So when I was watching a movie review show called At The Movies, it has two professional film critics in Australia: Margeret Pomeranz and David Stratton. If you don't them, let's pretend they're Australia's answer to Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper.
Whilst I was watching their show, I was feeling like every movie they review they get to stick to the things affecting that movie and slandering them. OK, Stratton is the target and even though he's one of my favourite movie critics, I'm getting tired of him being too tough on films that are really good and yet so controversial, he wants to stick with the controversy, while Pomeranz. What does she do. She keeps interrupting Stratton because he was giving out allegories that was essential to his opinion in movies. I find this alright at first, but when i was on the websites message board it was filled with posts complaining about Margeret's behaviour.
Here's a Link to show you why:
A comedian criticise David Stratton for hating his programme, then get into a fist fight with him
This does not happen to them, but it happens to every critic even me, so I just find every critic uninteresting because of their behaviour and how it's put out in their material.
So these are the top five behaviours critics do to miss the point because they think they're better than us:
|If Lars Von Triers is a great director, then why does David Stratton hate him|
The point is many critics would choose who to target to make fun of not only because of their bad filmmaking, but because of their behaviour outside of film. An example is Roger Ebert vs. Rob Schneider when Schneider wrote a hate letter to one critic for hating Deuce Bigalow and overlooked for an Oscar. Ebert would give that film zero stars to defend that critic and also to point out the film's demerits.
4. What I hate about Australian critics is that each time an Australian directed, written a film out of Hollywood, they would give it positive reviews when these films are such crap. I was confused about Salt and why critics giving it a thumbs ups when that film was so ordinary and predictable. This also happens when people give Charlie St. Cloud a three star rating because the screenwriter was Australian. Critics usually get biased to films when some of the crew are that nationality.
3. Recently, I downloaded this episode from South Park called 'The Tale Of Scrotie Mcboogerballs' which was when the boys of South Park wrote a novel to shock readers after becoming tricked for reading Catcher in The Rye thinking it was risque. The novel, hence the episode's name was really graphic and each time people read this, they puke. Despite this, readers put non sensical meanings in the novel to make this a literary masterpiece when there is no meaning.
The fact that in many reviews, critics would use their time to find meaning in film without thinking it through. Many science fiction classics such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner and Alien and even great movies like Inception had many meanings in their own material. But when films are being reviewed, often critics find meanings or make up their own allegories to film that are not there and also find meanings many filmmakers didn't intend to show.
Remember Closer. The one movie where it had Natalie Portman played a London stripper, then she was nominated for an Oscar. Critics would think the film was based relationships in the modern era where to me it was a soap opera styled movie about sex addicts. There is no meaning in this movie!
Or Match Point, the first Woody Allen movie featuring Scarlett Johansson. People analysed the movie as opinions over London's economy? What the hell is that supposed to mean. I spent like two hours seeing Woody Allen mistreating women in that movie. Well, every Woody Allen movie never had any meaning.
|I don't get it. Why does Avatar has to be based on the Vietnam War or 9/11?|
So critics go further in their reviews. Well maybe you shouldn't go too much.
2. What is it when people would go into the controversy of the movie. Is it too graphic. Does that make it even better without controversy? Besides I know that many of you would find A Clockwork Orange so controversial. It should intend to show the bigotting crime rate in London.
|One Moralist would say 'Help Me! A girl in a purple wig's about to kill me' because of stupid controversy|
People. Controversy is art. If you look at artistic photographs of an 11 year olf boy and girl naked, it's supposed to show children blooming into a life transition, not child abuse. When there's controversy, ignore it and enjoy the show.
So in conclusion, film critics would send a hidden message using the controversy in their reviews as a way of censorship.
AND FINALLY THE MOST ANNOYING THING ABOUT FILM CRITICS IS...
That they call themselves film critics. It's not even a job. IF they want to go bash and insult the public for choosing dumb movies, then fine. Let them have it their own way. People who call themselves critics, they have a life. They can't spend their lives devoting on movies. They should go listen to music or ride a skateboard or work an important job. Or if they have a partner, they should have sex with them.
And we have to respect them for their intelligence on material. This also happens to critics in music, movies and books. But at least they have their own thing. For instance Australian film critics James Mathieson and Jim Scherebi are both a music journalist and a children's author respectively. Roger Ebert is a respected public figure in America and he doesn't make a lot of money (Take that Oprah!)
Meanwhile, I'm a high school student trying to pass year 10 and I shouldn't be on this blog too much.
So once I stop ranting about critics, I should do my homework.