Critics

[CODE-D]

Do you take critics reviews to heart.
I just watched the thing(2011)
You know what, it was good and I liked. Way better than critics made it sound(rotten tomatoes, moviebob)
Makes me wonder if they even watched it. They just described as a bunch a jump out boo scares but it was way better and it even had that feeling of paranoia of who might be the thing, even I was fooled sometimes. One of the scarier scenes was where the thing was in plain site approaching someone whod it had taken down and(spoiler)- began adhering to his face.
All I can assume is that these people are a cynical bunch who love john carpenters and just wrote this one off.

and this isnt the first time, Ive been watching several movies that the critics said skip. Its all about opinions but you should be open to it and give it its due.

All I can say is dont trust them, especially bob.

but whats been your experience?

 

[Kenbo Slice]

I don't trust critics for the most part. I don't think anyone should really, I think people should watch movies and make their own opinions.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Depends what you're talking about; music critics I essentially never read, video games I look through a few, but am highly skeptical of them and can generally do the research myself, look at let's plays and what have you to determine whether or not it's worth the purchase. With film critics I think you have to find the ones you're most in tune with; I most frequently refer to Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian, obviously I'm not going to agree with everything he has to say, but I feel I'm at least on a similar wavelength. I watch a few of Movie Bob's reviews from time to time as well even if I more frequently disagree with his opinions as I feel it interesting to gather varying perspectives. I've seen a similar threads asking if critics are too...well, critical...but take a look at it from their perspective. These guys sit through movies day in and day out, all throughout the year and they'll have seen more or less everything there is too see. When you have to put yourself through wave after wave of derivitive, platitudinous schlock then they aren't going to be so easily impressed, more to the point even if a film isn't necessarily so bad, they'll have seen many others do what this one set out to achieve much better and will likely mention these films within the review, the implication being 'don't waste your time with this shit, go see this instead.' In regard to 'The Thing' from what I've heard (haven't seen it myself), a lot of complaints seem to stem from it not being exactly execrable, but rather that it is unecessary, that it simply clings to the coatails of the original, adding nothing new and aside from a few minor iterations it basically has more resemblance of a remake than a prequel. All in all, I like a reviewer who's willing to look at things contextually; where one film being of a higher star rating than another does not necessarily make it better, but merely that one is closer to achieving what it sets out to accomplish. Obviously if it's something that interest's you and hasn't been universally reviled, than you should check out the film for yourself and form your own opinion, reviews are simply there to help you filter down your prospects of what you're willing to see.

 

[Marter]

The trick is to find someone that generally has opinions similar to yours. Once you find someone like that, or someone who provides you with the information you need to determine if it sounds like your kind of film/game/album/whatever, then stick with them.

I generally use critics for two things. (1) If I haven't seen/played/heard/whatever the thing they're reviewing, then they'll hopefully provide me with the information I need to figure out whether or not it sounds like my kind of thing. Their opinion is mostly irrelevant; I just want to hear about it from someone else who has played/seen/whatever the thing and can accurately describe an experience. Or (2), after I've seen/heard/whatever, I'll look to critics to get an alternative perspective.

So I do use critics, but they generally won't dictate whether I'll play/watch/listen/read/whatever something.

 

[CODE-D]

I haven't seen it because they showed "it" in the trailer. That killed the mood

But you already know what it is and it has no defined form, other than fucked up, so theres no real point in hiding it, and if they did people would just complain about boo scares.
I assure you what you saw in the trailer (the scene where the thing that pops out of the ice) gets killed off fast and you never really see that one as it stays in the shadows. The others however...let me just say they used the thing in interesting ways. Theres one part where you really feel sorry for a guy.....



Also the ending and the lead in to the original was well done.

 

[Zantos]

I very rarely trust critics, they always seem to be using different criteria than me to judge things. Whenever a new action film comes out and get's slated for not having a very complex plot or characters, I get confused on their expectations, it's kind of like saying a Kubrick film is bad for not being an animated family comedy. When I go to see Expendables 2 I will be judging it solely on the quality of the one-liners and the percentage of stuff that blows up, and will not care if Stallone's character fails to portray a deeper meaning alluding to some backstory.

 

[Comando96]

You must remember with critics is that they are critics...

They are hardened to it all and they look for things above and beyond.

If you've seen the original "Thing" and then the remake of the "Thing" well... is a new one going to be better? Its very unlikely. Good outcome, it is the old one but with a new coat of paint. Excellent result it improves upon the first. Bad result is worse than the original. Dreadful scenario it lives off of the originals name.

Remakes are sacred ground for some critics and these critics are more likely to be harsh to them than others are. If a movie doesn't live up to the previous then it'll get a battering xD

I quite like Bob.

I often find that a mixture of Movie Bob and Mark Kermode does the trick with films for me

Don't rely on one film critic, have a few that balance each other out.

 

[Nouw]

Perhaps they felt it was inferior to the original and that translated into it's critique?

 

[Nazulu]

There are critics I found that I trust more than others. That's the thing, you have to find a critic that has a similar opinion to you. They can't tell you who is going to enjoy the movie, just point out flaws that may ruin the experience, and even then a lot of them aren't good at that.

I don't trust critics for the most part. I don't think anyone should really, I think people should watch movies and make their own opinions.

So we should trust you instead? I went to see Alice in Wonderland and regretted it like wasting my life. The point of trailers, reviews and critics is to reveal a bit of the movie to see if your interested or not. A lot of people don't want to travel to the movies everytime, pay $15 and find out it's is absolute garbage that tortures them for the next 2 hours.

No! I believe it's best to look for a critic you trust and maybe look at a couple of trailers cause by then you should know. Won't be accurate everytime but it can definitely save time and money.

 

[Philol]

I've never really ever listened to critics reviews of films, games etc, I do listen to what mates say though as I trust their opinions more.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

There are critics I found that I trust more than others. That's the thing, you have to find a critic that has a similar opinion to you. They can't tell you who is going to enjoy the movie, just point out flaws that may ruin the experience, and even then a lot of them aren't good at that.

I don't trust critics for the most part. I don't think anyone should really, I think people should watch movies and make their own opinions.

So we should trust you instead? I went to see Alice in Wonderland and regretted it like wasting my life. The point of trailers, reviews and critics is to reveal a bit of the movie to see if your interested or not. A lot of people don't want to travel to the movies everytime, pay $15 and find out it's is absolute garbage that tortures them for the next 2 hours.

No! I believe it's best to look for a critic you trust and maybe look at a couple of trailers cause by then you should know. Won't be accurate everytime but it can definitely save time and money.

I wasn't saying trust me, I was saying what I thought. I'm not saying go out and see every movie.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I often use critics to help me make decisions about what games and movies to spend my hard earned cash/time on. They are not something that actively shapes my perceptions of things (well, beyond "this is something the critics liked"), but they are a useful tool to shift through the mounds of crappy games/movies with.

 

[jonnosferatu]

Critics are generally viewing things on different criteria than the rest of us. Roger Ebert generally tries to do it through the lens of the movie's probable audience, but there's no guarantee.

Find someone you agree with and listen to them. I agree with Ebert most of the time, so I take his reviews pretty seriously. Other people don't, and shouldn't.

 

[Nazulu]

There are critics I found that I trust more than others. That's the thing, you have to find a critic that has a similar opinion to you. They can't tell you who is going to enjoy the movie, just point out flaws that may ruin the experience, and even then a lot of them aren't good at that.

I don't trust critics for the most part. I don't think anyone should really, I think people should watch movies and make their own opinions.

So we should trust you instead? I went to see Alice in Wonderland and regretted it like wasting my life. The point of trailers, reviews and critics is to reveal a bit of the movie to see if your interested or not. A lot of people don't want to travel to the movies everytime, pay $15 and find out it's is absolute garbage that tortures them for the next 2 hours.

No! I believe it's best to look for a critic you trust and maybe look at a couple of trailers cause by then you should know. Won't be accurate everytime but it can definitely save time and money.

I wasn't saying trust me, I was saying what I thought. I'm not saying go out and see every movie.

Not really what I was saying. I was just pointing out that this is the best way to discover if your interested in a movie or not, instead of having to go and take a risk.

I was not sure if I came on a bit hard, sorry if I did.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

There are critics I found that I trust more than others. That's the thing, you have to find a critic that has a similar opinion to you. They can't tell you who is going to enjoy the movie, just point out flaws that may ruin the experience, and even then a lot of them aren't good at that.

I don't trust critics for the most part. I don't think anyone should really, I think people should watch movies and make their own opinions.

So we should trust you instead? I went to see Alice in Wonderland and regretted it like wasting my life. The point of trailers, reviews and critics is to reveal a bit of the movie to see if your interested or not. A lot of people don't want to travel to the movies everytime, pay $15 and find out it's is absolute garbage that tortures them for the next 2 hours.

No! I believe it's best to look for a critic you trust and maybe look at a couple of trailers cause by then you should know. Won't be accurate everytime but it can definitely save time and money.

I wasn't saying trust me, I was saying what I thought. I'm not saying go out and see every movie.

Not really what I was saying. I was just pointing out that this is the best way to discover if your interested in a movie or not, instead of having to go and take a risk.

I was not sure if I came on a bit hard, sorry if I did.

It's okay man. I agree with the trailer part for sure, not so much critics though.

 

[CODE-D]

Okay now I know Rotten tomatoes critics are bullshit, I just watched Sherlock Holmes 2.
Best movie of my year hands down and I have watched several. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, flawless. Script, characters, feeling, action it was a masterpiece.


but see here
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sherlock_holmes_a_game_of_shadows/

critics give 64%
Try and read any of the negative green ones from some of the "Top Critics"(although theyre from magazines/sites Ive never heard of) and tell me they dont sound just like theyre trolling.

"The skill level in the script is elementary school, my dear Watson." Kyle Smith, New York Post


I will murder you Kyle...

 

[Guffe]

It's hard to stay objective when doing a review and therefor you shouldn't always listen to them. Unless you've noticed you have a very similar taste to them, then you could maybe trust them a bit more.

 

[MassiveGeek]

Critics for me are mostly just entertainment, I enjoy watching people rip other things apart, or making valid arguments for why it's worthwhile. Occasionally I will use a critic as a source of arguments for/against certain things, but usually only if I've experienced whatever they're reviewing myself first hand.

 

[HardkorSB]

Do you take critics reviews to heart.
I just watched the thing(2011)
You know what, it was good and I liked. Way better than critics made it sound(rotten tomatoes, moviebob)
Makes me wonder if they even watched it. They just described as a bunch a jump out boo scares but it was way better and it even had that feeling of paranoia of who might be the thing, even I was fooled sometimes. One of the scarier scenes was where the thing was in plain site approaching someone whod it had taken down and(spoiler)- began adhering to his face.
All I can assume is that these people are a cynical bunch who love john carpenters and just wrote this one off.

and this isnt the first time, Ive been watching several movies that the critics said skip. Its all about opinions but you should be open to it and give it its due.

All I can say is dont trust them, especially bob.

but whats been your experience?

Just so you know, when the John Carpenter's version of "The Thing" came out, it got negative reviews from both the critics and the movie goers and was regarded as "the worst remake of all time".
Now it's considered a "timeless classic".

 

[CODE-D]

Do you take critics reviews to heart.
I just watched the thing(2011)
You know what, it was good and I liked. Way better than critics made it sound(rotten tomatoes, moviebob)
Makes me wonder if they even watched it. They just described as a bunch a jump out boo scares but it was way better and it even had that feeling of paranoia of who might be the thing, even I was fooled sometimes. One of the scarier scenes was where the thing was in plain site approaching someone whod it had taken down and(spoiler)- began adhering to his face.
All I can assume is that these people are a cynical bunch who love john carpenters and just wrote this one off.

and this isnt the first time, Ive been watching several movies that the critics said skip. Its all about opinions but you should be open to it and give it its due.

All I can say is dont trust them, especially bob.

but whats been your experience?

Just so you know, when the John Carpenter's version of "The Thing" came out, it got negative reviews from both the critics and the movie goers and was regarded as "the worst remake of all time".
Now it's considered a "timeless classic".

Both Art and Life imitating Art and Life, huh.