32 replies to this topic

[Chief of SIS]

While I agree that there is a difference between critic and reviewer, the problem is that both now have the same purpose. There job is basically to inform us if our hard earned money is worth spending on a movie. I would like to think that many critics shun this notion that their work is degraded to such a hollow pursuit, but I think the issue is more that the public has rendered critics' commentaries as reviews when they shouldn't. I always saw actual critics subjugating films to a completely different set of standards than reviewers. Critics seem more adapt and eager to compare films to the overall state of cinema as an organism. Does the film succeed in expressing its motifs? Does it add anything to the state of action/comedy/drama/etc? While it seems reviewers can simply ask "did I enjoy this movie?" "If so or if not, why?"

I think this poses an interesting dilemma for Skyfall. I'm sure as a whole reviewers will enjoy it. They'll throw words around like "nostalgic" "beautiful" "well-acted" and such. Very surface relevant terms. But I think more so that the critics will understand the problems that 'Skyfall' may have. After such a character focused director like Forester failing to a certain degree to put together a fusion of character and Bond film, can a drama minded person like Mendes properly meld together action and emotion? Bond saw a reboot in 06. Some would say it needed one. But now we're 6 years later and 50 years in, does Bond still manage to be relevant and influential in cinema. If so, how has Mendes preserved that. If not, where did Skyfall go wrong? Can the character adapt but stay the same?

As a Bond flick, I am sure 'Skyfall' will be fine. It seems to have enough to please most of us Bond lovers. But what I think will be interesting is the response from the real critics. The ones that are intertwined with the general pulse of cinema. Because in the world of Bournes and Batmen, there is a small part of me that worries that 'Skyfall' will show some age.

[AMC Hornet]

When I was writing reviews for my college paper I trashed "Slapstick of Another Kind' which I maintain was, I'm sorry to say, trash. My editor wouldn't run the piece because the student paper's entertainment section lived on the goodwill of theatres for their press passes. So I learned to write balanced reviews after that, suppressing my own opinion ("If you like medievel sword battles, then Highlander is the movie for you. If you prefer your action movies in a modern setting, then Highlander is still the film for you..."). Never mind that I hated Highlander and that the review should have been written by someone else - a graphic novel aficionado, perhaps.

Ebert and others of his ilk don't have to toe a party line - they're beyond the reach of individual theatre operators. They will continue to receive press passes regardless. And, of course, we on the interweb are also free to express our own opinions, after we have ponied up for our own tickets (or illegal downloads).

Granted, the difference is that pro critics are paid to draw upon their vast knowledge of the film medium in general ("American Ninja 2 was no Out of Africa") while we mere peasants just bray or bleat about whether the film in question met our own, often unrealistic expectations ("DAD sucks! Lee Crapahori has no right to direct so much as a dog food commercial! Purvis and Wade should be set adrift in a leaky boat! Halle Berry can't act! Etc etc!").

My response to all this is to go into every film with an open mind and no expectations. I take every pre-release blurb ("Episode I: The Phantom Menace is going to be the best Star Wars movie ever!") with a healthy dose of iodized salt. Sure, I hope Skyfall will blow my socks off, but I'm not going to go medievel on its buttocks if a dodgy bit of CGI doesn't live up to my exacting standards (what do I know? I can't even import a link to YouTube).

The only time I was ever influenced by a review was when I read about what a wonderful movie A Christmas Story was. I had already seen a TV spot which for some reason was a montage of all the scenes with kids screaming, wailing and crying and had decided to give it a miss, yet my local reviewer was so enamoured with it that I decided to give it a chance. Glad I did.

Sometimes I get so annoyed with teenage fanboy flamers that I will defend a movie they hate and to which I am indifferent just to piss them off. And I never let anyone's patient, well-meant and condescending explanations of how and where I'm wrong influence me (and I try not to lay my own considerable opinion on anyone else as if it's gospel).

On the other hand, I was so appalled by The Hangover - which I only went to see because it was filmed in Las Vegas - that I have no desire to see The Hangover 2, despite its being filmed in Bangkok.

To each their own, I suppose. Diff'rent strokes. Live and let live - or something like that.

[byline]

When I was writing reviews for my college paper I trashed "Slapstick of Another Kind' which I maintain was, I'm sorry to say, trash.

I'm probably the only one on the planet who gave "Network" a bad review. It was one of the first movie reviews I wrote for my high school newspaper. My journalism teacher raised his eyebrows, but ran it anyway. Why did I give it a bad review? I found it too talky. Cut a third of the dialogue, I felt, and it has a lot more impact. I still feel that way (though my respect for the film has increased over time).