How to Read Movie Criticism

[Grabbin Keelz]

Hey, I thought I'd ask this just so I won't have to ask it ever again.
How do you get that different title, the one that says "Gaming Connoisseur"?
Just curious.

EDIT: Sorry about that, I thought 'reply' meant that I wouldn't actually post it in the forum. I'm learning more about this website all the time.

Actually, since I've already posted and everyone can see what an idiot I am, I might as well ask this too. When someone quotes somebody and just puts 'snip' on the quote, what does that mean?

 

[Falseprophet]

Sorry Bob, but just watching a lot of movies does not make you qualified to dissect them. It makes you more qualified than most people, sure. But just looking a lot at something is not the same as actually making it.

Bob's an independent filmmaker, but I disagree that he's required to be one to be a film critic. It surely helps, but an understanding of the art and history of the form is more important. If you've heard Bob on other film podcasts and websites, he knows all about auteur theory, Cahiers des Cinema, neo-Realism, and all the other cultural movements and schools of filmmaking, discusses them intelligently, and brings them into a critical discussion where appropriate. Bob definitely comes across as more qualified in this respect than most other internet critics.

In Battle L.A. I thought the explanation of why the aliens were attacking earth was great. Because even if you just casually watch shows about astronomy you may know that liquid water is hard to find in the universe (as far as we know). There is tons of frozen water but not many planets with huge bodies of it in liquid form covering a planets surface.

Really, because that revelation almost ruined the movie for me. It makes no sense for an intelligent species capable of interstellar travel to invade a planet inhabited by heavily armed intelligent natives just to get liquid water, when there's ample amounts of frozen water all over the galaxy, in comets and on uninhabited worlds. Frozen water is easier to transport and is easily melted down once you get home.

 

[teknoarcanist]

re objectivity:
I think our dear friend Ebert sums it up again.

For purposes of reference, I'll replace a movie he's talking about with one this community might be a little more familiar with:

"If you say you dislike "The Godfather" or "Shawshank," I can't say you're wrong. The one thing you can never be wrong about is your own opinion. It's when you start giving your reasons that you lay yourself open. Many years ago there was a critic in Chicago who said [Transformers 2] was a better film than "The Godfather." "Phil," I told him, "film criticism is a matter of subjective opinion. Only rarely does it stray into objective fact. When you said [Transformers 2] was better than 'The Godfather,' that was an error of objective fact."

 

[wolfenflautist]

What I find interesting is that people let critics do the thinking for them, not go venture out and make the attempt to watch a movie they're even remotely interested in, just to turn it down completely just because a critic says not to. I usually watch/read critiques on a movie after watching it, or if I'm inclined to, I just go to Wikipedia (not the greatest for information, I know)and just look at the plot, even if it's completed.

I'd rather see what the movie's about before watching it, just so I know what to expect, and THEN make an effort to see what a critic says about a film. If I don't agree with said critic, then I don't agree. I don't let the critic decide for me. Sorry, Bob, but there are some things we disagree on here.

 

[hexFrank202]

Even though I love your shows, I disagree with you so many times on movies. But what's really weird about, well, the Nostalgia Critic (who I'm sure you know) when he's out-of-character and just playing himself, I've disagreed with a few times, but then he actually changed my opinion to fit his. He's done that to me several times. You... maybe once or twice.

And then we get to James Rolfe. I've never disagreed with him. Ever. On any movie, or any game or anything else in the world for that matter. Not one single time. I want to know how that's possible. Maybe we're the only two people who are objectively right. Yeah, that's probably it!

 

[hexFrank202]

re objectivity:
I think our dear friend Ebert sums it up again.
For purposes of reference, I'll replace a movie he's talking about with one this community might be a little more familiar with:
"If you say you dislike "The Godfather" or "Shawshank," I can't say you're wrong. The one thing you can never be wrong about is your own opinion. It's when you start giving your reasons that you lay yourself open. Many years ago there was a critic in Chicago who said [Transformers 2] was a better film than "The Godfather." "Phil," I told him, "film criticism is a matter of subjective opinion. Only rarely does it stray into objective fact. When you said [Transformers 2] was better than 'The Godfather,' that was an error of objective fact."

Since when did 2009 count as 'many years ago'?

 

[Boba Frag]

Probably one of your finest articles, Bob.

Honestly, this issue is a HUGE bugbear of mine. You expressed it far better than I could, and I have to say it's something that makes me so bloody angry that I honestly cannot battle through the frustration to be able to enunciate why something like Rotten Tomatoes is absolute trash and so horrifyingly simplistic.

I don't think I agree with you all the time, but I do know that a nuanced, considered critical analysis of something like a film is the only way to approach the medium fairly.
That said, I don't mind critics panning a movie in two lines if it'll save me a wasted journey, either.

Keep up fighting the good fight, Bob!

Oh, and I am counting the days till Hannah comes out in Ireland.
Admittedly, I am biased towards Saoirse Ronan, but then again, I could say the same about Cate Blanchett.

Cannot wait!

 

[Boba Frag]

Sorry Bob, but just watching a lot of movies does not make you qualified to dissect them. It makes you more qualified than most people, sure. But just looking a lot at something is not the same as actually making it.

Bob's an independent filmmaker, but I disagree that he's required to be one to be a film critic. It surely helps, but an understanding of the art and history of the form is more important. If you've heard Bob on other film podcasts and websites, he knows all about auteur theory, Cahiers des Cinema, neo-Realism, and all the other cultural movements and schools of filmmaking, discusses them intelligently, and brings them into a critical discussion where appropriate. Bob definitely comes across as more qualified in this respect than most other internet critics.

Sorry Bob, but just watching a lot of movies does not make you qualified to dissect them. It makes you more qualified than most people, sure. But just looking a lot at something is not the same as actually making it.

Bob's an independent filmmaker, but I disagree that he's required to be one to be a film critic. It surely helps, but an understanding of the art and history of the form is more important. If you've heard Bob on other film podcasts and websites, he knows all about auteur theory, Cahiers des Cinema, neo-Realism, and all the other cultural movements and schools of filmmaking, discusses them intelligently, and brings them into a critical discussion where appropriate. Bob definitely comes across as more qualified in this respect than most other internet critics.

I agree- in fact the best example of that is Uwe Bolle.

He's technically a film maker as he has, sadly, actually made films.
Would you read his reviews?

EDIT:

Blast, double posted...

 

[Maur DL]

This piece pretty much exemplifies why I like Bob in the first place. He can be a little opinionated, sure, but overall he does have a good understanding of what it means to be a critic and I usually find what he has to say interesting if not insightful.

 

[Jenx]

Would you read his reviews?

You damn right I would! You read some of the nonsense he's written? It's comedy gold!

As for the whole debate started from my opinion - I do agree that to be a good critic you need to be well versed and educated in whatever it is you're criticizing. I just think practical knowledge is a required part of that education.

As for MovieBob specifically, I'm afraid I wasn't quite clear in my wording. I wasn't referring to Bob himself in that, I just referred to him since it's his article I'm replying too. It's kind of a bothersome habit I have when I discuss something with someone.
(But for my money, Bob is as qualified as you need to be - he knows his stuff AND, if that quip at the end of it is true, he has also actually made a few movies so he knows what's it's like down on the battlefield, so to speak.)

 

[Boba Frag]

Would you read his reviews?

You damn right I would! You read some of the nonsense he's written? It's comedy gold!

As for the whole debate started from my opinion - I do agree that to be a good critic you need to be well versed and educated in whatever it is you're criticizing. I just think practical knowledge is a required part of that education.

As for MovieBob specifically, I'm afraid I wasn't quite clear in my wording. I wasn't referring to Bob himself in that, I just referred to him since it's his article I'm replying too. It's kind of a bothersome habit I have when I discuss something with someone.
(But for my money, Bob is as qualified as you need to be - he knows his stuff AND, if that quip at the end of it is true, he has also actually made a few movies so he knows what's it's like down on the battlefield, so to speak.)

Heh, haven't had that pleasure actually.. (Thankfully!)

But I agree, some experience in the field of whatever is being analysed is never a bad thing, but at the end of the day I don't think it's as important as being aware of what you're experiencing when you're watching a film, what response it illicits in you but also why.
It's a subjective thing completely.

That said, I think a lot of film critics make at least some effort to go to a set or chinwag with a director or, if they're really trying, the writers and the crew, not just The Talent.
I was an extra in a small low budget made my amateur film makers, and it was great fun and really informative. Seeing an entire morning's shooting boiled into just 3 minutes is quite the experience.
At the same time, it coloured my viewing of the film. Not negatively, but I think I was less able to enjoy it as a first time experience because I kept waiting for my bits
Yeah, I'm an egotist. But I think everyone is

The same can't be said of books, though. It's like saying only novelists can review novelists.
We'd be out of decent books in a month, I guarantee it, because it's all down to personal tastes, and while a critic has to know what they're talking about, ultimately, he has to be as outside the process as much as the audience is when they sit down in their seat and the house lights go down.

 

[Srdjan Tanaskovic]

I thought people liked Spawn, Witchblade, The Darkness, and Savage Dragon

I mean Image Comic did release some stuff that was well received

 

[teknoarcanist]

re objectivity:
I think our dear friend Ebert sums it up again.
For purposes of reference, I'll replace a movie he's talking about with one this community might be a little more familiar with:
"If you say you dislike "The Godfather" or "Shawshank," I can't say you're wrong. The one thing you can never be wrong about is your own opinion. It's when you start giving your reasons that you lay yourself open. Many years ago there was a critic in Chicago who said [Transformers 2] was a better film than "The Godfather." "Phil," I told him, "film criticism is a matter of subjective opinion. Only rarely does it stray into objective fact. When you said [Transformers 2] was better than 'The Godfather,' that was an error of objective fact."

Since when did 2009 count as 'many years ago'?

I replaced the movie title to make the quote more relevant to The Escapist. Also said so

The original movie he was talking about was 'The Valachi Papers'. I've never heard of it -- have you?

 

[hexFrank202]

re objectivity:
I think our dear friend Ebert sums it up again.
For purposes of reference, I'll replace a movie he's talking about with one this community might be a little more familiar with:
"If you say you dislike "The Godfather" or "Shawshank," I can't say you're wrong. The one thing you can never be wrong about is your own opinion. It's when you start giving your reasons that you lay yourself open. Many years ago there was a critic in Chicago who said [Transformers 2] was a better film than "The Godfather." "Phil," I told him, "film criticism is a matter of subjective opinion. Only rarely does it stray into objective fact. When you said [Transformers 2] was better than 'The Godfather,' that was an error of objective fact."

Since when did 2009 count as 'many years ago'?

I replaced the movie title to make the quote more relevant to The Escapist. Also said so

The original movie he was talking about was 'The Valachi Papers'. I've never heard of it -- have you?

No, but it sounds foreign. Which automatically makes it good!

 

[person427]

I guess that makes sense, but after watching every video you've put up in all of your series (including Game Over Thinker and your Moviebob episodes on youtube) I feel that it's safe to say that we share the same opinion on so many things that if you like a movie, I'll probably like it to, and if you hate it, I should probably stay away. It seems to have helped so far,

 

[rddj623]

Finding a critic I trust is definitely a nice thing to have, that's why I watch your show Bob. I've found we have several similar interests and opinions. Though there are some things we undoubtedly disagree on, I mostly like to hear your opinions because we have a lot of similarities but are different as well. It's like a different perspective from the same background framework. It's refreshing. That said, I have never made a decision to go or not to go to a film because of what you or any other critic have said.

With the slight exception of Splice which I made sure to see in theaters due to your review. Though I had wanted to see it from seeing the first trailer.