Post by bouncingbrick on Apr 18, 2010 9:25:10 GMT -5
I think you guys already did a show about this, but with the release of Kick-Ass I just thought it's a great time to bring it up.
Is it possible for a critic to give a positive review of a film they morally object to if it stands as a quality film? Tyler mentioned how Kick-Ass got a one star review by Ebert which I find very hard to accept that he's reviewing it based only on it's merits as a film. As the director's third film it's extremely competently made and as a comedy it certainly has merits, but because there's a 13-year-old girl using the c-word people may be put off by this sort of thing.
Now I understand that there are types of movies that aren't within certain people's personal taste's, but as a critic I always assumed you'd have to have at least a touch of objectivity when reviewing a movie. For example, I hate the Transformers movies, but I could easily give them a 2-2 1/2 star review and concede that there are tons of people out there who would like it and I can admit that there are certain aspects of those films that work, namely the action sequences.
The problem here arises mostly from the fact that we can't see the motivations of the critics at work so we can't know for sure why Kick-Ass would get a very low score from some, especially when it currently has a 78% over at Rotten Tomatoes.
The reason I started this thread was simple, if you trust a critic, like Ebert for example, but may be the type of person who finds Kick-Ass to be a lot of fun, you may be missing out on something enjoyable.
So, questions: Can a critic review a film without allowing personal moral's or taste interfere? Does a review actually benefit from a certain amount of non-objectivity? Can you trust a critic who reviews a film based completely on the film without bringing personal feelings to the table (if such a person exists)?
@ Tyler I'm pretty sure you guys did a show on this, it's tough to remember the 80-90 shows I've listened to over the last 9 months, but I figured it's topical right now.
Is it possible for a critic to give a positive review of a film they morally object to if it stands as a quality film? Tyler mentioned how Kick-Ass got a one star review by Ebert which I find very hard to accept that he's reviewing it based only on it's merits as a film. As the director's third film it's extremely competently made and as a comedy it certainly has merits, but because there's a 13-year-old girl using the c-word people may be put off by this sort of thing.
Now I understand that there are types of movies that aren't within certain people's personal taste's, but as a critic I always assumed you'd have to have at least a touch of objectivity when reviewing a movie. For example, I hate the Transformers movies, but I could easily give them a 2-2 1/2 star review and concede that there are tons of people out there who would like it and I can admit that there are certain aspects of those films that work, namely the action sequences.
The problem here arises mostly from the fact that we can't see the motivations of the critics at work so we can't know for sure why Kick-Ass would get a very low score from some, especially when it currently has a 78% over at Rotten Tomatoes.
The reason I started this thread was simple, if you trust a critic, like Ebert for example, but may be the type of person who finds Kick-Ass to be a lot of fun, you may be missing out on something enjoyable.
So, questions: Can a critic review a film without allowing personal moral's or taste interfere? Does a review actually benefit from a certain amount of non-objectivity? Can you trust a critic who reviews a film based completely on the film without bringing personal feelings to the table (if such a person exists)?
@ Tyler I'm pretty sure you guys did a show on this, it's tough to remember the 80-90 shows I've listened to over the last 9 months, but I figured it's topical right now.