Film critics personal views

[bouncingbrick]

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.

[professoralan]

I am interested in the topic, as well, and also the side issue of how do "real critics" like Ebert (and Tyler) feel about aggregation or crowd-sourcing sites like Rotten Tomatoes --- what do critics think about the concept generally, or of that site and how it operates in particular?

[bouncingbrick]

Apr 19, 2010 8:38:38 GMT -5 professoralan said:

I am interested in the topic, as well, and also the side issue of how do "real critics" like Ebert (and Tyler) feel about aggregation or crowd-sourcing sites like Rotten Tomatoes --- what do critics think about the concept generally, or of that site and how it operates in particular?

I actually wanted to start a thread about this. Personally I like RT and site like that because it's pretty much impossible to find a critic you can really rely on as everyone has such different taste (my dad thinks Wild Wild West is a good flick). But I feel i can at least get a decent idea of a film by seeing the tomato rating, if not all the time, most of the time it's a fair representation.

Plus they have an awesome show on Current! ;D

[Tyler Smith]

Apr 19, 2010 8:38:38 GMT -5 professoralan said:

I am interested in the topic, as well, and also the side issue of how do "real critics" like Ebert (and Tyler) feel about aggregation or crowd-sourcing sites like Rotten Tomatoes --- what do critics think about the concept generally, or of that site and how it operates in particular?

I'm pretty much fine with such sites, provided that the users of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are willing to go deeper into the critics being quoted. For example, rather than simply looking at how "fresh" a movie is, I will actually read a lot of the reviews. That, to me, is why the site is very useful; it's a very user-friendly way to see a lot of reviews and discover new critics whose opinion you might agree with.

[Tyler Smith]

Apr 18, 2010 9:25:10 GMT -5 bouncingbrick said:

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...
@ 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.

The episode to which you're referring is episode 134, in which we discuss the role of subjectivity in film criticism.
As far as the overall nature of your question, it's pretty tough. I didn't see the second Transformers film, but I did see the first one. I would give it a single star, not because it doesn't succeed at what it's trying to do, but because I have very little respect for what it's trying to do.
And this, of course, is the essence of what you're talking about. A critic (and an audience member) has to ask himself many questions, not only about the intent of a filmmaker, but also the execution. Some critics are willing to stop there, and I have no problem with that. But, for me, I also like to look not only at the intention, but the nature of that intention. Is the intention to entertain or pander? Is it to illuminate or sermonize?
In doing so, I find myself unable to get on board with the Transformers films, because, while the execution is fine (though that's debatable, too), I find myself questioning Michael Bay's intention with the film. If it's just about giving the audience what he feels they want, then I can't get behind that. I don't respect it, which is completely my personal choice; I don't expect others to have the same expectations as I do.
Lest I write several more paragraphs about this subject, I'll just end there. A critic's personal views about what makes for a good movie and what a filmmaker should try to do are entirely his own. He shouldn't necessarily be judged for that, nor should he judge others for not feeling the same way.
All that said, I found Ebert's review of Kick-Ass (a film I haven't seen yet, by the way) to be a little too knee-jerk. I think he imposed a bit too much on the film, missing the intention of the filmmaker entirely.