Are full time critics worth paying attention to?
They give their working life attention to movies. This is very different from you, who give your free time attention to it.
They perceive movies in an entirely different way from the average person.
Do you find value in their opinions, or do you rather get movie opinions and reviews from people who watch them in free time as well?
I just use review scores as a basic starting point to decide if i want to see a movie or not. Obviously if i see lots of reviews giving a movie a shit score like 5/10 i won't even bother, so i guess critics do have a lot of influence on me
>>70406234
no, i just take 'em in consideration after i watch the movie
>>70406234
I was overjoyed when I heard on /tv/ that this charlatan had finally died, but I was also saddened by the fact that he hadn't suffered that much before deciding that he could insult film criticism no longer. The pain and suffering that he went through is only a fraction of the evil that he inflicted on the millions of cinematically illiterate teenagers. When I found out that the old fart had finally decided to not assault the public with his adolescent approach to art, I pulled off the framed picture of Armond White from my wall, kissed it reverently, and immediately embarked on a Korine marathon. Good riddance, you jawless hack.
>>70406234
Most older critics like Ebert actually talked about the movies and encouraged people to watch foreign and arthouse films, and didn't just meme around all day, so I respect them more than you fa/tv/irgins.
>>70406286
Is there a plebbier way to watch film?
I usually don't, but this man is critic kino
Yeah, dummy. If you you figure out that a guy has similar taste to you then you can use their reviews for information about movies you might like.
>>70406234
there's a point between just watching blockbusters and having a deep enough knowledge of cinema to know what'll be good where you need critics to shepherd you to interesting new films, which is vital, and anyone who says "fuck critics" is usually stuck at the blockbuster stage forever
>>70406286
The problem with that approach is that you'll miss out on a lot of gems ahead of its time. You're also hindering your personal critical eye, but to each his own.
>>70406341
based kermode
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeQeHstrsc
>>70406234
They don't really, they just pretend they do.
Critics just give you a false implication of their reviews not being biased which obviously isn't true.
They can point out obvious things like the quality of craftsmanship that went into the production or how original the premise is compared to other movies or if they do certain things better or worse than similar movies but they can never really be objective.
If you truly like movies you make an opinion for yourself.
>>70406442
Interesting films don't need critics to spread. Not condemning them entirely but your blockbuster logic is flawed. Too much dependence on them without thinking for yourself and questioning them is idiotic.
>>70406442
>anyone who says "fuck critics" is usually stuck at the blockbuster stage forever
Because you totally can't do your own research to find good movies, right?
>>70406298
This.
Ebert was also too generous towards the end of his life. Film critics are terrible about being subjective, and on top of that, paid reviews are obviously a thing just like in any industry.
>>70406234
I don't think movies are worth giving a detailed review of.
It shouldn't take that much to determine for yourself whether you like it or not.
Doesn't really matter to me what any critic say about it.
I can watch a movie and find things I like about it, of course.
Everyone's taste is different, so if I'm intrigued
by something, I'll watch it and determine for myself.
A movie critic is usually way more immersed in his sceptical and detailed view on movies in
general, so in truth, their opinion really doesn't cater to the usual plebs who watch movies anyway.
Other than the new star wars I don't think I've seen a new movie in probably 3 years.
>>70406872
>It shouldn't take that much to determine for yourself whether you like it or not.
Things take you by surprise though. Sometimes a movie's premise or trailer doesn't really correspond to what the actual movie's like and we need critics to help us with that sometimes.
I don't think anyone literally gets told what to think of a movie by a critic. They just use them as a guide. You don't really get help from /tv/ which is more concerned with memes than anything else about a movie.
>>70406234
>Are full time critics worth paying attention to?
Ebert was. Not so much anymore. The fact that Chris "Zod's Snapped Neck" Stuckman is allowed on Rotten Tomatoes shows how low the standards are these days.
>>70409032
That's true, I can agree with this, although, as I said, if I watch a trailer and the movie gives me an impression, I'll just watch it.
What I am trying to say is that it's just a movie, and whether or not I watch it is very unimportant, no matter what any critic says beforehand.
>>70406234
the only film 'critics' ever worth reading are those that have a combination of rare traits:
-superb writer
-good thinker
-insightful
l-extremely dedicated
-emotionally and personally engaged (with whatever film they're watching)
-transgressive/morally open( this means they go to films with an open mind, even those of borderline pornography, exploitation and so on)
-not having fallen in narcissism (this excludes 99.9% of writers/journos)
The only one that fulfilled this criteria is Ebert. And even he got it wrong and wrote a lot of crap reviews as well. He's the best, if you should read anyone, read him.
The real key to film 'criticism', is that it should be anything but. Film 'criticism' should never be an evaluation, a report, a score out of 10 on what a film was. That's crap and no one cares about that shit. What Ebert did, was write an original piece about his own thoughts and feelings. What he did was *literature*, it was not 'film criticism'. And that's why it was good.
>>70410217
I agree with this, only because Ebert admitted most of his mistakes and would reassign movies different ratings years later. Until he died, I would only rarely see a movie he didn't strongly recommend (maybe once or twice a year).
In general movie critics are worthless. You don't need someone else to think for you, and 99% of them are hacks who just spew bullshit.
>>70406234
not young ones
they don't have a broad enough experience to determine good from great
>>70406234
Take their opinion with a grain of salt, every reviewer has been wrong at one time or another.
>>70410217
You forgot active knowledge of how a film is made and analytical.
