Page 1 of 2
#1
I was reading reviews of that new prince of persia movie. I think it looks awesome.

As expected, rotten tomatoes gave it a shit rating. Also, as expected, the public gave it a good rating. Why is it that the public and critcs never seem to agree?

Why do critics get paid to review stuff? Do they make moar money if they give the film a bad review? I don't get it.

I also read a movie review once where the reviewer reffered to it as "the art and science of reviewing a film".....

Can someone telling me how giving your opinion on something is science or art?
#2
Rotten tomatoes doesn't sound like a reliable source if criticism. Find someone you often agree with and ask. It does look awesome though.
...Up to the battlefield to where the spirits walk...
#3
Quote by Haunt3dAng3l
As expected, rotten tomatoes gave it a shit rating. Also, as expected, the public gave it a good rating. Why is it that the public and critcs never seem to agree?



Because when you're more educated on a subject, you tend to see more flaws than someone who isn't. For the same reason the public loves Justin Bieber, but most musicians do not.
Check out my band Disturbed
#4
I told my friend that just about every movie sucks nowadays, and the only critic I trust is myself
Quote by TheQuailman
There's plenty of lesbians that aren't obese. I have videos to prove it.
#5
Quote by StewieSwan
Because when you're more educated on a subject, you tend to see more flaws than someone who isn't. For the same reason the public loves Justin Bieber, but most musicians do not.



Maybe in science. But isn't "good" and "bad" relative?
#7
Quote by StewieSwan
Because when you're more educated on a subject, you tend to see more flaws than someone who isn't. For the same reason the public loves Justin Bieber, but most musicians do not.

the public doesnt... little girls do. what 24 year old dude that isnt a musician do you know that bumps bieber when hes driving down the street?

that movie looks god awful. haha. but i guess its mostly cause most movie reviewers are old and they only like a certain kind of movie. you can pretty much guess which ones are gonna get shit ratings.
#8
Because they look less into the action and special effects and more into the plot and characters.
LARGE TEXT
#9
Quote by Haunt3dAng3l
Maybe in science. But isn't "good" and "bad" relative?



For the most part yes, but a good reviewer is more likely to spot continuity errors, plotholes, and other things that can make a movie 'bad'.
Check out my band Disturbed
#10
Quote by StewieSwan
Because when you're more educated on a subject, you tend to see more flaws than someone who isn't. For the same reason the public loves Justin Bieber, but most musicians do not.

Zing!

Same reason Dan Brown sells millions of books yet many people don't read the classics.
Looking to buy a Fender Jagstang, u sellin?
#11
Critics specifically look for flaws in the movies, if there are too many plot holes, it gets a bad review. So on Rotten Tomatoes, you'd see most movies have a bad rating.

Whereas on IMDB and their rating, which is done mainly by the public and/or fans of the movie, the rating will be higher as they will judge it mostly on is it entertaining or over the top unbelievably ridiculous.
The content of this signature is pretty much irrelevant
#12
They're critics. It's their job to criticize things. If they just said that "holy crap this movie is good", they wouldn't be doing their job. They have to find flaws with things. This makes them pick out problems that normal movie audiences wouldn't. So they make it seem like movies suck. And when they don't criticize them so intensely, it's because the movie is doing something right.

I used to think that critics were just assholes, but now I think they have really good insights onto movies. The ones they say are good, usually are.
Quote by Mike Birbiglia
I went to the doctor, and they found something in my bladder. And whenever they find something, it's never anything good like, "We found something in your bladder AND IT'S SEASON TICKETS TO THE YANKEES!!


Do you folks like folk?
#14
Quote by Haunt3dAng3l
Maybe in science. But isn't "good" and "bad" relative?

No, it really isn't.

People can be more vague about music or art, but film's quality isn't as subjective as you might think.

A critic's job has changed over the years but I consider them still necessary. Say what you will about RT - though disagreements occur between individuals, I rarely take issue with their collected consensus.
#15
According to public sales, Transformer 2 was the best movie in the US last year. Just think about that for a while.

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#17
Quote by Xiaoxi
According to public sales, Transformer 2 was the best movie in the US last year. Just think about that for a while.

That shit sucked. I mean come on, the kid dies and meets robot spirits?

All the stereotype jokes....ugh.
#19
I will look at reviews to see what the general consensus is, but I always take it with a grain of salt. Let's take 2009, for example. Critics loved The Hurt Locker and Avatar, for some reason, but they were nothing special to me. In general, though, critics tend to focus on plot, dialogue, cinematography, etc, while a lot of the general public just likes explosions and steamy sex scenes. They are necessary just to preserve the more cinematic qualities of movies; without them producers would just churn out special effects and nudity.

As for Rotten Tomatoes, I disagree with them occassionally. The only real issue I have came when I saw that City of God is only at 92%, while How to Train Your Dragon is straddling 98%. I guess that's just me being butthurt though.
Last edited by iro-bot31 at May 29, 2010,
#20
Roger Ebert 4 Liiffee! Critics are necessary to make sure that standards are met, great works shine, and crap doesn't see the light of day.
You have to imagine that many directors think about what some critics will say (namely Ebert) from time to time, and hopefully that doesn't scare them or make the wrong decision, but rather make sure that they are working to the best of their ability.
I (still, after everything) believe in Billy Corgan.
#21
Quote by Haunt3dAng3l
Can someone telling me how giving your opinion on something is science or art?


Why do you have a Nietzsche quote in your sig then?
#22
Quote by StewieSwan
For the most part yes, but a good reviewer is more likely to spot continuity errors, plotholes, and other things that can make a movie 'bad'.

I suspect it's mostly a cliche story, bad acting and overdone SFX in this case.
Gear:
- Bugera 333
- VJ & VJ cab
- Jackson JS30
- TS9

Bugera Users Militia. We are horrible people. With a sprinkler fetish.
~ BUM: For all things extinguishing

Rackmount Tube Amp Project <<< Updates!
#23
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Quote by JacobTheMe
JacobTheEdit: Hell yeah Ruben.

Quote by Jackal58
I met Jesus once. Cocksucker still owes me 20 bucks.
#24
It's quite simple really, it's the same reason a comedy rarely gets a good critic review but everybody loves it. A normal person will rate a movie by how much they enjoyed it, so Prince of Persia is filled with explosions and fights and such, making it fun. Critics prefer to rate the story, which in this one I must assume bland, linear, and one-dimensional.

A movie you will find that both the critics and general public agree is awesome is Star Wars (The original) Critics loved it because of the unconventional directing, good story, and of course the reason everybody else loved it was because of the awesome effects.
#25
Quote by MyLittlePwny831
I told my friend that just about every movie sucks nowadays, and the only critic I trust is myself


this. everything is either a remake or a sequel of a remake nowadays and it gets old. most movies aren't worth the trouble watching anymore but most people i know still love to watch them and say they're great...
Quote by Duff_McGee
Everyone knows that the day the Metallica ends, the world ends.
#26
Quote by joshua029
this. everything is either a remake or a sequel of a remake nowadays and it gets old. most movies aren't worth the trouble watching anymore but most people i know still love to watch them and say they're great...

Soooo true. It seems like the originality in movies these past few years is really lacking.

I mean they're remaking Karate Kid and Red Dawn? Wtf is this?
LARGE TEXT
#27
MY friend saw it and told me it was shit. Shocking. Awful. He implored us not to waste our money on seeing it.
❝Don't be afraid of death, but of an inadequate life❞
Bertolt Bretcht


#28
Not always true, critics loved Avatar and so did everyone else.

Critics get paid because they know what they are doing. People (should) value their opinion higher than most individuals.

If you were interested in extreme black metal, you would probably ask someone from an extreme black metal band rather than a 13 year old girl who listens to Miley Cyrus.
#30
Quote by Don_Humpador
Why do you have a Nietzsche quote in your sig then?


I never claimed he was scientific or artistic. Now that you bring up the quote though, I guess it fits with the thread.
#31
Critics (usually) know what they're talking about more than non-critics. It's like telling an excellent audio engineer and an average Joe to listen to the same song. The audio engineer will notice if something is overproduced, not mixed well, not tracked properly, or not mastered well. The average listener probably won't notice.

EDIT:
Quote by Random3
Not always true, critics loved Avatar and so did everyone else.

Not me. Most of the people I know hated it. In fact, the only people I know who liked it are super sheltered teen girls who aren't allowed to watch R-rated movies. I can't think of a single redeeming point of the entire movie.
Last edited by TheChaz at May 29, 2010,
#32
I tend to agree with critics, Rotten Tomatoes is always pretty reliable IMO.
I'LL PUNCH A DONKEY IN THE STREETS OF GALWAY
#33
Quote by Haunt3dAng3l
I never claimed he was scientific or artistic. Now that you bring up the quote though, I guess it fits with the thread.


His texts are in books. Books are an art form, no? Writing is an art form, no?

Therefore being able to write a review based on knowledge and opinion is an art form in itself.
#34
Quote by Don_Humpador
His texts are in books. Books are an art form, no? Writing is an art form, no?

Therefore being able to write a review based on knowledge and opinion is an art form in itself.

Writing isn't only an art form. It's not an art form if it's used as a source of technical knowledge (textbooks, manuals, etc.).
#35
Quote by TheChaz
Not me. Most of the people I know hated it. In fact, the only people I know who liked it are super sheltered teen girls who aren't allowed to watch R-rated movies. I can't think of a single redeeming point of the entire movie.



Perhaps the fact that it is the first step in a new way to experience movies. Sure the story and acting aren't fantastic, but that's not what the movie is about. It's about making the person feel like they're in the movie, which to me, it did. The Avatar haters are watching the movie for the wrong reasons. They're no different than someone listening to a Beatles song for complex theory and incredible musicianship.

The original Star Wars didn't have the most original story btw.
Check out my band Disturbed
Last edited by StewieSwan at May 29, 2010,
#36
Quote by iro-bot31
I will look at reviews to see what the general consensus is, but I always take it with a grain of salt. Let's take 2009, for example. Critics loved The Hurt Locker and Avatar, for some reason, but they were nothing special to me. In general, though, critics tend to focus on plot, dialogue, cinematography, etc, while a lot of the general public just likes explosions and steamy sex scenes. They are necessary just to preserve the more cinematic qualities of movies; without them producers would just churn out special effects and nudity.

As for Rotten Tomatoes, I disagree with them occassionally. The only real issue I have came when I saw that City of God is only at 92%, while How to Train Your Dragon is straddling 98%. I guess that's just me being butthurt though.

This is the approach I take when listening to critics. Sometimes I end up liking movies that they wouldn't recomend, sometimes I don't.
"The rule of law -- it must be held high! And if it falls you pick it up and hold it even higher!" - Hercule Poirot

© Soul Power
#38
Quote by StewieSwan
The original Star Wars didn't have the most original story btw.

Yes, but it's still a good film despite the Kurosawa riff.

Though the 3D effect wasn't as immersive as I'd hoped, I thought Avatar was generally successful and was impressed by the quality of the effects throughout. But if someone asks my opinion on its quality, what'll spring to mind first is the poor script and predictable story - as they should be the foundations of any movie.

I've read enough film magazines over the years to know that with hindsight, critics can change their minds. Once good movies are made with Avatar's technology, history will look back on it as a revolution in cinema, but a poor film.
#39
Quote by Haunt3dAng3l
Maybe in science. But isn't "good" and "bad" relative?


Subjective I think is the word you're looking for...and yeah it is...for instance...I hate Avatar but everyone seems to love it.
#40
Quote by joshua029
this. everything is either a remake or a sequel of a remake nowadays and it gets old. most movies aren't worth the trouble watching anymore but most people i know still love to watch them and say they're great...

Reason it seems that way is because no-one remembers shit films.

Also, according to studies, the public agree more with the critics than disagree.
Page 1 of 2