General Movie Thread

[dave from knoxville]

Or perhaps you just don't hold the keys to the universal opinion about what's good? (I really liked ...Kevin, disliked the other 2.)

[Kormodd]

Perhaps. I didn't mean to sound all-knowing. It's just that some of these movies seem so objectively bad that the positive reviews seem almost bizarre. And I like far-fetched theories, so payola sounds like a good explanation.

[Kormodd]

And further proof of my stupidity is that I keep remembering the Kevin movie as "Let's Talk About Kevin," which makes it sound like a romantic comedy.

[dave from knoxville]

"How About that Kevin, Sheesh"

[Bryan]

My pet theory is that mainstream movie critics tend to like the sorts of things that make their jobs seem important: middlebrow issue movies, historical dramas, literary adaptations. And likewise, they resent any movie that makes their jobs seem silly, like comedies, which almost never get good reviews. In the era of internet reviewers this has changed a little bit, but you still see it in reviews by the lamestream media.

[masterofsparks]

My pet theory is that mainstream movie critics tend to like the sorts of things that make their jobs seem important: middlebrow issue movies, historical dramas, literary adaptations. And likewise, they resent any movie that makes their jobs seem silly, like comedies, which almost never get good reviews. In the era of internet reviewers this has changed a little bit, but you still see it in reviews by the lamestream media.

And they can't resist movies that the majority of their audience can't make head or tail of, unless the audience member in question wishes to seem culturally enlightened. This year's example is The Master.

[cavorting with nudists]

My pet theory is that mainstream movie critics tend to like the sorts of things that make their jobs seem important: middlebrow issue movies, historical dramas, literary adaptations.

(cough, cough) Woody Allen (cough)

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

I think Bryan's right.  While I'm sure there's some payola (in the pre-blogspot days I was once approached by a now-defunct indie-movie company to become a "movie critic" with the sole purpose of upping their Rotten Tomatoes rating), no serious major reviewer would risk it.  Also likely is the fact that critics want to differentiate themselves from the pack; thus, you get the guy who'll go out on a limb and say "Luck" was a work of brilliance, just to get you to keep reading.

[masterofsparks]

Also likely is the fact that critics want to differentiate themselves from the pack; thus, you get the guy who'll go out on a limb and say "Luck" was a work of brilliance, just to get you to keep reading.

Armond White has made a career of this.

[Smelodies]

My pet theory is that mainstream movie critics tend to like the sorts of things that make their jobs seem important: middlebrow issue movies, historical dramas, literary adaptations. And likewise, they resent any movie that makes their jobs seem silly, like comedies, which almost never get good reviews. In the era of internet reviewers this has changed a little bit, but you still see it in reviews by the lamestream media.

And they can't resist movies that the majority of their audience can't make head or tail of, unless the audience member in question wishes to seem culturally enlightened. This year's example is The Master.

Yes, that was pointless.

[not that clay]

Mainstream movie critics at this point are mostly unemployed.

[nec13]

My pet theory is that mainstream movie critics tend to like the sorts of things that make their jobs seem important: middlebrow issue movies, historical dramas, literary adaptations. And likewise, they resent any movie that makes their jobs seem silly, like comedies, which almost never get good reviews. In the era of internet reviewers this has changed a little bit, but you still see it in reviews by the lamestream media.

And they can't resist movies that the majority of their audience can't make head or tail of, unless the audience member in question wishes to seem culturally enlightened. This year's example is The Master.

Or the entirety of Jean-Luc Godard's output post-1967.

Although, truth be told, I don't care much for his pre-1967 output either.

[buffcoat]

Or the entirety of Jean-Luc Godard's output post-1967.

Although, truth be told, I don't care much for his pre-1967 output either.

Well, he was a better captain than Kirk, and don't even get me started on Janeway.

What?

[B_Buster]

My date and I laughed openly throughout. I was sure the critics would hate it.

But I felt stupid when I got home and saw the rave reviews for it. Then I saw the IMDB forums where teenagers were saying it was the most meaningful movie they'd ever seen, much in the same way I might have after seeing The Breakfast Club way back when.

But even though it wasn't for me, I thought the dialogue and acting were conspicuously bad. Has anyone else seen it?

Critics are ridiculous. See: overwhelmingly positive reviews of pieces of trash We Need To Talk About Kevin, Avatar, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. There has to be some payola involved in the making of these reviews, right?

Check out the raves for Django Unchained if you need more evidence of this.

[nec13]

Has anyone here seen Looper? I'm a fan of Rian Johnson's work, but despite all the plaudits the film seemed to receive, I came away somewhat disappointed.