Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

stephenfollows.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 421 posts

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#301

Post by djur »

casefields wrote: post #294
unfocussed_mike wrote: post #207

No, I don't think so. I think they get it largely right. How many reviews of movies have you seen from a senior, experienced reviewer got a film really totally wrong? I don't mean "hated a movie that genre fans will like", or "dunked on a trashy movie", because in almost all cases those reviews acknowledge their biases and even the people who like that sort of thing will get the picture. I mean: really wrong. In rece…

>How many reviews of movies have you seen from a senior, experienced reviewer got a film really totally wrong? Tons. Even legendary critics like Ebert got movies wrong. He gave thumbs down to Full Metal Jacket, Blue Velvet, The Thing, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Usual Suspects, Ace Ventura, Tommy Boy, and many more.

I was nodding along with you until you got to Ace Ventura, which is probably regarded worse today than it was at the time.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#303

Post by stackbutterflow »

bananamerica wrote: post #219
cwkoss wrote: post #186

Critic reviews are prescriptive: what they think the masses should watch. User reviews are retrospective: how much did they actually enjoy watching the movie. I think there has always been a fundamental disconnect, in that critics think the masses should be watching 'smarter', 'more artistic' or, less flatteringly, more pretentious movies. The world has become a lot more political over the past couple decades. I woul…

I'm a film major. I wrote about film on print for quite a while. This was not in the US. I did want to prescribe, but not to the masses. To other crítics, to the pedantic purists that thought Bruce Lee was unimportant and Spielberg formulaic and uninspired, and that unless your name is David Lynch anything American is worse by default. People who thought anything with emotion was trash for the masses. And I was there…

A counter argument to your Shakespearean argument, movies are made once, recorded once, and can then be viewed anytime anywhere.

Whereas a play exists at one point in time and space. It has to be remade in every city and every year.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#304

Post by CrispinS »

switchbak wrote: post #271
asciimov wrote: post #248

The average of film critics shouldn't be in sync with the average of audiences, and that is okay! Critics watch movies from a different perspective of an audience member. Some really get pulled in by the technical details of the film while others are drawn to the story. Meanwhile the average movie goer's sole concern is entertainment. The best way to use movie critics is like a discovery service. Find several (4 or 5…

There's times when I want to know the inside-baseball angle of a film, that can be really interesting, but those times are rare for me (and most people, I'd wager). When critics diverge so far from the role of answering the question "what's a movie I would enjoy" then no, they're not doing their job. I'm not sure exactly what job they're doing now, but I'd say by and large they aren't doing anything I'm interested in…

> When critics diverge so far from the role of answering the question "what's a movie I would enjoy" then no, they're not doing their job.

There's no critic that can predict what you'll like, since tastes in films differ so much.

I have a friend I don't discuss movies with much, because we disagree on pretty much every single one we've both seen; it's literally impossible for a single critic to directly tell us both what we'd like.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#305

Post by cgrealy »

A couple of things:

People today confuse reviews with criticism. The two are not the same. A review is a consumer recommendation, i.e. should you pay to see this movie? Criticism is discussion of a piece of art. Both are inherently subjective.

Second, how many new movies did you watch this year? I'm guessing for most people, it's >10 (data seems to suggest it's even lower). If you are a film critic and you watch 50 movies a year, you're more likely to gravitate towards the less bombastic, crowd-pleasing movies. Same with games. If you've played 50 FPS's, then that indie-platformer is more likely to grab your attention.

Personally, I like guys like Mark Kermode, who can say "this movie was complete and utter nonsense and I had a great time" or "this was a really smart movie, but it just didn't work".

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#306

Post by Retric »

nmat wrote: post #213
watwut wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Critic reviews are prescriptive: what they think the masses should watch. This does not seem to be accurate description of movie reviews I have read. Like, not at all.

Part of a critic's job is to educate people. A good critic can explain why a certain film is groundbreaking and why another film is recycling ideas that have been done thousands of times. The critic's end-goal is to push the industry to make better films not because of critics, but because the public demands it.

That’s hardly the only model. If you find a critic that has similar tastes as you then you can just follow their recommendations. That’s a relatively new thing as newspaper reviews where focused on a much wider audience, but with the internet you have a lot more choices for reviewers.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#307

Post by pronlover723 »

majormajor wrote: post #273
humanrebar wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Movie critics tend to give mediocre movies a bump when they like the message or think it otherwise is politically desirable. Similarly, critics tend to downplay movies that have a more... blue collar?... appeal, no matter the artistry or purpose of the film. For instance, Taken gets 59% with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. It was a hugely important and impactful film. It basically spawned/revived a whole subgenre of acti…

> For instance, Taken gets 59% with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. It was a hugely important and impactful film. It basically spawned/revived a whole subgenre of action film. I wouldn't be surprised if 41% of the general population didn't much like Taken either. I've never had a desire to watch it a second time, for instance, which places it pretty far down my personal list of movies I've seen. So you can think it's "to…

> I've never had a desire to watch it a second time

Is that a good criteria for whether a film is good or not. There are plenty of films I never want to watch again but I thought they were good. Conversely, there's are arguably stupid but fun films I watch over and over even though they are full of flaws, bad acting, bad writing, etc...

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#308

Post by cgrealy »

chrismeller wrote: post #28

So the main takeaway here for me is that more low budget (“indie” or “film festival”, my terms) movies are getting to theaters and being loved by critics, but people hate them. My wife and I have a rule in our household. Anything that was awarded at a film festival (Sundance in particular) I will not watch with her. This analysis backs up the feelings I’ve had that lead to that agreement… Any movie that does well wit…

>> Any movie that does well with critics or at a film festival has “a strong message” or “teaches us something”.

Seems arbitrarily limiting. I'd say you're missing out on some pretty cool and entertaining movies. If you don't like arthouse movies, that's obviously your choice... just seems a bit silly to not watch a movie because someone else liked it.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#309

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

acchow wrote: post #236
jknecht wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it has always been this way. I worked in a video rental store in the 90's, and every movie was either a military story (Vietnam: bad, Russians: bad, current US military: good), courtroom drama, divorce drama, or high school / college comedy. A few decent psychological thrillers and campy horror flicks too. Basically a never-ending stream of the same movie with different actors. Hollywood has never been accuse…

> At least in the 90's, most movies were around 90 minutes. Nowadays, if it's less than 2.5 hours, it's a minor miracle. I didn't even notice this inflation in movie length until I went back to try to watch older 90 minute movies. They feel short now, almost unfulfilling. Gladiator (2000) at 2h35m feels like the right pace. I think after Game of Thrones (ex the last 2 seasons), I'm used to more drawn out scenes and d…

I think it has more to do with directors not planning effectively for runtime and no longer being constrained by the cost of shooting on film.

Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?

#310

Post by AdamJacobMuller »

yason wrote: post #238

Huh, have critics ever been in sync with audiences? For my whole life, I've learned and then observed that critics evaluate primarily the cinematic quality of a film, i.e. does the film as a piece of art work as a whole when considering acting, directing, screenwriting... This is generally a different axis from entertainment which is what people often care about when looking for something to see. If a critic likes a…

> have critics ever been in sync with audiences?

I think there was a smaller gap in a few respects.

Firstly I think the film industry as a whole has polarized into "art" and "entertainment" films with too little crossover. Films can and should be artful and entertaining.

Secondly I think critics have become too polarized to criticize films as being "low-effort" or "low-value" entertainment films. There's a reason why people go see blockbusters, they enjoy them!

Finally, I think unfortunately some audiences too quickly dismiss some films as "too artsy" or "too intelligent" or "not wanting to think." There's a lot of fun movies out there which don't fit into normal boxes!

Sadly I don't really see that gap closing. I agree with someone in another thread which said that there's much better and more varied content on "TV" (streaming/etc) in medium-form series. Give me a great limited-run series like the queen's gambit any day! it's the perfect intersection of artsy and fun and high brow and low brow!

Post reply on HN