107 points

The funny thing about being a critic is it doesn’t actually require any qualifications.

permalink
report
reply
35 points

Most film critics are failed directors…

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Those that can…do. Those that can’t…criticise those that can.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Those that can’t come up with original ideas… quote cliches that were worn out 40 years ago.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

This explains why so many people bitch about self made rich people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

I give your comment 3 stars

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

This might be a niche reference but… “4 stars, go home and tell your mother you’re brilliant.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

prepared for the downvotes here, but I cut my teeth in journalism in arts criticism and deeply respect some of the people I’ve known in the field.

I think this kind of opinion - and the irony does not escape me that I’m performing a sort of criticism here - is rather misinformed.

Yes, anyone can be a critic in the same way that anyone who can, slowly and haltingly, play a C Major scale, can be a musician.

But I believe, like my metaphor, that if you were to dive into successful and recognized critic’s (/musicians) work you’d find a lot more depth than you’d expect.

If any — Who are the critics you dislike, and why? If any — who are the critics you do like (even begrudgingly), and why?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I don’t believe all critics are unqualified or unhelpful, just that the barrier for entry is so low that any “critic review” shouldn’t facially be held as more valid than an average consumer’s view.

IMO the worst reviews tend to be from large gaming journalism companies. There’s a lot of systemic problems with them like crunch, people writing reviews on genres they don’t have experience with, nepotism, and them inflating the scores of AAA titles so publishers continue to give them early access allowing them to release reviews in time. These aren’t all necessarily the fault of the writer of each of their reviews, but do degrade the credibility of the review.

Sticking with games there’s good journalism that comes from independent reviewers, like Dunkey, but they’ll typically have a specialty in a particular genre. My general go to is usually reading Steam user reviews, but only taking to heart those voted most helpful that actually give critiques and praises. Independent critics or user reviews in my eye have the great benefits of not being beholden like large studios.

Someone did a great breakdown comparing user and critic game reviews and outlining the gaming industry’s issues in this video: https://youtu.be/YGfEf8-SNPQ?si=

Off of digital media entirely Project Farm is probably one of the best out there if you’re looking for tools.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I’ve worked as a film critic, and I was shocked by other critics. They didn’t have the knowledge of cinema, directors etc to say anything meaningful other than just what they thought. The they have the film a random (seemingly) star rating or dice toss.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I quite like Mark Kermode because he’s a film historian as well as a critic. I don’t always agree with him but every review he harkens back to the director or actor’s previous catalogue and I can get an entertaining perspective on his view.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

what kind of publication? mine was on something related to the big uk papers: The Times and The Guardian.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

You suck!

Consider yourself critiqued! That’ll be $50.

permalink
report
parent
reply

The only qualifications to being a critic is having people listen to you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points
*

Early feelings at the time about Willis feel very similar to the problem John Krasinski has. Krasinski wants to be an action star, and in a vacuum is legitimately good at the roles, but he is so well known for comedy that there is a hurdle to overcome in the minds of the audience.

Willis was obviously able to overcome his image as a pure comedy guy thanks in part part to the strength of Die Hard.

permalink
report
reply
30 points

I was too young to watch Moonlighting when it was on TV, so I never knew Bruce Willis as anything other than an action and drama guy until he was on Friends for a few episodes, and then I thought he was out of place.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And then again years later, as he’s good in The Whole Nine Yards!

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I never watched the office so I don’t have that impression of him, but his face just looks too much like a Pixar character for me to take him seriously as an action hero. I did enjoy Jack Ryan but I felt like a different actor would’ve been better.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I feel that way about Jack Black. I could not take him seriously in King Kong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

Critics for movies tend to shit on everything I like. Critics for video games tend to overrate games highly way too much.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

I don’t know about game critics, but movie critics have (usually) studied film on an academic level, and watched a whole fuck ton of movies for the purpose of breaking them down and analyzing them. They’re not watching and/or thinking about movies like most people. Of course they will judge them differently.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yeah. I basically focusing on nitpicky professional details and missing the “is this movie entertaining/fun” part.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You can differentiate between if a film is “objectively” good and subjectively enjoyable to yourself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The problem is critics are people who always value the new and interesting, and good acting. Because they watch a lot of movies, day in day out.

Sometimes normal viewers just want something dumb that’s exactly what they expect.

For me, it’s not Bruce that’s great in Die Hard. It’s Rickman. Die Hard 3 does better on the protagonist side because of the chemistry between Jackson and Willis, but again it’s the classically trained theatre actor doing a lot of the heavy lifting, single-handedly stopping it from turning into an episode of Blue’s Clues.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
6 points

My belief is that at least half of the reviewers for anything are just really desperate to be distinguished and taken serious, so if a thing has too much mass appeal and/or it’s too low brow they can’t like it on principle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

In his latest movie, Bruce Willis plays a cop trying to rekindle his ailing marriage. A classic romantic comedy setting which unfortunately gets bogged down by a bizarre terrorist sub plot which ends up taking way too much screen time.

Sadly we’re going to recommend giving this one a pass.

permalink
report
reply

Today I Learned

!til@lemmy.world

Create post

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn’t matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That’s it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Community stats

  • 5.2K

    Monthly active users

  • 781

    Posts

  • 20K

    Comments