Critics or just haters?

So, I am a massive movie buff, and honestly, if I had even a fraction more free time on my hands, I’d probably spend my entire paycheck at the local AMC or renting Blu-rays online... which I suppose explains why I find myself constantly debating cinema with just about everyone I meet.
To be honest, looking back at everything I've ever watched, there are a handful of films that I can confidently label as absolute disasters. But then, when I hear someone say something like, "Spider-Man 2 is just mindless junk because there isn't enough plot," it really gets under my skin...
I just can't wrap my head around that logic, because when I sit down to watch something, I know exactly what kind of experience I'm signing up for. If I’m heading out to see Hulk or Spider-Man, I’m certainly not expecting some gritty, hyper-realistic drama; I’m there to see how incredible the visual effects can be. And if I'm in the mood for something like Bad Boys, I'm looking for laughs, high-speed car chases, and plenty of action...
That's why I'm curious to hear what you all think about this whole thing...

So come on, tell me who got under your skin... was it George or maybe Arthur?

if it's the latter, I guess we could go hunt him down together...

anyway, are Hulk and Spider-Man really in the same league??? 😕

BIG 🙂

Both of those movies are based on comic book heroes, much like how Batman or Daredevil are structured... I was really just categorizing them by genre rather than making any sort of judgment on how good they actually are...

And honestly, nobody's upset with me or anything, I guess I'm just wondering if I'm the only one who looks at cinema through this kind of lens, or if others feel the same way too...

Alex Perez33 said:It’s not like anyone actually made me mad or anything... I guess I'm just wondering if I'm the only one who sees movies this way, or if other people feel the same...

you aren't alone

there are more of us 👋

Alex Perez33 said:For instance, whenever I run into those comments claiming "Spider-Man 2 is just a stupid movie because there isn't enough action..."

It's funny because the person actually explained they thought Spider-Man 2 was silly due to a lack of action, rather than complaining about it being "unrealistic."

I mean, obviously, it’s pretty ridiculous to expect certain movies to be anything more than just mindless entertainment. But unfortunately, Spider-Man 2 isn't even decent entertainment—the whole movie just straight-up sucks on every single level. 🙂

Critics can be such jokes... I know from experience. I've watched more movies than all of you combined, and honestly, most of them just make me laugh. I can usually predict exactly what’s going to happen next. There isn't a single truly terrifying horror movie left. They actually praised The Village as some kind of masterpiece? Please. The plots are predictable, the acting is amateurish, and while the special effects aren't terrible, they definitely could have been better.😛

Regarding Spider-Man 2, I’d heard so much trash about it that by the time I actually sat down to watch, my expectations were basically underground. Result? I had a blast. 😁
The absolute dumbest take I’ve seen on this forum was someone trashing Pirate from the Caribbean because it wasn't "realistic." 😁
I mean, come on! Pirates, curses, walking skeletons, undead sailors... You're looking for realism?!

Who actually said this was realistic?😕
Sure, it’s fun, and the acting for a flick like this is... well, let's just say it's something.
But realistic? 😂

brightscout63 said:Regarding Spider-Man 2, I think I listened to and read so many bad reviews that by the time I actually sat down to watch it, my expectations were basically zero. Turns out, I had an absolute blast! 😁

I had a pretty similar experience myself...

I ended up seeing it at one of those kid-friendly matinee screenings, surrounded by a massive crowd of little kids... I guess you experience a movie totally differently when every single scene is accompanied by screaming and clapping... I’d call that a "Dolby feeling," maybe? 😎

The bottom line is, I thought the movie was awesome.

Jessica Taylor3 said:Who actually said this was realistic?😕
Sure, it’s fun, and the acting is top-tier...
but realism? 😂

I don't recall. 😁

As for critics, I don't trust anyone from the local news in Des Moines! Seriously, I can't remember the last time they didn't give some flick four stars just because they had a website.😁

When I sit down for a movie, my main goal is to wipe the slate clean and forget whatever I watched previously. I’m primarily interested in the narrative—whether the characters and the plot actually hold up under scrutiny. I wouldn't call myself a cinephile by any stretch; I tend to only notice things like pacing or cinematography if they are incredibly striking.
Directors with an overly distinct, signature style often end up walking into their own trap. Once you've seen a handful of their works, you can practically predict exactly how the next one will look. In those cases, the focus shifts away from the story and the people involved, making it far too easy to just write off the entire film without a second thought.

Richard Hernandez13 said:So, the guy basically argued that Spider-Man 2 was silly because it "lacked action," rather than claiming it wasn't "realistic."

First off, I only brought up Spider-Man as a quick example of the kind of things people say all the time, you know, because you hear it constantly regarding all sorts of different movies... like how some folks claim the whole Matrix trilogy was ruined by the romance between Neo and Trinity, and that if you stripped that away, you'd finally have a "real" movie. There are just so many of those critiques out there, even though my own take on the matter is actually quite different...

Secondly, any movie that follows the Spider-Man formula tends to follow the exact same plot beats. A guy gets superpowers, he fights against evil, he runs into some trouble along the way, and in the end, he wins. We all know how this goes, and really, what we're looking for in those kinds of flicks is just a good time, some great special effects, maybe a solid punchline or two, and that’s pretty much the whole deal. I honestly don't quite get the people who sit down to watch a movie like that expecting something else entirely... although, then again, maybe it's just me...

Nah, The Matrix completely botched how Neo actually gained his powers both inside and outside the simulation. Then that whole love affair just made everything even worse... by the end, the movie felt more like Mortal Kombat.🙄

Look, my advice? If you want to see a movie, just go watch it. Don't give a damn what the critics say. At the end of the day, everything they write is just their own subjective opinion, which might line up with yours or it might not... who cares?

Arthur Gray said:Here’s my advice: if you want to see a movie, just watch it. Ignore whatever the critics are whining about. At the end of the day, their reviews are just subjective opinions that might not align with yours anyway.

A lot of people tend to agree with me on this. 😛

Is there any true value in approaching a film with a mountain of preconceived notions? Personally, I find that my experience is at its absolute peak when I watch a movie without any prior knowledge or heavy expectations weighing me down. Why clutter the mind with theories and hype before the first frame even rolls?

I recall a time, perhaps fourteen or fifteen years ago, when Dead Poets Society was hailed as this absolute phenomenon. Every girl in my class was practically obsessed with it; it was all anyone could talk about. So, I finally decided to sit down and watch it myself, only to discover that the entire thing was complete garbage.

Perhaps the film itself isn't anything particularly groundbreaking, but had I not gone in expecting to be absolutely mesmerized by pure bliss, I suppose I might have actually enjoyed it to some degree.

On the other hand, I went to see The Village starring Nicole Kidman without having the slightest clue what to expect. I didn't know the title, I had no idea who was in the cast, I couldn't tell you the genre, and I didn't even know the plot. Yet, despite walking in completely blind, I found the film absolutely superb—though I must admit, I was absolutely terrified.

When it comes to critics, they live up to their reputation by clinging to their negativity like a lifeline; if they actually provided anything positive, wouldn't they simply be rebranded as hype men or advertising experts?
The fundamental issue lies in the fact that our society is conditioned to hunt for flaws and shortcomings; we have fostered a culture where the more aggressively you tear something down, the more enlightened and intellectually superior you are perceived to be. Is it not curious how we equate cynicism with intelligence?
Can any critic worth their salt truly find merit in something so utterly mindless? Is it even possible to offer praise to a project that exists solely to satisfy some hollow, commercial mandate?

Do they really think they can only justify their praise by pointing to films like Citizen Kane or Death in Venice? Is it necessary to retreat into those obscure, forgotten titles that feature nothing but convoluted plots or, worse, absolutely no plot at all? It seems they only find merit in cinema that functions as little more than a visual translation of a stream-of-consciousness novel.

Does one truly measure the depth of their critique by how many convoluted sentence structures they can weave together? Is the perceived sophistication of their argument found solely in the density of obscure vocabulary that remains entirely foreign to the vast majority of the American public?
Is it not the ultimate strategy to write with such profound ambiguity that the author's actual intent remains entirely obscured? By ensuring that no one can truly grasp the core message, one achieves an immediate, unassailable status of intellectual superiority. After all, how can anyone dare to offer criticism when they lack the basic capacity to understand the work in the first place?
In the end, perhaps even the critic himself failed to grasp his own intended message, but does that truly matter?

It really sounds like a dream job if you think about it... I mean, looking at it realistically, people are basically paying you a small fortune just to tear apart everything you lay eyes on, whether it’s actually good or not... And when you walk into a room, everyone treats you like royalty because they're so terrified of getting a bad review from you. It’s wild because, honestly, you could have barely finished middle school and have an IQ in the single digits, and it still wouldn't stop you from trashing everything in sight.
The downside is that people like that absolutely drive me up the wall, so there's no way I could ever handle a career like that, even though some folks seem to be thriving in it...

Good grief, so I guess these critics are just a bunch of basement-dwelling trolls and hooligans now?
I certainly didn't envision my favorite critic turning out this way.🙄

I mean, look at it this way... even the absolute worst director out there still has someone waiting in line to cheer for their movie

but then again, who's actually going to be cheering for some critic?????