About Critics (Part 1)

[Kenjitsuka]

Interesting stuff, Bob.
Let me tell you something tho; most haters are just trolls who complain/kick at everything that crosses their field of vision.

Words like "Elitst"? They hear them once and just keep repeating them to sound smarter.
Critics are important to see the Big Picture (pun intended) as clear as possible and give real, tangible advice, praise and critique when appropriate.

I've been writing articles for big PC magazines fulltime for many years and speaking about the comments you get... whoo boy! People perceive some fault and then attack you like you did something unwholesome to their mom after killing their puppies in front of their eyes. And then it's me saying: "Dear Sir, if you click on 'Menu' and select 'Print' you *can* actually print your work. Alternatively, press Ctrl+P. Best regards, and thanks for calling me a liar who doesn't do any research."

Okay, I never write the last part after regards...

 

[Kenjitsuka]

How does watching many movies make you a worse critic? I don't see the logic in that.

The flawed logic behind it is probably that the critics get jaded and "spoiled" because they see everything. So their demands are then "unreasonably high", which makes them way to picky to enjoy a "decent movie" that "normal people would find great".
This is my thought process on that, I do not share these views.

 

[mfeff]

Bob your one of the best critics around (to me), and while I do not always agree with what you have to say, I enjoy your perspective. You simply know more about the youth/pop culture of America than I do, and you have been to at least one more film appreciation class than I have, that is to say, you have been to at least 2.

I have followed you since YouTube, and feel legitimately sorry for not praising you until now. I have watched most if not all your published work, and would gladly pay for content such as the Hang Over 2 review.

The opening scene was INSPIRED!

Your nameless faceless fan,

me

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Our overall perspective is not the perspective of our audience, particularly when it comes to the area of originality. We get bored more easily. Cliché and formula bothers us more. Tropes you've seen a handful of times we've seen thousands of times. This means we are much harder on the formulaic, and that we are much more excited by something that is original.

Now this quote exemplifies one of the reasons that I find the opinions of movie critics on any particular movie to be somewhat less informative (I use this word hesitantly) than they should be.

Because critics get so bored of tropes and formulaic movies that they've seen a bunch of times, they are much more drawn to something that is new and original. While originality is definitely a bonus, many times it seems that critics are so infatuated by the originality of a premise of a certain movie that they end up turning a blind eye to its faults simply because it was something that interested them.

Personally I, and I'm sure many others will agree with me, believe that a movie that is technically proficient, but with a somewhat played out plot, is still much better than a movie that is original, but lacking in all other areas. Take for example Avatar. It's an amazing movie, brilliantly executed, but with a story we've all seen many times before (Pocahontas, Dancing with Wolves, etc). Many people (movie snobs), panned Avatar because of the simple fact that the story is a retread of past stories they've already seen, with no real originality and surprises beyond the sci-fi setting, but the movie wasn't popular because of the story but rather because it is brilliantly directed, and visually stunning.

Now take a look at Daybreakers, something that Moviebob gave pretty high praise to because of its originality as basically being the "anti-Twilight" movie. Yes, Daybreakers is somewhat original in its use of vampire lore, but I found everything else in it to be rather lacking in substance, and came out of the movie disappointed. The visual style was boring, a lot of the direction felt sloppy, and the story wasn't all that interesting. Bob here overlooked all of that and highly recommended the movie.

Am I saying that the opinions of critics are wrong and should be disregarded? No, not at all, they're in fact quite valid, but one should be careful of any movie that critics praise as being original, because it seems to me that critics are willing to let A LOT slide for originality. On the other hand, most people who don't see 4-5 movies a week are more likely to like something that is solid, yet somewhat formulaic, because they haven't seen the formula enough to get sick of it yet. Because of this, I really do think that the criticism that "critics are unreliable because they've seen too many movies" can be valid to the average person, if the movie critic is in fact supposed to be catering to the tastes of "the average person" and not to other critics, or to "movie snobs."

 

[bombadilillo]

My problem isn't any of those points, it is how you make things personal. You insult people of differing opinions. If you enjoy The Expendables you are "probably the worst kind of person." Really? Also, I don't care about your personal life. You completely invalidated your own review of Scream 4 by opening with that rant about the Scream franchise taking away your "skill" (it was never a skill in the first place).

Just be more professional. That is what I am asking.

I think his point was more like this...When people watched Sideways a bunch of them magically thought that they were wine snobs and ran around pretending to be sophisticated by adopting traits and opinions that they had nothing to do with before a movie came along and made it popular. Real wine geeks are pissed at the newcomers literally posing in on their hobby.

I think you misunderstood his point, or at least his issue with it.

Now you are making him sound like a hipster. More people gaining interest in something is usually considered a good thing.

Well i am perpetually pissed that Comic Con got popular and I can ever get a freaking ticket becuae douchebags decided it was cool and all want to go. So I see where he is coming from. No more people interested in something can ruin. Especially when they dont actually care but are doing it to be trendy.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

From interpretation point of view of a piece of art, each person will have their own.
From technicality point of view, either its down to common sense or the fact a critic points out the flaws won't help unless the audience is also well informed enough to understand (they might be and still might not care, if one expects a movie to make him laugh, cry or shit his pants, and the movie does that, does it matter if technically the movie was pure crap?!).
For both these reasons critics are out of touch with the audience.

As for being harsher with more popular art pieces, in terms of movies its primarily I coincidence I guess, as critics come out before the movies are released to the public. Being visceral afterwards or with sequels of popular franchises, I agree. But popular franchises are made to become money cows to be milked until exaustion from the beginning. Less effort for more money will rule unless instead bashing the makers, we can educate the audience to change its standards and disapprove lazy productions.

As for unreliable depending on the sheer number of movies seen, I agree with you. I can see someone seeing thousands and still not being able to learn anything from it or changing their standards.

The thing is if critics are to work (to preserve/improve production quality) by making the audience capable of understanding their meaning (more on the technical point of view) it wont be by individual movies critics. People need to understand the principles involved. And yet, if they were so objective and were to improve production to a certain standard you would expect always similar reviews, and not mixed ones. Unless of course there are also great critics and blantantly horrible ones. But recognising bad critics is adding to the cause of the bashers.

At the end of that day, critics are yet another opinion. I dont use them to decide if I am going to see a movie or not. And I can come up with my own judgement too. But I will value them as opinions with which I can compare mine.

 

[wagglelance]

I pretty much only come to the escapist any more for Movie Bob. You do good work and you set yourself apart from the dare I say hacks on TGWTG. Keep up the good work kiddo, I wouldn't change a thing. Unless I was asked to. Then I would say lets change the way summer camps are viewed. I have great summer camp stories and I can't tell them because everyone I know always gives me funny looks when I tell them I still go to summer camps at age 24.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

My problem isn't any of those points, it is how you make things personal. You insult people of differing opinions. If you enjoy The Expendables you are "probably the worst kind of person." Really? Also, I don't care about your personal life. You completely invalidated your own review of Scream 4 by opening with that rant about the Scream franchise taking away your "skill" (it was never a skill in the first place).

Just be more professional. That is what I am asking.

I think his point was more like this...When people watched Sideways a bunch of them magically thought that they were wine snobs and ran around pretending to be sophisticated by adopting traits and opinions that they had nothing to do with before a movie came along and made it popular. Real wine geeks are pissed at the newcomers literally posing in on their hobby.

I think you misunderstood his point, or at least his issue with it.

Now you are making him sound like a hipster. More people gaining interest in something is usually considered a good thing.

Well i am perpetually pissed that Comic Con got popular and I can ever get a freaking ticket becuae douchebags decided it was cool and all want to go. So I see where he is coming from. No more people interested in something can ruin. Especially when they dont actually care but are doing it to be trendy.

How do you know that "douchebags are going because it got cool"? That is like me saying that gaming was better before Facebook, Halo, and CoD increased the gaming audience. It is really just hipster talk. Strawmanning is never a good thing.

 

[goliath6711]

That's not at all the point. A movie doesn't have to be The King's Speech to be a good film. I mean, look at the Fast and Furious movies. They are not good films. The plots suck, the acting is mediocre, the action is almost cartoony. But they are fun movies. That doesn't mean critics shouldn't slam them for what they are.

I hate people that expect every movie they see to be some life changing experience. I'm not spending 8 bucks to have my life changed, I'm spending it to be entertained for two hours. I watched "Se7en" and "Gangs of New York" because of the critical buzz they recieved and will never watch either of them again because I couldn't stand their endings.

Call of Duty is one of the worst offenders in the video game arena for being formulaic and repetitive. They all have the same multiplayer and they all have pretty mediocre single player campaigns when you consider the scope of what video games have done - including single player FPS games. The franchise is pretty stagnant but people love it. People are also stupid. It should be slammed for being generic, for being yet another grey brown shooter, for having a same-old same-old multiplayer experience. That doesn't mean people shouldn't buy it, or like it, or play it. It just means it's not something to hold up as a shining example of video games... Games that are given 9/10 and 10/10 should be games we can all point to and say hey, look at that game. This is what video games are about, what they can be. CoD, as much fun as it is, is just a shitty action movie. It's fun, but it's dumb. I would think it deserves at best a 7.5 thanks to the amount of fun you can have, but otherwise..?

Call of Duty is not being held up as A shinning example, it being held up as THEIR shinning example. Mine include Bloodrayne 2, Headhunter: Redemption and Rumble Roses among others.

Also... how can a game critic possibly judge a game for enjoyment, something that is so personal and subjective? That doesn't take skill or knowledge. On that critera, my 8 year old cousin could be a great game reviewer. No, MovieBob is right. Reviewers need to delve into the nitty gritty details and look beyond if it's "fun" or not.

No... for games, everything beyond the fun factor should be considered a bonus.

 

[goliath6711]

I pretty much only come to the escapist any more for Movie Bob. You do good work and you set yourself apart from the dare I say hacks on TGWTG.

please, Please, PLEASE, tell me you are not serious. With the exception of the Disgruntled Watcher, every single other person there has the ability to be entertaining and enjoyable, even when I don't agree with them.

 

[Gladiateher]

What is this? Movie Bob writes articles? Why? Isn't the whole point of his show basically an article with a bunch of images and faces? I dun getit.

 

[Angel Molina]

Wait you read ALL of the comments! Wow, you sir, ARE A TRUE HERO!! I don't really post very often myself since I'm thinking that the OP probably won't read it anyways (I barely read the first page of any comment's section). Also that and whatever productive thing I have to say is usually already said by at least a few people on the first page. Sooo...

OT: Everything you said about a critic is something I've always known, really critics are the future!

 

[bombadilillo]

My problem isn't any of those points, it is how you make things personal. You insult people of differing opinions. If you enjoy The Expendables you are "probably the worst kind of person." Really? Also, I don't care about your personal life. You completely invalidated your own review of Scream 4 by opening with that rant about the Scream franchise taking away your "skill" (it was never a skill in the first place).

Just be more professional. That is what I am asking.

I think his point was more like this...When people watched Sideways a bunch of them magically thought that they were wine snobs and ran around pretending to be sophisticated by adopting traits and opinions that they had nothing to do with before a movie came along and made it popular. Real wine geeks are pissed at the newcomers literally posing in on their hobby.

I think you misunderstood his point, or at least his issue with it.

Now you are making him sound like a hipster. More people gaining interest in something is usually considered a good thing.

Well i am perpetually pissed that Comic Con got popular and I can ever get a freaking ticket becuae douchebags decided it was cool and all want to go. So I see where he is coming from. No more people interested in something can ruin. Especially when they dont actually care but are doing it to be trendy.

How do you know that "douchebags are going because it got cool"? That is like me saying that gaming was better before Facebook, Halo, and CoD increased the gaming audience. It is really just hipster talk. Strawmanning is never a good thing.

Because you can see the people there that weren't there before. This isnt a strawman argument. Its observable.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Way to go Bob, now I want to see The Tree of Life but it's not playing anywhere around here, not even in the local indie theaters.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I know the Daily Mail gets a lot of flak for entirely justified reasons, but I'm going to single out Chris Tookey, one of their movie reviewers for just being beyond godawful.

Firstly, if it's in anyway an action/comedy/horror/fantasy/sci fi movie, it's awful. If it's a wanky overblown drama, ten points, extra points for period costumes and / or subtitles. huge points if it fits the Mail's agenda.

For example, Kick-Ass, teen beats up criminals - worst movie ever made, and actively encourages the knife murder of children and makes paedophiles rape babies.

Harry Brown, nice old man beats the living fuck out of teenage criminals, a witty, well crafted moral tale.

I still maintain that his review of Kick-Ass is the worst movie review I've ever seen in my life. He actively tries to link the real life murders of children with action scenes in a rather silly and obviously fantastical and unrealistic movie, stating "Do we really want to live, for instance, in a culture when the torture and killing of a James Bulger or Damilola Taylor is re-enacted by child actors for laughs?"

No, we don't and it's not happening. It's on a par with demanding Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is banned because of child obesity, for one, it's a wild fantasy of a movie, and secondly, people's brains just aren't that easily affected.

I agree with a fair bit of what Bob writes, but even if I didn't, he's a level headed genius compared to Tookey.

Just in case you don't have enough rage in your day, a link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html

Don't get me wrong, he's entitled to hate the movie, and entitled to take issue with it on moral grounds, directly comparing it to snuff and child porn, however, a little overdone.

I should state for transparency, I thought Kick Ass was an excellent movie, not ground breaking or life changing,but just thoroughly fun and entertaining and didn't outstay it's welcome, and at no point since have I wanted to sexually abuse a child or go on a stabbing spree.

As for the knife crime thing (which they also criticised Heath Ledger's Joker for, for having 'knife fetishism' in the movie, what are bad guys supposed to do if they can't hurt people, just say rude things? Nope, that's out too, as Portal 2 has ably demonstrated.) maybe in the next WW2 movie we'll get scenes of Adolf Hitler deliberately not sorting his recycling before he throws it out. (Yeah I godwin'd, what of it?)

 

[Zer_]

I don't have any problems with you holding films to a higher standard, or being vitriolic about cash in sequels (which are usually entertaining in fact), the biggest recurring problem is your dismissal of people who enjoy films like that. You conflate anyone who enjoys The Expendables, Michael Bay films or Fast 5 as "Douchebags" quite often. Aside from the fact that there's no accounting for tastes, there's nothing wrong with people wanting movies they can switch their brain off for, and downright insulting everyone based on their tastes just makes you come off like, frankly, a bit of a dick.

I'm not saying you need to change your whole schtick, because you usually do have some good insights on movies, but your whole "Us vs them" mentality has got to stop.

This. I feel this is the issue you should have addressed. It's fine to feel vitriolic about cash-in movies, I mean you should! I feel that calling anyone who enjoys a certain genre a "douchebag" is quite a bit over the line.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

None of those things are even what I have an issue with, although with elitism I will say it's all fine and good until you start being a dick about it. Now, I like watching MovieBob and I will listen to everything he has to say and take it for just as an opinion, and if I don't agree with it then I ignore it and move on.

What I do have an issue with is being insulted by someone I don't know and he can make sweeping generalizations about people that watch a certain movie or have a certain opinion. That pisses me off. If you and I don't agree on something, fine, but don't be an ass about it. I've seen The Expendables and enjoyed it, why? Because it was mindless and I didn't have to think too much about it, also because I knew what I was expecting. A really bad movie and I was entertained, so if that make makes me a terrible person, then fine.

I love this. "Someone I don't know made a sweeping generalisation that includes me, and thus made me the butt of an obvious joke. Excuse me, I must be getting all up in arms on an internet forum." Shining example of a first world problem.

Well I do agree with Bob here. I wish game critics *cough*IGN*cough* could take the hint and start slamming formulaic titles for what they are. Call of Duty... 7 is it? Seriously?

God, no. I like game critics the way they are, precisely because they aren't film critics and evaluate enjoyment rather than some misguided sense of artistic value.

CoD is the summer blockbuster of gaming, and game critics are superior to film critics IMO because they recognise the game is there to be played for fun, rather than marking it down because it isn't trying to present some deep message or moral dilemma.

I think you can do both, to be honest. In the end it should be up to individual critics to decide whether they want to concentrate on explaining their pure enjoyment, or analysing it for a deeper experience, or do both at once. The thing you have to be aware of is, not everyone wants to see a film for 'artistic value', sure: but for some people, like myself, a sense of artistic value is what makes the film 'enjoyable'.

I think the key with critics of any medium is to accept that they're human beings with different tastes and opinions, and try to find one who you largely agree or identify with rather than trying to mould them all in your own image.

 

[wagglelance]

I pretty much only come to the escapist any more for Movie Bob. You do good work and you set yourself apart from the dare I say hacks on TGWTG.

please, Please, PLEASE, tell me you are not serious. With the exception of the Disgruntled Watcher, every single other person there has the ability to be entertaining and enjoyable, even when I don't agree with them.

Why yes, I am serious. I am not a fan of TGWTG. The site feels like 4Chan trolls made some videos and up them up on the internet. Now other 4Chan trolls follow them and giggle along with the cheap characters and crappy jokes. If thats your cup of tea that is fine. But I prefer a mug of China Black.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

None of those things are even what I have an issue with, although with elitism I will say it's all fine and good until you start being a dick about it. Now, I like watching MovieBob and I will listen to everything he has to say and take it for just as an opinion, and if I don't agree with it then I ignore it and move on.

What I do have an issue with is being insulted by someone I don't know and he can make sweeping generalizations about people that watch a certain movie or have a certain opinion. That pisses me off. If you and I don't agree on something, fine, but don't be an ass about it. I've seen The Expendables and enjoyed it, why? Because it was mindless and I didn't have to think too much about it, also because I knew what I was expecting. A really bad movie and I was entertained, so if that make makes me a terrible person, then fine.

I love this. "Someone I don't know made a sweeping generalisation that includes me, and thus made me the butt of an obvious joke. Excuse me, I must be getting all up in arms on an internet forum." Shining example of a first world problem.

Hmm... I don't really know how to take that or if you are mocking me. I will say, yes, I don't like it. I'm not getting all up in arms, it just pisses me off, and I was just stating my issue with him which is my opinion.

Do I like being the 'butt of an obvious joke'? No, but I will take it has his opinion and that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[internetzealot1]

So I guess this is everyone's chance to have their own conversation with Bob, huh? Meh, I'll wait till an aricle with less traffic.