I knew I would.

So even though he rated it poorly, he explained to me exactly why I would like it. That's a good critic. It doesn't matter if they actually like the film.

Now, I don't know these guys. Maybe they suck as critics and never explain their reasoning. But just because they said "I don't like this film" it doesn't mean they're being unfair. It's all in how you explain it.

 

[Mike Farley]

There's a big difference between not liking a specific movie for reasons that may or may not be agreed with by others and giving a "rent it" review simply because you don't like the genre. That's not commenting on the individual film in any meaningful way.

 

[Aragorn]

Not commenting on the film in any meaningful way would be when John Mellencamp was a guest host and liked everything he saw. Half the time he defended himself by saying he didn't really watch many movies from said genre so therefore it worked for him. Roeper was clearly getting annoyed and their debates just went around in circles.

As for Lyons, he's the ultimate quote whore and has no business even being on TV.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

There's a big difference between not liking a specific movie for reasons that may or may not be agreed with by others and giving a "rent it" review simply because you don't like the genre. That's not commenting on the individual film in any meaningful way.

QFT

 

[JNG]

He has no credibility as a critic, this Lyons guy. He is more or less a Ryan Seacrest-lite, doing red carpet work and teleprompter-based entertainment "journalism."

 

[Aragorn]

Here's a snippet of an article about Ben Lyons:

Jeffrey Lyons is denying snipes by fellow movie critics that he used influence to get his son Ben the plum job of replacing Roger Ebert in the show "At the Movies" with Richard Roeper.

.....

Jeffrey Lyons told us: "[My son] Ben and I are on two separate networks and different coasts. If anything, I'd have less pull getting him on."

But Ben Lyons admitted, "It has definitely helped to have my dad to open some doors for me. But you have to do the work yourself."

.....

Erik Childress of the Chicago Film Critics Association isn't convinced. He lambastes both Lyonses for being "quote whores" - critics who write sound bites such as "riveting!" on weak flicks just to get their names on movie trailers and posters.

"Jeffrey Lyons would be on all the ads for movies, both good and bad," Childress blogged on eFilmCritic.com. "Where's the criticism if you appreciate everything that's out there?"

Childress also chided Ben for declaring the lackluster "I Am Legend" as "one of the greatest movies ever made."

"If he were 12 and had only seen 50 movies in his lifetime, it would still be one of the dumbest statements ever made by a human being named Lyons," he fumed.

.....

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Lyons is cute but vapid. Reminds me of Peter Petrelli only he's real.

Childress also chided Ben for declaring the lackluster "I Am Legend" as "one of the greatest movies ever made."