Do you take Movie Critics Seriously?
 

Like the Video Game Critics as I made last time, do you guys let the movie critics (IMDB, rotten Tomatoes & such) judges some movies that actually determine what you spend your money for movie tickets on? :confused:

IF you guys watched some videos from Nostalgia Critic, Linkara @ Spoony from TGWTG, you'll know what it is.

To me I'd like to look for some movies depends on what critic judges. IF that movie sucks like 'The Last Airbender' last time, I feel hopeless. Seriously, I'd really want to watched Tron Legacy so bad but you'll curious because you want to let the critic judge first by looking at their internet review blog, then you watch. IF that movie blows, I feel like it makes me wanna 'avoid this movie' at all cost till you feel hopeless to watch due to their 'Bad Acting' sequences. I mean what is wrong with me these days. This is just plain ridiculous to me.

The only critics I take seriously are the average viewers, not the ones who do it as a profession. On the whole, however, I feel the same about them (professional critics) as I do game critics and don't really bother with them. There are critics who generally give low ratings all the time, even movies worthy of mention. For instance, I saw someone give a 2 (out of 5) star rating to Little Fockers, and having seen that movie, I really think it deserved more praise than that.

I’ve disagreed with critics on many occasions, but when worrying about whether or not to spend 13-20$ (or more) at the theatres, then I will definitely take their opinions into consideration. If a film is critically reviled (Last Airbender, the new Nightmare on Elm Street, Yogi Bear, etc), then why waste your money on something you may or may not like (depending on the genre, etc)? I go to the theatres to be entertained (and more), not waste my money in an ill advised pseudo-Russian Roulette while looking for a film to watch. If I want to see something I think will be stupid, I’ll just wait for the feature to come out on DVD, then I’ll only waste 3-5$ and can talk through the feature instead of being confined to a seat in displeasure.

IMDB is my main source... But only for the user reviews. They often vary a lot but still provide insight of what the movie is about. So far, I've yet to go wrong.

The only real critic one I follow is MovieBob over at the Escapist. He's very level-headed and we seem to have similar tastes. Every other professional critic I usually come across trashes stuff I like and can't get off their nostalgia glasses nor their snob attitude (though I suffer from it myself sometimes...).

In the end, though, it's still peer reviews I trust the most, much like what my reply was in the game critic thread. Especially peers I know.

i look at rotten tomatoes ratings before i pick a movie but thats about it

I only take RT seriously. Usually female critics.

Rarely read them because I can't judge a movie based on someone's opinion, but I do break this rule when I get influenced by regular viewers if there is a huge hype about a particular movie. Same for the trailers as it can be made in such a way that I get fired up only to be disappointed when I actually watch it, or vice versa. Sometimes I do read the reviews and regardless how the rating is I can still pick the movie up.

Rather in the same way I choose anime, there are certain *people* I tend to trust because they tend to use the sort of criteria I use in reviewing movies. But I tend to avoid most movie critics any more because they routinely spoil plot elements, have vendettas against particular actors/directors, don't understand the genre, or they're just butt-dumb uneducated on the elements of the movie.

Some of the best reviews in terms of predicting my view of the movie in question are interestingly from Netflix or Amazon anymore.

i just look at the trailer,

Not really.

I mean, I might read a few to get a general gist, but movies have a large subjective component to them, so even if something is negatively panned, I might still like it. I might acknowledge the flaws, but insist on liking it just because. And I might dislike something that critics are praising, just because it's not my type of movie.

Thing is, though, I can still like or dislike something while acknowledging the fair points made. For instance, Final Fantasy X I generally like playing through on occasion and Tidus didn't quite annoy me as much as he did other people, but I can see the plot holes Spoony pointed out.

as a non-game example, Tron and Tron:Legacy. I really liked the former, even though some critics might say it's not really a good movie. On the other hand, I really didn't like T:L, because the plot holes and changed setting didn't make me think of Tron at all, didn't really feature Tron, and the story was uninteresting. It was like they were trying too hard to copy something else, and left behind what made the original Tron good to the cult following it had.

Usually, if I am already familiar with the story the movie is based on, I will look at some of the director's previous works. Were those movies any good? Was the story handled well?

If not, I'm not going to waste my money.

Other than that, I just look at the trailer. My first impression of it will usually decide whether I'll watch it in theatre or not.

Well I'm grounded enough in my own thoughts about how I consider a movie good or not that it helps to read a good handful of reviews out there from critics and match them up against what I usually look for in a movie.


I also tend to sometimes look up the history of the staff involved with the movie. All these factors help me decide whether to see the movie or not.

I've never understood people's need to listen to critics, what makes certain people's opinions more important than others?

Only critic I follow closely is the Nostalgia Critic. Sure there are times I've disagreed with him. For example, I loved "We're Back! A Dinosaur Story" and enjoyed "Rock-A-Doodle", but he disliked them greatly.

However, he DOES make good points about the movies he reviews AND he's hilariously funny to boot. So even if I don't agree with his opinion it's still very fun to watch him.

And yes there is the occasion where he convinces me there's some REALLY bad films out there, like his latest one for Neverending Story 3. Good god that movie looked like an absolute slap in the face to the franchise.

I think it's one of the reasons I like RT so much - there're so many reviews collected from a variety of critics and that really helps form a general picture of the movie. I never take a single reviewer seriously though, you just can't judge a movie through one person's perspective... but as someone who likes to analyse and critique things I respect movie reviewers and their opinions a lot and I always read reviews before seeing a movie.

Nope, not a chance. I don't take movie critics seriously...'cause they're wrong and it's their own opinion about the movie critics.

There are a few movie critics (writing for a few local papers) whose opinions I've learned to appreciate and a couple whose reviews I tend to read inversely. :)

All in all I try to stay clear of the "serious" ones. They tend not to review the films but attempt to polish their own image as intellectuals which is not something that entertainment generally should be all about.

I'll also say that there are movie reviews out there that I enjoyed greatly more than the films themselves. :D

Good old Mr. Plinkett, his reviews are always better than the film he is reviewing.

I use reviews as base for afterthoughts or critical discussion, seldom for looking at what to watch next. Whether I want to look at the general impression the critics have given a movie, before driving down to the cinema, usually depends on the type of movie, my mood, finances etc.

Though I must say, I thought the point of a good movie critique isn't necessarily to raise good or bad points, for which we arbitrarily decide whether they were made in either good or bad taste (or even malice), but rather foster critical thought in its readers and potentially raise additional questions the movie failed to convey to the majority of us effectively.

If you want a feel-good review, a confirmation that your money wasn't spent unwisely, then I guess that's one function a review can serve, but why read reviews at all if you hate the idea of disagreeing with them? Why even begin to fathom the idea of trusting some (self-)acclaimed expert if you don't want to subscribe to his negative value system? Perhaps the biggest question a negative review can expose is whether the reader himself lacks critical distance?