# Most Moviegoers Don't Agree With the Critics...



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 19, 2007)

Recent movies, such as "The 300" which were panned by the critics have been box office successes:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961277.html?categoryid=1&cs=1


----------



## LawDog (Mar 19, 2007)

To me much of the move was computer generated & computer altered. Anyone else? I still enjoyed the flick.
opcorn:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 19, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> Recent movies, such as "The 300" which were panned by the critics have been box office successes:
> 
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961277.html?categoryid=1&cs=1


 

That's because critics have no life.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 19, 2007)

It's always been this way, hasn't it?  

I generally make my own decisions about what I'm going to see at the cinema (if anything, given the outrageous pricing) but it was always reassuring if the critics hated what I was planning on seeing .

Barry Norman was a reliable weather vane for me, for if he raved on about something then I knew it was a film to avoid and if he panned something then I knew it was worth a look :lol:.

What critics tend to forget is that cinema is not art (in the main), it's entertainment and there's a world of difference between the two.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 19, 2007)

IMO its because critics are overthinking what the rest of us see as entertainment. If its a good story, well produced most of us will like it. Critics get too deep into egghead issues. Sometimes I like to read literature, sometimes I like to read pulp. Critics need to realize that.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 19, 2007)

There are a few critics out there that do know that a movie is just a movie and it's there for the entertainment value how-ever mindless that it may be. However those critics are lesser known ones who don't have a newspaper conglomerate backing them and years upon years of experience (think Roger Ebert). 
I like going to screenit.com to get an overview of a movie's gut parts and sometimes read the "our-take". It seems to be written by conservatives and conservative christians who gasp and reel dizzyingly in shock at an exposure of a woman's cleavage or thigh muscle (big deal  ). Still a good site to pick apart a movie if you wonder about it's contents being suitable for your kids. 

I must be out of sync with everyone else in the world. I now avoid "comedies" because I haven't laughed aloud at any of the recent "hit comedies" in a long time. I actually walked out of
 "40 Year Old Virgin" midway through the film because I wasn't laughing along with the audience. I saw the humor of course but it wasn't funny. Thusly if I want a good comedy I go back in time to where comedy didn't necessarily have to include bodily functions. An (older) co-worker of mine said he and his wife watched that Borat movie... they hated it. I thought as much. 

Dramas are still okay now-a-days. Action movies if done carefully enough can still entertain. 

I dunno, mebbe I should try to be a critic myself. Heh... I can give it two snappy thumbs up!


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 19, 2007)

You're certainly right about the decline in 'comedy' films, *MA*.  Other than 'Bill & Ted' or 'Waynes World', which were entertaining rather than comedic, I too have to think back to films of yesteryear to find one that makes me laugh - a noteable exception, oddly, was 'Kung Fu Hustle' which had me chortling in places.


----------



## exile (Mar 19, 2007)

The thing is, a critic isn't telling you not to see the movie. And critics don't really care whether you go see the movie or not. They're giving you their own personal reaction to a film, telling you what they think of it and why they think it. You don't have to pay any attention to what they say; they're just expressing an opinion, and usually, if the critic is any good, it's a pretty well-informed one. 

I had the distinct sense that the guy who wrote the column was saying something like, maybe you critics should say this is good whether or not you think it is, if it looks like enough people are going to see it. Notice that he did at one point acknowledge that a lot of these movies really _are_ lame; he seemed to be saying though that the critics should attune their comments to the marketin effect, serve as flak(wo)men for the studios. But that's not their job...


----------



## JBrainard (Mar 19, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> What critics tend to forget is that cinema is not art (in the main), it's entertainment and there's a world of difference between the two.


 
That is a very good point. I mainly enjoy what I guess you would call "art cinema", and for those movies, I keep an ear out for what the critics say. Because, like all movies, some artsy fartsy movies are amazing and some are crap, and I'd rather get a critics opinion before I go shell out $8+ for a movie ticket.
Now if I'm going to go see a movie for pure entertainment, I can pretty much tell in advance what kind of movie it's going to be (eye candy, action, cheap thrills, etc.). And as such I don't expect it to be art, just (sometimes mindless) entertainment. I'll probably go see The 300. It may not be historically accurate, but it looks cool


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 19, 2007)

Critics learn film, and learn to be critics.  They learn to examine certain aspects of flim, storytelling, flimmaking, cinematography, driecting, acting choreography, etc etc as part of the learning process, and then use this knowlage in order to form opinions of the flims.  

Personally I think that knowlage and information can lead to too much overanalizing of a film... when I was in school, I took a Sci-fi english class where we were taught to look at the elements of the story, the way it was written, to recognize deus ex machina and other "weak" elements to carry the story... and honestly it was a couple years before I could read anything without picking it apart.

So, knowing that is what a good critic does, I avoid them at all costs.



​


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Mar 19, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Critics learn film, and learn to be critics. They learn to examine certain aspects of flim, storytelling, flimmaking, cinematography, driecting, acting choreography, etc etc as part of the learning process, and then use this knowlage in order to form opinions of the flims.​
> 
> Personally I think that knowlage and information can lead to too much overanalizing of a film... when I was in school, I took a Sci-fi english class where we were taught to look at the elements of the story, the way it was written, to recognize deus ex machina and other "weak" elements to carry the story... and honestly it was a couple years before I could read anything without picking it apart.​
> So, knowing that is what a good critic does, I avoid them at all costs.​
> ​


 
Exactly.

Perhaps classic newspaper movie critics could have some sort of "popular opinion/man on the street" sidebar to balance trained criticism with popular opinion.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 19, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> You're certainly right about the decline in 'comedy' films, *MA*.  Other than 'Bill & Ted' or 'Waynes World', which were entertaining rather than comedic, I too have to think back to films of yesteryear to find one that makes me laugh - a noteable exception, oddly, was 'Kung Fu Hustle' which had me chortling in places.



Yes there are still some good comedy films being made just as there are good quality horror films. Ironically some of them are being made over seas (KFHustle) and/or being adapted from overseas films (Grudge, Ring, etc.) 

American film-makers are still churning out good to great films to be sure. It's a cycle thing I think where every few years comes a writer, director, actor (combination of two or all three) that really knows how to put forth the best work they can do. 
With the advent of digital computer technology films are going to be visually more stunning than before; imagine traveling back in time and showing Titanic or The Aviator, Peter Jackson's King Kong  or even Dances With Wolves to an audience in the 30's -- the impact would simply blow them away. I chose those films because of their period pieces... something like Star Wars or Jurrasic Park would have them running screaming out of the theater. 
But it will always IMO, *ALWAYS* be the story that will captivate the audiences to come back again and again.


----------



## Bigshadow (Mar 19, 2007)

LawDog said:


> To me much of the move was computer generated & computer altered. Anyone else? I still enjoyed the flick.
> opcorn:



I haven't seen it yet.  I watched the History Channel story about the Spartans stand for Thermopylae against the Persians (?).  More impressive was the sea battle at Salamis.   I really liked the history channel's show about it.  It probably ruined the movie for me, but my son wants to see it.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 19, 2007)

As the popularity of youtube and reality tv will attest too, something doesn't have to be "good" to be considered entertaining by a large number of people. 

Isn't American Idol all about people that can't sing at all in it's most popular episodes?

300 I have not yet scene, but I don't expect it to be a great movie, entertaining?  Hell yes , but not for it's subtle plot, fine acting and supurb storytelling.  I expect it to be entertaining because they pumped it full of money and special effects to make a over the top action movie.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 19, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I expect it to be entertaining because they pumped it full of money and special effects to make a over the top action movie.



You forgot all the boobs.  It has boobs.


----------



## Kreth (Mar 19, 2007)

I think critics, and not just movie critics, but those of food, music, literature, etc; are snobs who are largely out of touch with the general population.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 19, 2007)

There are critically acclaimed movies... which few people watch, and there are popularly acclaimed movies, which many people watch - occasionally, they overlap.  One of the most critically panned movies I recall was Star Wars... it was (according to the critics) going to flop horribly, and Lucas was going to go broke paying off the effects wizards.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 19, 2007)

Thanks for the warning, *Cryo* - now I know that when me and the missus go and see this I can expect to have sore ribs from being poked and elbowed :lol:.

Then again, with all the talk I've heard from the ladies camp, maybe 'honours' will be even in this one?


----------



## Drac (Mar 19, 2007)

Kacey said:


> One of the most critically panned movies I recall was Star Wars... it was (according to the critics) going to flop horribly, and Lucas was going to go broke paying off the effects wizards.


 
Yes, I remember that..


----------



## Kreth (Mar 19, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> Thanks for the warning, *Cryo* - now I know that when me and the missus go and see this I can expect to have sore ribs from being poked and elbowed :lol:.
> 
> Then again, with all the talk I've heard from the ladies camp, maybe 'honours' will be even in this one?


If you're referring to 300, then yes. I went to see this the other night. The first time the Spartan army appeared on-screen (historically innaccurately) bare-chested, a girl behind me whispered loudly to her friend, "I don't care how bad this sucks, we're staying!" :lol:


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Mar 19, 2007)

Sukerkin said:


> You're certainly right about the decline in 'comedy' films, *MA*. Other than 'Bill & Ted' or 'Waynes World', which were entertaining rather than comedic, I too have to think back to films of yesteryear to find one that makes me laugh - a noteable exception, oddly, was 'Kung Fu Hustle' which had me chortling in places.


 
I thought Shaoling Soccer was really good too.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 19, 2007)

Hi *Kreth*, sounds like my missus will be happy enough then .

@*Mariachi*, yes, I'd heard that 'Shaolin Soccer' was supposed to be a fun movie.  I was put off by the premise (I generally like my MA films 'serious') but enough people have said it's worth a watch that my prejudice is waning .


----------



## exile (Mar 19, 2007)

Mariachi Joe said:


> I thought Shaoling Soccer was really good too.



I LOVED _Shaolin Soccer_ &#8212;thought it was definitely one of the funniest movies of all time. _Kung Fu Hustle_ was funny too, but there was a kind of lunatic logic to _Shaolin Soccer_ that almost nothing I've seen before does nearly as well... absolutely one of a (very good!) kind...


----------



## Carol (Mar 19, 2007)

I don't think critics care about writing...which is what I care about the most.    I don't bloody care whether a film is "important" or a "must see", I care about whether it's a good story or not.

That being said...the pecs, leather Speedos, and manly men didn't hurt a bit, either


----------

