@@jojoversus1100 he probably could go "professional" if he wanted to; but I think he likes making comedy out of films as much as he likes to tear them apart.
I recently watched a movie called Equilibrium, that most viewers liked but critics hated. And for the first time, I strongly agreed with the critics. It's the kind of film that if you're not too familiar with dystopian sci-fi you may like; but if you are, you'd easily see that it's a mish-mash of lots of other sci-fi dystopias with almost zero originality. This is when I understood how critics feel.
They gave the Polar Express, a fun and good animated adventure with good voice acting, only a 55 percent because of the animation quality, and Crawl, a totally bland and generic monster movie, 83 percent. Those are a couple of examples of why critics aren’t always right.
+BelphegorXVI it's definitely mostly the internet. sorry, we just covered the stats and experiments on this in social psych. for the most part this sort of behavior is confined to the internet. people tend to live and let live in real life. at least, the majority of them, according to the studies.
+Ryndan Riley People are in real life almost exactly like online, although in reality they usually repress those "dickish" reactions without realizing that they're mostly as predictable as every clichèd flick. As soon as they get exposed to that (in an argument or sort of it), they lose their mind and turn just like their Internet-counterpart.
TheMrRuttazzo That may be your anecdotal experience, but there isn't a lot of empirical evidence to back that up from social psychology. You can find a lot of data on it on google scholar if you want. For the most part, the internet creates reactions like that out of people for various reasons, including physical anonymity, for example. There are other situations that can bring that out, but claiming that a behavior is a result of inner character is what is called the fundamental attribution error, and is also rejected by modern psychology. You can make people act pretty much any way you want, given the right circumstances. That doesn't mean it's part of who they are. Really, this stuff is interesting to research. Check it out on google scholar.
Well, both Christopher Nolan and Heath Ledger were making fun of the cliche with the line "very poor choice of words". It's another nice little touch to the masterpiece that is The Dark Knight. It's not a "cliche dodge" (as CinemaWins would put it) but an acknowledgement of how often said cliche is used and how people should try to come up with something else.
I remember George Lucas in his interview with Oprah saying when A New Hope ended and the credits rolled in a theatre in Japan everyone was quiet and he honestly thought the movie bombed. But as it turned out the audience was actually paying the movie heavy respect because they loved the movie alot.
interesting that is, a good movie it was, mhrm lol sorry couldn't resist, but yeah that reminds me of a comedian who once performed in Germany and they didn't laugh the entire time but after she was done they burst into applause and cheers and it turned out they just didn't want to interupt her
You are an intelligent, well spoken person and a perfect example for the "decent critic" you describe in this video. Thank you very much for everything.
Still other videos can give this video a bit of added flavor if you keep it in mind that even nostalgia critic can be taken out of context hilariously.
Except, his job is first to get views, then to entertain (there are things that in our household are called trainwrecks: so bad/dumb you can't look away, so the two are not always the same), then to be an actual critic.
Critics have points, but sometimes, they can overreact. I searched in rotten tomatoes a pretty underrated movie that I really like, "Brother Bear", and it got there 38%. It was so hated that apperantly even it's SEQUEL got a higher score of 50%! Why?! This movie was really beautiful!
The problem, especially in the Rotten Tomatoes era, is that people look at the score, but don't read the review. There are countless fresh reviews that offer tepid praise, and countless rotten reviews that make it clear they saw merit. Reading a review, I can often tell by the end whether I will agree or disagree with that critic before I see the film. Most are very good at making their preferences clear, even if many are guilty of making their opinions sound like fact. Reviews have a purpose, but that purpose has been corrupted by a media hungry for clickbait. People need to do themselves a favor and at least fully read a handful of reviews from different sources before they decide whether a film is worth seeing or not.
At the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes isn't the best source for having your own opinions. Let your opinions be your own opinions, whether you like it or not.
This will always be one of my favourite NC videos, and it does a great job of presenting the point that both critics and audiences always need to keep in mind: Critics' opinions on art and media exist for the purpose of conveying nuance and promoting discussion (for those wishing to engage) - not to be treated as dogmatic truth or inherently superior to the opinions of laypeople.
"A critic is supposed to teach you to communicate better." Couldn't have said it better myself, Doug. I never thought about it that way until now. I can't be a critic professionally because I am not interested in going through all movies or learning about the art of making films. But I can learn to give my opinion on a movie by defending my arguments well with legitimate examples from the movie. Don't stop with these editorials. I always enjoy learning from them!
Thats because the Mario movie was never ment to be a movie for critics or even something that was ment to be deep. Yeah i know we shit on the lorax and the grinch for beeing too kid friendly but thats because they came from a place of thought and pasion that we get mad if they don't capture that same spirit even if they are based on childrens book. Mario since day one was always an excuse to go to the adventure to save the princess and beat the bad guy, since the priority of the games was always the gameplay not the story. If it was a zelda movie or even the friggin last of us then we would have hate them because they came from games with great story and writting.
@@motor4X4kombatI don’t understand the whole “Critics don’t care for movies that are made for fans” argument. The Lego Movie, Godzilla vs Kong, TMNT Mutant Mayhem, and to a small degree the first Sonic movie got positive reviews by critics and they are made for fans and are by no means deep movies. I’m not saying the critics are right or wrong but they’re still entirely capable of seeing the same merit and enjoyment that fans may get out of certain films for fans.
@@motor4X4kombat If someone want to make a Splatoon animated movie/series and needs to appeal to both critics and the fans of the games in order to be succesfull, then it needs to have alot of dark moments in a same level as Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Rebels.
@@Butwhythough881 the lego movie was a lot more than just that, that movie had a good story, extremely clever writing and good written characters, even if you could argue that movie is following the chosen one trope, it did it in a self aware way, and tells a message about how even a seemingly regular guy can be special in their own way and not be limited to just what people says you are supposed to be. I’m sorry, but I just don’t like how you underestimate the Lego movie like that. If you like the Mario movie fine, but that movie is nowhere near Lego movie in terms of storytelling
"Would you get angry at someone for writing a philosophy on life even if it wasn't yours?" Doug, it's 2017 - Who doesn't get livid any time anyone has a different philosophy than they do?
Really? I guess it would have been good to show the good side of nazis XD But seriously, of course it's maniqueist. If there ever was a "just war" (not that I'm saying there is) fought by America, it's this one. You can criticize the WAY it was fought (unnecessary bombings of civilian cities). Sure, you could aslo criticize the American generals for some mistakes and sacrificing the lives of American soldiers without second thoughts. But during the D-day the basic American soldiers made a huge sacrifice, and it's their point of view that is shown (brilliantly) in this film. And yet they still question themselves and have doubts, making them feel more humans. As for the German soldiers, yes obviously they were not all evil. But a huge number of them had commited crimes of wars (I'm not even speaking about the Shoah, but about the many slaugthering of prisonners or civilians on the Eastern front- and there were also examples on the western fronts). And it's NOT as simple as SS= evil and Wehrmacht= neutral, as the Wehrmacht also commited many crimes of war without any involvment of the SS. This, if anything, was a western post-war propaganda, in order to have a "good" German western army fighting on our side during the Cold war, which was basically based on the (very) slightly denazified Wehrmacht minus the SS. So, having ONE German soldier that convince the Americans to release him and then attack them back again later and kill one of them in a gruesome way was in no way unjustified. Yes, the fact he kills exactly the one Jewish soldier is a bit over the top. But many Jewish soldiers did die in the Allied forces. What the German soldier did here is incidentally in no way a crime of war- neither escaping nor hand to hand combat are forbidden by the Geneva convention. If anything, "well done" (I'm obviously not rooting for the nazis here, just from a neutral point of view) for "escaping", and then fighting again later. So, I would not agree that even this one German soldier is presented as evil. As far as I remember, the other German soldiers are just fighting and trying to kill the American soldiers (as they logically should). They are a bit de-humanized as they are not often shown (it's not their POW that is the focus of this film), but they are in no way portrayed as evil (again, I might not remember everything). Yes this movie is pro-American propaganda in a way, and therefore I understand why it could be hated. But it is in my opinion a very good war movie: well written characters, good effects that hold to this day, very memorable scenes of war (that's pretty rare in war movies to have action-packed and yet more or less accurate war scenes), showing both heroism and the horrors of war, good pacing and engaging (if a bit straightforward, but that's not necessarily bad) story, emotional but not over-sentimental.
Léo VK well I think that's one of the main reasons it's kinda hated but you have a solid point, though one thing that few people can deny is it's solid direction of "action" scenes a demonstration of how shaky camera and jarring editing can work in a good way. I haven't completely watched so I can't say more than that.
That's not really saying they are wrong, their review is basically just looking at their point of view and how they saw the film. A character some may find annoying or insuffrable others find charming and endearing. that's why you shouldnt just base your ideas off of one critic or be offended when they dont like a movie.
I’m just really mad that it got a useless follow-up Netflix animated series that for some reason my brother unironically likes. Then again, he also likes Teen Titans Go, so I don’t really take him seriously anymore.
Kiwi Stopmotion productions FINALLY! Somebody else who hates that god awful piece of shit Trolls film. And yet, people continue to praise it while criticizing WAY better films like The Polar Express.
Shouldn't your enjoyment go hand in hand with the quality of the film? Like i never heard of anyone enjoying a truly broken and unwatchable movie before
Korra Fan I enjoy the most of Transformers movies (except for Revenge of The Fallen and The Last Knight) even though the Michal Bay ones are brainless action flicks, the 1986 one being a bit dated and cheesy, And Predacon’s Rising only aiming at fans who have seen Transformers:Prime, and acknowledge most of those movies are not very good, but I don’t enjoy The Godfather and Godfather 2, How To Train Your Dragon, Green Mile And Wonder despite knowing and seeing that these movies are good, sometimes people would rather watch something cheesy or brainless over something that they really have to think about
Mim Silvernote How could you not enjoy the Green Mile? That film is a crowd pleaser with great acting and an interesting story. The Godfather films are good from all aspects of movie making. You can enjoy the Transformers movies, but they are definitely not good films. I didn’t enjoy How To Train Your Dragon that much either, but I can acknowledge that it’s a good movie. Enjoyment and quality are not the same.
Glimmer Tron Taxi Driver isn’t necessarily an enjoyable movie, but it’s a great film. This works the other way around too. Someone could enjoy Space Jam, but it’s a poor movie that is essentially a 90 minute commercial with Looney Tunes characters and celebrity cameos. Enjoyment and movie quality don’t always go hand in hand.
segundo vargas glad to see another person smart enough to think for themselves. When my friends would recommend a movie I'd check it out. We had similar tastes as most friends did but we didn't get butt hurt like people today when our opinions differed.
Inus Berard A lot of people dont have the time or money to roll the dice on a movie that might by absolute shit. I kinda rely on critics to give me perspective on a movie.
I'll give you that. But I've seen loads of shows that critics have said were rather bad and I've actually liked a lot. Like I said, you have to rely on your own judgement and choose something that while the critics don't like, you might see differently.
Critics, to me, are only useful when I know them and their taste. I wouldn't ever care about a nameless critic I've never heard about. I need to know the critic's personality when I want to hear a movie recommendations / warning. That's why I watch the Schmoesknow, Jeremy Jahns, Chris Stuckmann and The Flick Pick. Are their opinions more valid than the opinions of other critics? God no. But I know them from their reviews, vlogs etc. and I can infer whether or not a critique resonates with me. I don't care if some person I don't know says that the recent blockbuster is awesome or shit. Their opinion means nothing because I don't know them. If Jeremy or Chris pan a movie (or hype a movie) then I know why they do it, because I know their tastes and I can translate this into my taste and whether or not I share that taste.
Can't trust someone that, on his right mind, believes on Anita Sarkeesian, so AJ is way out of the question. NC is so driven by nostalgia (who'd have thought of that one lol) that obviously is going to choose Reeve's superman before Man of steel or Burton's batman before Nolan's. I actually see him for his rants on shit I don't like either, but when something's new, no jugdment is better than your own.
metalliclark86 do you even watch either of them? Angry Joe doesn't think Anita a crazy SJW is right. And just because he's the Nostalgia Critic doesn't mean he is ignorant on modern day movies. You should probably take into account his reasons for the depiction of superman. He still has more professional judgment on modern movies since he's an expert and knowledgeable on modern movies same as classic movies
I used to get into AJ videos until I stumbled on that one where he actually says that anita is right about her tropes vs women bullshit (can't remember which one nor I care). regarding NC, I've already said I watch him for his entertainment value. And Devil Boner. Never forget Devil Boner. But he did chose Reeve's superman and Burton's batman, among others that can't remember, but if there's any numbers I'm sure they back it up. What's wrong about making my own mind about things? Is people THAT fearful/lazy nowadays?
SpaceBalls is a funny film, no doubt, but what happened was the film came out years after the last Star Wars film (Return of the Jedi), so the effect of the film was severely undermined.
@Redha Delf Spaceballs isn’t even a good film. It contains cheap, lowbrow humor, bad puns, and half-assed references to every popular sci-fi and action film of the zeitgeist. All I can praise the film for is the use of special effects, because the same effects team that worked in Spaceballs worked on Star Wars. If you want a sci-fi comedy, go watch Galaxy Quest.
Know what else is weird? Movies like Wizard of Oz and Citizen Kane were actually also panned when they first came out, but now, more than 70 years after they were released, they are seen as two of the greatest movies of all time, and two that almost everyone has seen, or what most critics say, everyone has to see.
Critics often can't recognise a masterpiece when it first comes out. Bambi was in a similar situation when it was released. And they also sometimes praise movies that will be seen as trash later, such as The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. It just goes to show that most critics aren't as intelligent or insightful as they pretend to be. I've got nothing against Doug - he's provided me with food for thought over the years in his editorials, especially the So Good It's Bad and Eyes Wide Shut ones, and when he's being himself he doesn't come across as a pretentious douchebag but a humble and likeable guy - but he's an exception, not the norm. And even he screws up sometimes (like when he said The Force Awakens is good).
+Lotfi Leviaton You seem to have missed the point of the video. Critics ARE part the audience, they just publicize their opinions and watch more movies. Audiences and critics are both "wrong" sometimes.
lmfao, my comment that spoke truth was deleted XD anyway, audiences *are* wrong when 1 person says a movie is a masterpiece, then another believes him, and over the course of many decades society deems that single movie a masterpiece just cause 1 guy started it... like Citizen Kane (not the best, people)...
Too many people confuse a film’s quality with whether or not they like a film. They think that if they don’t like a film that it means the film sucks. A good critic should be able to put aside subjectivity and look at things objectively.
Sprechen Sie Deutsch? 100% yes! I can acknowledge Frozen is a good movie. I just personally don’t care much for it. And it’s not cause it’s an animated Disney film. I enjoy both Wreck it Ralph films. Frozen just doesn’t do it for me. Is it good? Yes. Do I care about it though? Not really.
@@ReinSouls In my opinion, Frozen is a decent movie but I kinda used to hate it because of "Let It Go" keeps playing everywhere and it bothered me as a kid. And my problem about the movie is that Hans is considered the main villain of the story. So how does it work? I thought this is a movie about "man vs. himself" conflict where Elsa had to control her uncontrollable ice powers to prevent everyone from getting harmed and she's originally the main villain like from the original Hans Christian Anderson story. Then again, it's a decent movie. Nothing special or anything. At least for the haters of Frozen, I absolutely agreed with them because of the problems.
Agreed. I never found The Shining scary but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad film by any means. It's still a classic, just not one I prefer to watch during Halloween.
@@poweroffriendship2.0 You can just say anything Disney does now has to involve either: A - the girl can't ever be the villain; or B - the "true love's kiss" can't ever be given by a guy to a girl.
@@radrno7 Female villains have been a thing for years. Maleficent, Ursula, or even Yzma are characters happened to be a villain and there's no problem with them getting defeated. And the second part is where reality ensues. You're absolutely right about that "true loves kiss" can't be given by a stranger, at least for Snow White. Problem is that in Frozen, it's just poorly executed.
I took a theatre class in college to fulfill my humanities requirement, and one of the things I remember the instructor telling us is that people can and should form their own opinions independent of what critics think. That's one of the reasons I don't take them too seriously.
Mirth Mouser Critics are actually right a lot of the time, but when they are wrong, they can get it very wrong on occasion (e.g. Ghostbusters 2016 and Piranha 3D)
I loved Warcraft. Not everyone did. Critics may not have been wrong on some of the criticisms, but to call it "Battlefield Earth of this generation" is just clickbait bullshit.
Agreed. Though I sorta think it was more like.. You're supposed to hate it.. like Adam Sandler Comedies.. Video Game Movies have had a bad track record.. however I was awestruck when I heard some critics said that the movie should've been handed to Uwe Boll to make it even worse. And.. any fans of the Nostalgia Critic will know how bad Uwe Boll's movies are.
I agree, but I read one review by a critic: James Berardinelli ReelViews June 12, 2016 Large scale battles and magical pyrotechnics are nice supplements but the absence of well-formed characters and a meaningful narrative render such pretty things moot. That isn't how you use moot. Moot simply means that something is infinitely debatable and thus should not be debated, as it will waste time. Plus if you go to their website, even for the more reputable sites, they are all peddling a fucking book.
I saw someone from Egbert.com I dunno if I got the web address right.. but someone from there gave the movie a 0.5/4. Look I know the movie isn't perfect, and has some scenes that make you go "Really? They put that in there?" but 0.5/4 that's a bit harsh.
As someone who has never played a Warcraft game and judging the film on its merits, I thought it was okay. I don't think it's as bad as critics make it out to be, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't have problems. The effects, action scenes, and the conflict are pretty good. However, the editing can seem really off like some scenes are missing and I found most of the characters boring, which prevent me from liking it more.
As someone who's familiar with the Lore. I can tell you guys who aren't in the know this.. It is not the same as it is in the game, there are several liberties they've taken.. like Lothar in the original lore doesn't have son, they added that in just to make it a bit more PG-13 than an R film.
I think it simply comes down to this: We all like movies that sucked. But people don't admit they sucked. If there's legitimate problems with a movie people just ignore them and say "that was a great movie" You can enjoy something and still acknowledge it has problems. People love to blindly defend something they like. You can enjoy Batman vs Superman all you want, but ignoring the problems is just ignorant. The simple way to handle critics is if they rate a movie highly that has a large amount problems is to no longer trust their opinion. The reason Doug is such a good reviewer is because he logically breaks down each and every problem and explains it. Even on movies he loves he's fair. That's why I pretty much always agree with him. There are far too many bias people and that is the true problem.
***** See this is the problem. Right here. I'm not going to use star wars as I'm not a fan but, If that movie has legitimate issues, and you're just ignoring them then you're at fault and being ignorant and bias. It should be, its a flawed movie that I greatly enjoyed. "Opinion" is something people now hide behind so they don't have to acknowledge flaws. Opinion is fine to like something, but not to blindly ignore any wrong doing something has.
I really liked Batman v Superman. Was it a bad movie? No I wouldn't call it a bad movie. Was it a great movie? No it was a slightly above average movie. It got better and better for me after seeing it 4 times. I wonder if it would get a higher percentage if all the critics went back and rewatched it. People that seem to despite it come off as one note people "If you like dark wooden joyless movies" Sometimes I do. Tim Burden was a master @ making Joyless movies fun.
I dont see whats so bad about it when it was made at the time movies were still quality. Sure most scenes didnt make sense at all and the JD part really had me cringed.
+Con Cahill Well I always think the movie was warning us to don't trust to animals farms because they gonna whip the mankind of the world, but well that's just my opinion
+Con Cahill It is. They just use the communism and Stalin thing for people to go even more anti-soviet, for no exact reason except for a war that didn't even have a single battle taken place...
+Con Cahill It wasn't. Unless you count all forms of Socialism as "Hypocrisy" which they are. Based in the hatred fueled by envy, and using authoritarian means to enforce "equality", there is no destination but the hypocrisy of a _new_ ruling class. And breadlines.
Ben Rodriguez How was it not at least somewhat about hypocrisy. The pigs end up going from animals that hate humans to being pretty much humans at the very end of the book. Sitting around a table dressed in clothes, drinking wine, and being manipulative. Hell they sent that horse to the glue farm.
Well said, Doug. Any critic/analyst/reviewer/etc. worth their weight in gold have all said at one point "Don't take my word for it. Experience it for yourself, make your own opinion, and stick with it." And that's why I don't take all critics at face value. I'd rather find one that I agree with 90-98% of the time and stick with them.
This last week with Alita and captain marvel would be a fantastic example of this. Critics slammed alita, they said it was because her robot body was too sexual. ??? Were we watching the same movie?? Audiences loved it and had no idea what the critics were talking about. The critics loved captain marvel for the female empowerment message. One critic admitted he had to give a positive review or risk losing his access. Audiences.... well were mixed at best. The most fair ones that werent trolls or feminists said it was a not great movie that was a little boring and the main character had almost no personality. I can never trust paid critics.
Hopping on the Alita bandwagon with you, another complaint critics had was that it had the nerve to set itself up for a sequel. Meanwhile....they can't wait to see how The Last Jedi and Captain Marvel set themselves up for the inevitable conclusions to *their* respective sagas!
I liked CM as well. But Alita was minimum equally as good as CM and for me personally it was even superior to Captain Marvel. What makes that case special is that both movies have a lot similarities in their premises and got treated very differently by the same critics. For example one critique just gave CM a 5 of 5 and Alita a 0. She didn´t even gave a single star for the CGI. Everything was terrible for her. You can´t shill more obvious than that. Alitas CGI was better than that of CM and in terms of Motion Capture pushed the technology ahead. Not even Thanos looked that good. And there quite a few of such reviews. At the beginning Alita had a decimating 39% at Rotten Tomatoes. Compare that to "The Wandering Earth" which got 76%. No way on earth if you are any objective, you give a movie such bad ratings which was done by some of the best minds in Hollywood. Some people commented it with: Cameron should throw the movie into the trash heap. Flat out disrespectful. If it were all for fun and bla I wouldn´t care less. But those critics cost film makers millions if they collectively shit on the same movie for no reason. If they had done the same with Avatar they might have buried it too.
I always love these editorials. Almost every time I watch them Doug has such a profound and well thought out insight into whatever subject he's talking about. And even though he's willing to express his own opinion, he doesn't treat it like it's law, and generally keeps a fairly open mind to other opinions except in REALLY extreme cases. On a side note, can I please express how annoying it is that so many people saw no potential in The LEGO Movie? I'm a huge fan of LEGO, and I can say fully that LEGO has always put effort into making funny and quirky stories in relation to their products, and the message in the movie is a very sincere message that they've been trying to convey to both children and adults for years. And even with that said, they actually wrote new and original characters for it as opposed to grabbing their already existing properties, aside from Batman, but they didn't even use their normal LEGO Batman, it was more like if Batman showed up in any other comedy. So when all is said and done, it really isn't shameless marketing like everyone accused it of being, or at least not much more than any superhero movie. Anything that actually did look like marketing to me was used entirely for tongue-in-cheek humour. Sorry for the rant, I know people actually do like the movie, it just bugs me that people think it was a surprise.
+Aaron O'neil Though i dissagree and do think that Doug and especially his brother DO unfortunately have the air of "my opinion is law, i hate this movie and it's *shit* because I don't like it" He's not a bad reviewer and is still enjoyable. Also the lego movie was awesome. What matters is no matter how loudly someone yels about it, them disliking a movie doesnt mean youre stupid for liking it or thinking it's good movie. Everyones experiences are different. Hell, i ADORED the good dinosaur and as an animator myself was thoroughly content with the visuals and character designs, and they shat all over that. But just because some angry nitpicky dudes online with superiority complexes thinks its shit, doesnt mean it IS shit, or *i* should feel bad for dissagreeing and loving it, yah dig? Everyone's a judgemental asshole when it comes to movies, we just gotta love them for it XD
Film critics are experts when it comes to technicals and understanding how creators should use film to convey what they intended to convey. However, they are non essential for enjoying films. They ARE essential for films to continue getting better.
Jaden McKillip Did you know that the Thing, the Big Lebowski, It’s a Wonderful Life, Psycho, Rear Window, and the Shining got mixed to negative reviews when they came out? How times have changed. Edit: Oops, I deleted the second Big Lebowski in the sentence, I fixed it now.
I believe it. Empire is honestly kinda boring and visually dull compared to the original Star Wars, which would have been the only comparison they would’ve had at the time.
Mostly everyone does. I don't. For my own personal tateste it's so syrupy that I could choke on it. That may have something to do with me not being American and I definitelly wasn't sold on "success by innocence" metaphor/tale/whatever, despite having worked like a charm for me on "Being There".
Timothy Morris - Definitely! Not changing anything at all! Bullshit! At least with the Jungle Book remake, they change the monkeys to be more scary than funny, which I liked. The Lion King was boring as sin.
As a normal very well CGI animated film you could enjoy it. The main controversy of it was that animal emotion expression doesn't fit well in a realistic film.
To be fair, I think people shouldn't judge the Star Wars prequels for their effects. Sure, they are dated now... but at the time, they were good and amazing. When looking at art, sometimes, we should think of when/where it was created. And even then, while looking a bit dated, it's still quite stunning and Lucas' work paved the way to do even better with CGI.... Also, for the change in opinion, it should be noted that at the time, the effects were considered great, so it was visually stunning, had great effects, and the action was awesome. Compare that to reviews when the effects don't look as great anymore and people don't care about how visually great it was and are now more apathetic to the action....
Tantalized_Funyons Not overly bad. in fact, they were decent movies (though flawed, but which movies don't have some). Though some of the acting sucked (but hey, almost everyone sucked for the acting). It's just that... it was Star Wars and all the flaws were more noticeable. And the fact that while it had amazing stuff (and for the time, the effects were amazing), the movies people were supposed to love were just... good... And people just hated JarJar that much... (Though I loved Revenge of the Sith. In my opinion, it was the best one of all 6).
TheDeathmail I've been in too many of these debates to say that it works both ways...a lot of people also praise the prequels and notice good stuff about them that otherwise wouldn't be noticed "because its starwars!" Granted I don't really like these movies, but I still can agree the hate can be a tad bit overbearing at times. As someone who has a bit of experience with BOTH extreme opinions...I sometimes wonder why Star Wars fans don't just get along more lol.
That one has a unique reason. It came out 2 weeks after ET Imagine going from a family friendly, light hearted, charming, and funny story about a peaceful alien to a horror gore fest where an alien chops off arms and tears dogs inside out
Sandro Algra Barradas Doug is also doing this as a career, and he plays a character like 90% of the time. The real question is do YOU think its over rated.
ZolRing This is literally like the reason Call of Duty is a thing. Its reputation is well earned, aside from it being one of those important War Films that focus more on the history and drama, than the glory and action.
+Wes Roth He maybe playing a character, but his opinions on movies are usually genuine... though he does oveplay his reactions for laughs. Me? I think it's a good film, not an absolute classic. One part I don't like is the ending at the graveyard. Maybe it's because I'm not American and I don't like sentimental patriotism.
Sandro Algra Barradas Not really sure about patriotism, just a guy visiting the grave of the man who saved his life. I'd call it more of gratitude or even a bit of regret.
In my opinion, critics should make their reviews for the target audience of each movie, and try to judge the movie with as much objectivity as possible from that audience's perspective. I don't care about what genres the critic personally enjoys, he or she should say something like "If you like mindless action, this one's for you". If a critic who hates mindless action movies makes a negative review of a mindless action movie, simply because he or she doesn't like the genre, that review is useless to the target audience.
+fireluigi12 Scew objectivity. Critics are human beings. They aren't omnipresent entities. They have opinions and express them. It's HOW they do it which makes them worthy of the title. Otherwise they just end up like the rest of the useless fuckers who review films on TH-cam.
+fireluigi12 You are saying they should be objective, they say that it is not possible. But you can get some of both universes. And many reviewers do that: they give their experience of the movie, and then they give their opinion of what is the audience for this movie and recommend it (or not) in that basis, etc. But another problem is about the role of the critic: one thing is to give the review of a movie that isn't in the cinema yet, so is a review that can help people to decide to watch it or not. Another thing is a review for a movie that has already been watched: and its an opinion of why you think is a good movie (even when many don't think so) or not, etc. Or maybe you go with another question: why did it work? Why it didn't work? And this would be a job for a critic that knows best how to seaparate the elements of a movie, a reviewer who knows about making a movie (so he can say: it wasn't because of the script, but because of the screenplay, etc). To me there is a big confusion about what role has the critic in that particular case. So sometimes they act godly, sometimes they act humble, sometimes they put in your shoes and think what are you expecting for this movie; sometimes they confuse everything and they say a movie is bad, just because they didn't like it, and they didn't know what to expect from it.
Let's see... the overused of CGI Anakin's bad actors the political talks midichlorians the dull villains Jar Jar Binks the unnecessary additions of older characters plot holes characters with rediculous accents and bad lip syncing here is a nice video that explains most of these things: th-cam.com/video/8O_jWOFeX6U/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=FanboyFlicks
Movies I love that everyone hates: White Chicks Now You See Me 2 The Man With The Golden Gun Die Another Day Superhero Movie Drillbit Taylor Watchmen There I said it.
Honestly I tend to look at Critics in opposite light. You have so many critcs out there. You can literally get any opinion under the sun if you look hard enough. For me, the most important thing is find a critic you can relate to. As a movie viewer I have my own personal likes and dislikes. I like certain tropes, dislike others. Maybe I love story, or characters, or complexivity, or simplicity. So really important thing to me is to find a Critic who shares my view on movies. He/she likes movies for exact same reason I do. They look at the world and people in same lens that I do. So when they review a movie, more often then not I will think the same way. This gives the Critic credibility in my eyes. Its all about building a relationship. For me to trust a Critic, I need to learn about them as a person. Their likes and dislikes. Vices and passion. If I love X-men, I really want to watch a review of X-men movie by a fellow fan. Personally Double Toasted crew of people and the former Spill crew really resonate with me. They hold a ton of intersecting opinions and hobbies of myself. Their reviews may not be accurate for everyone, but since they share a lot of similar interests with myself I rarely ever disagree with them. Listening to them for years and years I only found myself disagreeing with them once. It was over Cloud Atlas. I loved the movie a lot but they universally hated it.
Yep but ultimately I takes a critical observation of the critics themselves to come to that type of conclusion. That critical view of a critic's views is what Doug is plugging for hear.
+Max Nobel Ya people are too hard on the phantom menace, the lightsaber fights and podracing were some of the most enjoyable scenes in all 7 movies now, unfortunately there were gungans (yikes), and not great connection of the story
Doug's absolutely right here; nobody is in control of your opinions about anything except YOU. Plus, it should be all about communicating and sharing your thoughts and opinions with others. Even if two parties have differing opinions about something, that's what they should do. But unfortunately, because of the anonymity that the Internet affords, people can hide behind false identities, not show their faces, and therefore become "drunk A-HOLES (as Doug here put it)" about someone's differing opinion about something. It shouldn't be this way, online and in real life. It should be about listening, communicating, and sharing in a positive, friendly, intelligent manner with others despite differing opinions about a particular subject.
If I have a problem with modern critics it's that so often, they seem to be trying to walk in lockstep with the majority opinion, or be 'edgy' by wildly diverging. Like, I'll sift through RottenTomatoes and see largely the same sentiments over and over. Blatant Oscar bait gets praised as if it's actually doing anything we haven't seen before. Films are bashed just for their genre (I remember a review of Dredd where it was blatant they'd only seen the trailer). Or, you have that one guy who just has to write the lone negative review of a Pixar movie. It's getting to the point when I'm more interested in a film if it has a 50-70% on RT, because I'd like to see something capable of generating divided opinions.
+AlexReynard honestly i think good art should be devisive. Look at Man of Steel and the Force Awakens. Not in therms of rotten tomato rankings but how people talk about the film. its split. there are those who defend both movies to the death and others who hate each movie with a burning passion, that means a filmmaker did something right imo.
nowknowthis Maybe not 'right', but certainly did something interesting. Hell, as a fervent Michael Bay hater, I was somewhat disappointed when Dark Of The Moon and Age Of Extinction turned out to be somewhat competent. By being mediocre, they weren't the stunning, bombastic, world-ending awfulness of the first two. I could build up a sweat talking about those!
+AlexReynard I get what you're trying to say, so don't take this as a discredit to your opinion, but you realize of course that initial statement sounds like a catch 22. You take issue if the critics opinions align, but you also take issue if there's divergence.
+Button Jam Touché. But what I'm actually bitching about is allignment for allignment's sake, and divergence for divergences' sake. Like, I'm fine with basically everyone agreeing that Wizard Of Oz is a good movie, because it is. And I'm fine with, like, the lone hypothetical person who'll lay out a million geeky reasons why they unironically love Battlefield Earth. My problem is when there's a movie specifically designed to get critical praise, and the critics actually fall for it. Some historical drama, possibly about race, with a lot of Oscar-hungry actors acting their pants off, and it's all sad and deadly serious and *every fucking second of it is calculated as fuck and 10,000% unoriginal*. When critics actually fall for fake shit like that, it irks me. Similarly, if most critics agree on something because it is genuinely good, like Toy Story or Zootopia, there's always gotta be one person to ruin its Tomatometer score, not because he actually dislikes it, but because he knows that disliking it will make a name for himself. It's easy to get attention by kicking a puppy, and that's all these type of critics are doing. Whatever critics decide, I want it to be their genuine opinion, not some back-patting party, or an edgy rebellion against it. It's about MOVIES, not the critics themselves.
+AlexReynard And then there's moviegoers like you who continually spout this nonsense about critics trying to be "edgy" or "follow the majority". You get butthurt when they don't think the same thing as you. Then you accuse them of being negative just to get attention. You're the problem, not critics.
Movies are subjective, period. There's no such thing as 'absolute quality', and people thinking there is are probably not very smart. We all have our different criteria and standards of what makes a good film. Often enough I've hated a movie for the exact same reason critics were praising it for, and vice versa. And it's not that a it happened a few times. It happened a lot of times. The thing is, people are sheep and tend to subscribe to the popular opinion. A 'Fresh' on Rotten Tomatoes sounds official! It's done! The movie is now definitely good. Meanwhile, a movie branded as Rotten is most certainly bad. Nobody would even bother to see exactly who it is rating it that way. When you look at the breakdown you often see some 50 middle-aged women writing reviews of movies, so it stands to reason your tastes and their taste would differ. But no, their opinion decides whether or not a movie is 'absolutely' good or bad. I take even greater issue with food critics. That is the most useless profession on the planet, because their opinion, logically speaking, should hold no weight whatsoever. Yet people give weight to their opinions because our society has created this type of construct. He's the 'official' person to review food. Fkk your own personal taste, he's the final authority!
+Red John what gets toted as absolute quality is based on historical analysis that people go to film school to continue the questioning and shaping of... some people completely submit to that sort of a standard because their so entirely fatigued by going down that rabbit hole you're right
Alex Amaya It makes perfect sense. It's just that your understanding of the word 'objective' is flawed. It may very well be the case that if a director spends copious effort on his project he may actually end up worsening the experience for some. Some people may actually prefer a simplified product. For example, Beethoven's Fur Elise is one of his most famous compositions, even though it's one of his most simplified pieces. It's so simple it's taught to beginners pianists. He's produced many, many more complicated works that aren't nearly as popular. So why is that piece famous even though not a lot of effort was spent on it, yet obviously more advanced compositions are practically unheard of? Simple answer: Subjectivity. People just like Fur Elise better. That's it. But again, the keyword in the previous paragraph is 'some people'. Some people might hate Fur Elise, and they wouldn't be wrong for doing that. In fact, what I'm saying is that there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. *if my criteria says foodfight is a good movie and grave of the fireflies is garbage, that is completely valid?* Of course! But it is valid TO YOU. If there were a universal criteria regarding movies, then there would be BINARY rating for movies. It would either be a BAD movie, or a GOOD one. There wouldn't be any middle ground. The simple reality that some movie critics rank a movie 10/10, yet others rank it a 1/10 should tell you that there's no objectivity involved in movies. I dislike war based films, and I did. Not. Like. The Hurt Locker. It bored me. Irritated me, even. No matter how many critics tell me it's a good movie, I can honestly say that, watching that film, I did not feel entertained. So am I wrong? Of course not. It's just my preference. I also dislike pizzas. I think they're the worst choice when it comes to fast food. Nobody would say 'You're wrong if you don't like pizzas', so why suddenly change your attitude when it comes to movies? Ever heard any Physicist say "I disagree with Newton's laws of motion. They're not right"? Or did you perhaps ever see a mathematician saying "I disagree with Fourier Series. It's wrong"? No, you didn't. And you would never see one. Because there's no room for 'opinion' of 'taste' in those fields. Movies and music isn't one of those fields. Therefore, when you defer to movie critics (which disagree amongst themselves too, btw) to tell you whether or not a movie is good, you're basically a sheep who's too weak minded to form an opinion by yourself.
Alex Amaya Another, more relevant examples...Anthony Hopkins just said that playing Hannibal Lecter was 'too easy'. That's the role he's actually most famous for. Why is it that the role in which he exerted the least effort most praised, yet the ones in which he pushed himself harder aren't lauded as much? Christopher Lee said that the most important role, and his 'best performance', was Muhammad Ali Jinnah from the film Jinnah, but...you don't like that one, do you? I'd be surprised if you'd even have heard of it. You, like myself, probably prefer Dracula and Sauron.
Alex Amaya i mean, isn't the problem not whether or not critics are right but how people dismiss those with whom they don't agree i think there's a sort of conflation between art/movies and rhetoric... people can get very caught up in rhetoric and are willing to embellish and stylize their points based on what suddenly occurs to them might persuade the listener, whereas critics aren't invested in persuading anybody they're simply giving their two cents, which through the lens of the rhetoricist or the lecturer comes off kind of hollow and pompous... from that perspective there's no point in giving an opinion that isn't meant in developing the opinions of others, when actually because movies and art are, or at least can be, strictly for entertainment the role of a critic as appreciator of craft but not ideology rally leader is actually, if done right, a very light form of release as opposed to pain staking inspector general there's also another element of a mass crowd lending what seem like a monolith voice of approval or disapproval or cult or whatever, but i think that's mostly an illusion... take titanic for instance, in one sense you can talk about its mass appeal and its record breaking release and James Cameron's approach, but at the end of the day the group of people that would go see it at a midnight showing are as cult and select as the group that might go see the Goonies or the evil dead... critics are individuals but somehow they get caught up in this momentum of precariously establishing sides in a quasi-existent public narrative thin line between the lecture and the novelty
Alex Amaya well yknow... criticism is so hard to get away from and can become so ubiquitous... maybe part of the function of a movie critic is giving a person a chance to really concentrate and filter their opinion as a sort of escape from the more typical trope of family/occupational criticism that is the unfiltered rambling of people just blowing off steam that they think is however priceless the world we live in is what we make it... but the world you're talking about is a real dogged cog grinding us down that we need to respond to... the way that the erosion of standards becomes a little degradation of the world around us... i don't know what civility is, but or irrationality for that matter, but at a certain point it can't just be people being openly critical and the criticism itself has to become the mode for motes of improvement
+Kommentor Postker of course there are. But the core of a guilty pleasure film is acknowledging the fact that it's bad, but enjoying it anyway. I love Burlesque. It's a guilty pleasure. It's terrible, thus the guilt, but I enjoy it anyway.
+Kommentor Postker It would only be a "guilty pleasure" if you honestly believe it's objectively bad and that you should feel bad for enjoying it anyway. But as long as it makes you happy, it doesn't really matter what other people think of it, and anyone who's going to judge you based solely on your opinions is not worth considering. So there's no reason to really feel guilty about it.
-sigh- is it....bad that i like the prequels of Star Wars? I wasnt big on the second one, thought the first was ok, and liked the third, but i dont hate them the way a majority of people do.
We can can like movies that we recognise as bad, personnaly i like the prequels despite that they're bad movies, the problem is that some don't make the difference between liking and finding good a movie and therefore pretend that these movies are good without solid arguments to back their claim.
The star wars: the phantom menace movie was way better than the last Jedi. Seeing the upcoming star wars movies made me appreciate the prequels. Episode 1-6 were gold step by step character development and Dept which Disney would allow George Lucas to show his vision of star wars in upcoming movies rather than recycling the previous movies. Such a shame.
@@chiyaan83 Gold step by step character development ? Obi-wan got none, Anakin was rushed, the jedis are morons... Dept ? The political aspect is so bad that we don't even know the motives of the CSI, they could be the good guys and we wouldn't know, on fact there is a theory that they are the good guys but got hijacked by Dooku and the others. Lucas' vision ? Star wars original trilogy was NOT made by one man but by a group of talented people including Marcia Lucas (the one that got the idea of killing obi-wan), Irvin Kirshner (director of episode V) and many other's Recycling : The idea of introducing a cycle was Lucas' one, not disney (it's very obvious in the phantom menace, even more than in force awakens), and Lucas made the prequels recycling the ideas his friends told him NOT to use in the original trilogy, while Disney used elements from the original version of Return of the jedi, the version that Lucas butchered by making things like not kiling Han solo to continue to sell his toy (no kidding, it's the real reason). When Lucas made the prequels he was no more an imaginative artist, he was the leader of a big merchandising company, he became exactly what he hated, it's very tragic.
This is why I watch Nostalgia Critic. Granted, I have been upset with him before, maybe left an angry comment once or twice (which I must say that I am sorry for as I probably could've handled it better), but ultimately, he does help me see things from a new perspective. His reviews help to educate me in ways I could never have discovered on my own, even when I disagree with what he says. Plus, his presentation is done in a humorous way that makes it a lot easier to take, even if he's trashing something I like. It's more fun because I can still get a laugh out of it and enjoy the time I spent watching his review. I'm very glad he's done what he does and despite some differences and harsh words, I'm glad to be subscribed. Thank you Nostalgia Critic.
I love this perspective. Too many people see disagreements as reasons to get legitimately angry, when it should be looked at as an opportunity to share and learn! :D
“Some people can read War and Peace, and come away from it thinking that its a simple adventure story, others can read the back of a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe”- Lex Luthor This popped into my head while watching this.
Dude the critics are absolutely SLAMMING Kotm for little to no reasons. Like, look at some of the reviews on rotten tomatoes. It's as if they were put to knifepoint and told to knitpick until their brain fell out.
ommlettuce Ikr! No reason to give it such a low score for just having a bad story and "unlikeable" characters! Like seriously! Can we just for once enjoy some amazing monster fights?
@@ethanjones1327 Idk about that. There were definitely some really nice visuals and good acting by the cast. It's miles better than the dark blandness and boring acting from the first one. Not to say it's a good movie, it's just a movie about a bunch of giant monsters fighting, but it's definitely not so dumb it's Pacific Rim, and it's not so dull it's the first movie again. The only problem I can say about it is the cheap writing and the rushed pace, where the movie really makes it clear it's trying to build this cinematic universe while already having a ton of stuff happening at the same time on the same scene. Other than that, it's really not a bad movie. Just ok.
@@MrCool-db2jn the humans were fine unlike some godzilla movies where I just skip to the monster fights, I didn't mind watching the whole thing. I can say Kotm is my favorite Godzilla movie
Oh my God. Could you imagine if you met the Internet in the form of one person? I feel like making eye contact with them would be like looking into Cthulhu's soul. You just wouldn't be able to comprehend what you saw, and end up a blubbering psychopath.
I feel I owe you an apology, Doug. I've seen the remake of Beauty and the Beast and when I heard you say that you thought it was bad, I'll admit I felt a little peeved by it. I gave myself a bit of time to gather my thoughts and think things through and even went back to your sibling rivalry on it, this time sticking through to the end. And I remembered that just because you thought it sucked doesn't mean I should let that bother me. In fact, your thoughts on the remake were my exact thoughts on Cinderella, because the original from 1950 is my favorite Disney movie. Long story short, I loved the Beauty and the Beast remake, but I will at least acknowledge why you don't like it. I doubt you'll ever read this, but I still wanted to let you know anyway. Keep up the good work.
I liked Phantom Menace. I'm NOT kidding. Actually, it's my favourite prequel of all three. Why? Because it does the best job of balencing itself out; for every BAD thing that came with it, there was an equally GOOD thing. For every Jar-Jar Binks, you have Darth Maul. For every half-assed, tensionless and cheesy space battle, you have an occasionally-passable, ocasionally-badass podrace. For Yoda, Mace Windu, and every member of the Jedi coucil stroking their chins and saying "Anakin is too old; he cannot join, get him out of here while we continue to do nothing!" you have Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn and Ewan McGreggor as Obi-Wan Kenobi.
+Iron2Man911 That's a net zero. There was so much bad stuff, that it made watching it for the good parts pointless. I don't want to watch something that feels like a chore, just to see one or two cool moments. They should have went all in on making it kid friendly, or making it more serious, All those "bad parts" would have fit in a less serious movie, and fit the character designs much better.
+Iron2Man911 Darth Maul's lightsaber had more character than he did. He was a zero-effort villian who barely served any purpose in the story, and the potential he had to be an enemy who haunts obi-wan in the consecutive films was wasted by killing him. Although it's not Ewan McGregor's fault, Obi-Wan's character in Phantom Menace was entirely devoid of emotion, barely does anything to contribute to the story, and his actions don't even make sense. Obi-Wan, the pupil, is constantly pushing for caution and moderation, while Qui-Gon, the supposed wise master, acts on whims, tricks and cheats people out of their property, and generally makes brash decisions not fitting of the role his character was supposed to fill. The phantom menace had good visual design - that's it. On every other level it is fundamentally broken.
+Jonathan Odne Here's more of my argument (that I couldn't post because it was too long; not all) On top of that, the movie just feel much more fast paced to me: they land on Naboo, fly off to Tattooine, stay there for a while, go to Corascant, back to Naboo, movie ends. A lot of the scenes are long, sure, but the majority of the movie is spent with our characters just trying to get to ONE particular location but can't because they encountered an obstacle and had to work to overcome it. The dialogue is bad, some of the acting is horrendous, and the abundant CGI looks dated to our modern eyes, but ultimatley PM is the fastest moving prequel with enough cool stuff, AS EQUALLY GOOD, as the bad is bad, and that's why it's my favourite. Attack of the Clones slowed down too much in the filler between the action scenes, and gave me too much cringy dialogue between Anakin and Padme to justify waiting that long for the fight between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett on Kamino, or in the asteroid field.
+Iron2Man911 it wasn't that bad of a film as it was a complete disappointment when compared to the original trilogy don't get me wrong though I still thought it was pretty bad but that's because I read the original books by RA Salvator the first book had so much potential by cutting out a shit ton of content and adding a slapstick character who was never even in the original story.
Fun fact the Thing 1982 is largely regarded as the most hated movie of 1982, it was panned so hard by critics who definitely showed a bias towards E.T. which came out literally two weeks prior. Nowadays, not only is the Thing considered by many as one of the best horror movies ever made, a lot of people consider it one of the best films of all time.
Critics are wrong whenever you enjoy the film or hate it contrary to their opinion. Your opinion is yours and it doesn't matter if everyone else hates something if you like it then you like it.
Yeah I can understand. The Ratchet and Clank Movie's out in the US now. Since I'm from the UK (AND HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL JULY!) I decided to look up the reviews. As it's a video game movie, it was clear first impressions weren't... stable to put it mildly, as video game movies tend to suck or go live action. Yet despite it getting generally negative reviews, like 6/10 on IGN and currently 21% on rotten tomatoes, fans still praised the movie and not because of the CG being identical to the cut scenes of a game! They got the voice actors from the games playing their characters (with a few other known names to get more recognition), the weapons from the games, the characters from the games really being themselves, basically so much dedication has gone into this, even Insomniac lend a hand! It was mainly just the humour that was a little problem because while there are scenes that would give a good chuckle, they probably weren't sure to fully adapt that into the game, I think probably because of its innuendo vibe, even though that's one of the franchises strength. So I'm not gonna wait out those 3 months, I'M GONNA WATCH THIS MOVIE SOMEHOW LIKE THEIR'S NO TOMORROW!
Some critics bashed Infinity War for being to confusing and too fast pace, like they expected a summary of 10 fucking years worth of movies and their plots to understand what is happening. This pisses me off because such a emotional and impactful movie such as Infinity War getting negative reviews just due to ignorant people.
Firepopcorn 123 Yeah they probably felt that it would be too hard for new fans to get into Marvel when watching the film, but that’s the whole point of the MCU, you have to start with Iron Man and watch the 20 or so movies that follow before watching Infinity War.
Isabella Nash that is kinda a cheap move. People don’t have to do anything. When a kid goes in theatres and watches a movie because he sees the hulk is in it or Spider-Man, he goes and watches it as a casual fan. He is new and doesn’t understand the plot and what is going on and who those heroes are. Why are they fighting, who is Thanos, what are those Stones?. Which makes the causal fan a fanboy, leading him to buy all their movies and merchandise, Meaning more money to Marvel. Critics are right to complain about that. I feel the same when I start a new show. That is why I am careful when I start a new serie. I get addicted and feel forced to watch all episodes in order to catch on, which is time consuming and not very satisfying.
Lilstrangeo maybe a bit more exposition? For the kids ofcourse. Marvel movies are made for kids, but are also enjoyable by adults. The casual fan shouldn’t feel the need to catch on. Just let Thanos explain in the beginning what he plans to do, and during the rest of the movie let him explain to every hero he encounters to make them understand- or let them die opposing him.
But I mean considering how much money it made and the incredible reception by audiences, I doubt the Russos are losing sleep over a couple people not liking the movie.
The film can get rather sentimental and sappy. That being said, from a technical standpoint it's incredible. The battle scenes are mesmerizing at times, it's the stuff in between that's the problem.
+poontang3zizo Yeah, how the fuck can it be clichéd if it was the first of its kind? And it may be considered inappropriate considering it's rating nowadays, but that's a problem with the rating not the movie itself.
Maybe not corny and cliched, but remember that scene where Jenny puts Forrest's hand on her breasts and he's confused and uncomfortable? That's what we call sexual molestation.
I love not being a critic. I watch movies all the time, I cant even remember the last bad movie I've ever watched was. Seriously. I tend to enjoy EVERY movie I watch.
To some degree, I wonder if critics and review systems have trained this generation to actively seek out problems with media. Like, it's good to refine your taste, but sometimes I think people unintentionally deny themselves enjoyment for the sake of having the "correct, educated opinion". I know I do that. I'm learning to put more focus on finding what _does_ work about a movie, and I've been enjoying things a lot more. :)
The Star Wars Prequels and Original Trilogy both hold up a hell of a lot better than the crap Kennedyfilm has been pushing out (barring Rebels and Rogue One).
The Ramblings of a Nobody The prequel trilogy wasn’t half bad tbh, just hated on for not being as good as the original movies. The OT wasn’t flawless either you know.
I think what makes a critic call a movie "good" is the moviemakers' genuine passion and earnestness put on screen in the final product. I wish more critics would call out movies that are blatant award bait, more than cynical cash-grabs.
I remember Nostalgia Critic noted something similar in when is a movie so bad it's good. Films like Plan 9 from outer space and the Room are bad movies but they're made with a lot of effort by amateurs which can make them more endearing than big studio films that are being designed to win oscars.
The problem is that the majority of critics are self-righteous and self-center that they believe that their opinion is fact but the same I could say about the opinion of the masses.
Virus Reaper whether it’s logical or not doesn’t give them a pass to act self-righteousness because they go to the movies more often. Yes maybe their argument vs someone who doesn’t watch a movie can be based on more and “better” reasons, but no matter what, there can be good reasons to like or dislike movies always. They act like they are infallible because their success rate at seeing which movie will be remembered or forgotten is better. Their is no reason to have this attitude, it’s childish. You cannot be a pro on everything in life, there isn’t enough time, so critics shouldn’t make fun of people just be because they like movies more than the average Joe.
Waterboy was pretty good because his "Backwoods Hick" persona works perfectly. His problem is that he uses that same persona in movies that don't need it.
I love the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I rarely meet someone, critic or peer otherwise, who agrees. I guess this video summarizes why I might like it more than other people do.
No matter what anyone says about those movies (personally I think they're okay kids films), Shaggy was spot on! Genuinely one of the best casting decisions ever.
I showed this video to my Theater History professor, and he actually played it during class when discussion turned to critics. It was a fun day.
Doug is a VERY intelligent & poignant speaker when it comes to film. He really knows his stuff :)
@@jojoversus1100 he probably could go "professional" if he wanted to; but I think he likes making comedy out of films as much as he likes to tear them apart.
This is honestly one of Doug's best videos
The nostalgia critic criticizing the criticism by and of critics.
+Voyd Void Mind = Blown!
+Voyd Void We're going to deep!
+Voyd Void Critiception
+Voyd Void ... metacritic
+Voyd Void The meta is evolving.
I don't agree with people who think critics are *always* right, but I also can't stand it when people say the critics are never ever right
😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚😚
I recently watched a movie called Equilibrium, that most viewers liked but critics hated. And for the first time, I strongly agreed with the critics. It's the kind of film that if you're not too familiar with dystopian sci-fi you may like; but if you are, you'd easily see that it's a mish-mash of lots of other sci-fi dystopias with almost zero originality.
This is when I understood how critics feel.
Right and wrong have nothing to do with it. Critics are PAID to give good or bad reviews.
They gave the Polar Express, a fun and good animated adventure with good voice acting, only a 55 percent because of the animation quality, and Crawl, a totally bland and generic monster movie, 83 percent. Those are a couple of examples of why critics aren’t always right.
This isn't anything groundbreaking, using always or never in an argument is already invalid.
“It’s not science, it’s not mathematics,”
Me:but the chart says
SHUT UP ABOUT THE CHARTS
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@Humanresouces but THE CHART SAYS
@@jeanniefleming7380 YOU ARE EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH ENTERTAINMENT!
@@Lemoncakelover678 you are everything wrong with the youtube commenter that is to many Emojis
"Would you get angry at someone for writing a philosophy on life even when it's different from yours?"
...have you met the internet?
+Vohalika or religion
+Vohalika
Hey you may not agree with my philosophy but it works for me!
Fuck you!
+BelphegorXVI it's definitely mostly the internet. sorry, we just covered the stats and experiments on this in social psych. for the most part this sort of behavior is confined to the internet. people tend to live and let live in real life. at least, the majority of them, according to the studies.
+Ryndan Riley
People are in real life almost exactly like online, although in reality they usually repress those "dickish" reactions without realizing that they're mostly as predictable as every clichèd flick. As soon as they get exposed to that (in an argument or sort of it), they lose their mind and turn just like their Internet-counterpart.
TheMrRuttazzo That may be your anecdotal experience, but there isn't a lot of empirical evidence to back that up from social psychology. You can find a lot of data on it on google scholar if you want. For the most part, the internet creates reactions like that out of people for various reasons, including physical anonymity, for example. There are other situations that can bring that out, but claiming that a behavior is a result of inner character is what is called the fundamental attribution error, and is also rejected by modern psychology. You can make people act pretty much any way you want, given the right circumstances. That doesn't mean it's part of who they are. Really, this stuff is interesting to research. Check it out on google scholar.
That "let her go" bit reminds me of when the Joker drops Rachel out of a window, one of my favorite uses of the cliche.
Well, both Christopher Nolan and Heath Ledger were making fun of the cliche with the line "very poor choice of words". It's another nice little touch to the masterpiece that is The Dark Knight. It's not a "cliche dodge" (as CinemaWins would put it) but an acknowledgement of how often said cliche is used and how people should try to come up with something else.
I've literally seen the same moment in dozens of cartoons and TV shows. The Dark Knight is a great film but it's not *that* clever.
"Very poor choice of words"
Joker™ "The evil deadpool before evil deadpool"
Especially the look Joker gives Batman before he literally let's her go.
I remember George Lucas in his interview with Oprah saying when A New Hope ended and the credits rolled in a theatre in Japan everyone was quiet and he honestly thought the movie bombed. But as it turned out the audience was actually paying the movie heavy respect because they loved the movie alot.
interesting that is, a good movie it was, mhrm lol sorry couldn't resist, but yeah that reminds me of a comedian who once performed in Germany and they didn't laugh the entire time but after she was done they burst into applause and cheers and it turned out they just didn't want to interupt her
The filmmakers for The Lion King said something similar.
You are an intelligent, well spoken person and a perfect example for the "decent critic" you describe in this video. Thank you very much for everything.
"That's what a critic should do. Teach you how to communicate better"
*Cut to Nostalgia Critic screaming his lungs out over a fart joke*
Except that didn't happen in the video.
TheDaveMaybe watch his other videos
Still other videos can give this video a bit of added flavor if you keep it in mind that even nostalgia critic can be taken out of context hilariously.
The message still remains
Except, his job is first to get views, then to entertain (there are things that in our household are called trainwrecks: so bad/dumb you can't look away, so the two are not always the same), then to be an actual critic.
Critics have points, but sometimes, they can overreact.
I searched in rotten tomatoes a pretty underrated movie that I really like, "Brother Bear", and it got there 38%. It was so hated that apperantly even it's SEQUEL got a higher score of 50%!
Why?! This movie was really beautiful!
Bar Yardeni I didn't know Brother Bear was hated by critics. I like the film alot. (Although it's better with Rutt and Tuke's commentary)
First Brother bear is 9/10 for me.
Ikr?? Brother Bear is probably my favourite Disney movie (I'm not very fond of Disney) and one of my favourite animated movie in general!
Bar Yardeni Because the second movie can't be better than the first
@@TonyHill2335 Of course it can, but it wasn't, at least according to me and apparently the OP agrees.
The problem, especially in the Rotten Tomatoes era, is that people look at the score, but don't read the review. There are countless fresh reviews that offer tepid praise, and countless rotten reviews that make it clear they saw merit. Reading a review, I can often tell by the end whether I will agree or disagree with that critic before I see the film. Most are very good at making their preferences clear, even if many are guilty of making their opinions sound like fact.
Reviews have a purpose, but that purpose has been corrupted by a media hungry for clickbait. People need to do themselves a favor and at least fully read a handful of reviews from different sources before they decide whether a film is worth seeing or not.
At the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes isn't the best source for having your own opinions. Let your opinions be your own opinions, whether you like it or not.
This will always be one of my favourite NC videos, and it does a great job of presenting the point that both critics and audiences always need to keep in mind:
Critics' opinions on art and media exist for the purpose of conveying nuance and promoting discussion (for those wishing to engage) - not to be treated as dogmatic truth or inherently superior to the opinions of laypeople.
"A critic is supposed to teach you to communicate better." Couldn't have said it better myself, Doug. I never thought about it that way until now. I can't be a critic professionally because I am not interested in going through all movies or learning about the art of making films. But I can learn to give my opinion on a movie by defending my arguments well with legitimate examples from the movie.
Don't stop with these editorials. I always enjoy learning from them!
critiquing critics.. so meta, bro..
A critic critiquing critiquing critics.
Is he also a critic?
He didn`t really criticize anything, soooooo...
FALSE STATEMENT! ON THE INTERWEBS who`d a thunk it..
Sad day for us all..
I never understood what "meta" means. Please explain
Martialhorror in Critiquing the Critics, I feel like I'm the only one who remembers him
Shut up justin............... *COUGH*
Doug Walker is kind of like the Vsauce of social media.
👍
+Isaiah Williams He really is. I'd like to see some kind of mashup of the two channels someday.
+shpongloidia I agree, that'd be awesome, they both manage to get a lot of celebrity cameos
Pretty much
+Isaiah Williams He talk about two totally different things at the beginning and end of the video too?
Its happening again with The Super Mario Bros Movie. Critics hated hated but most people loved it.
Thats because the Mario movie was never ment to be a movie for critics or even something that was ment to be deep. Yeah i know we shit on the lorax and the grinch for beeing too kid friendly but thats because they came from a place of thought and pasion that we get mad if they don't capture that same spirit even if they are based on childrens book. Mario since day one was always an excuse to go to the adventure to save the princess and beat the bad guy, since the priority of the games was always the gameplay not the story. If it was a zelda movie or even the friggin last of us then we would have hate them because they came from games with great story and writting.
@@motor4X4kombatI don’t understand the whole “Critics don’t care for movies that are made for fans” argument. The Lego Movie, Godzilla vs Kong, TMNT Mutant Mayhem, and to a small degree the first Sonic movie got positive reviews by critics and they are made for fans and are by no means deep movies. I’m not saying the critics are right or wrong but they’re still entirely capable of seeing the same merit and enjoyment that fans may get out of certain films for fans.
@@motor4X4kombat If someone want to make a Splatoon animated movie/series and needs to appeal to both critics and the fans of the games in order to be succesfull, then it needs to have alot of dark moments in a same level as Star Wars: The Clone Wars and Rebels.
@@Butwhythough881 the lego movie was a lot more than just that, that movie had a good story, extremely clever writing and good written characters, even if you could argue that movie is following the chosen one trope, it did it in a self aware way, and tells a message about how even a seemingly regular guy can be special in their own way and not be limited to just what people says you are supposed to be. I’m sorry, but I just don’t like how you underestimate the Lego movie like that. If you like the Mario movie fine, but that movie is nowhere near Lego movie in terms of storytelling
I still love Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Man's Chest and At World's End, don't care what y'all say
+P.J. Dales
They're mediocre, but they're still enjoyable. I sure enjoy them.
I love all those movies
I really enjoy World's end, dead man's chest not so much
+P.J. Dales Worlds End is one of my recent favorite comedys.
Agreed.
"Would you get angry at someone for writing a philosophy on life even if it wasn't yours?"
Doug, it's 2017 - Who doesn't get livid any time anyone has a different philosophy than they do?
HOLD ON A MINUTE! Saving Private Ryan is hated?
I don't know either how it's possible.
Léo VK it's hated because of the maniqueism.
Really? I guess it would have been good to show the good side of nazis XD
But seriously, of course it's maniqueist. If there ever was a "just war" (not that I'm saying there is) fought by America, it's this one. You can criticize the WAY it was fought (unnecessary bombings of civilian cities). Sure, you could aslo criticize the American generals for some mistakes and sacrificing the lives of American soldiers without second thoughts. But during the D-day the basic American soldiers made a huge sacrifice, and it's their point of view that is shown (brilliantly) in this film. And yet they still question themselves and have doubts, making them feel more humans.
As for the German soldiers, yes obviously they were not all evil. But a huge number of them had commited crimes of wars (I'm not even speaking about the Shoah, but about the many slaugthering of prisonners or civilians on the Eastern front- and there were also examples on the western fronts). And it's NOT as simple as SS= evil and Wehrmacht= neutral, as the Wehrmacht also commited many crimes of war without any involvment of the SS. This, if anything, was a western post-war propaganda, in order to have a "good" German western army fighting on our side during the Cold war, which was basically based on the (very) slightly denazified Wehrmacht minus the SS.
So, having ONE German soldier that convince the Americans to release him and then attack them back again later and kill one of them in a gruesome way was in no way unjustified. Yes, the fact he kills exactly the one Jewish soldier is a bit over the top. But many Jewish soldiers did die in the Allied forces.
What the German soldier did here is incidentally in no way a crime of war- neither escaping nor hand to hand combat are forbidden by the Geneva convention. If anything, "well done" (I'm obviously not rooting for the nazis here, just from a neutral point of view) for "escaping", and then fighting again later. So, I would not agree that even this one German soldier is presented as evil.
As far as I remember, the other German soldiers are just fighting and trying to kill the American soldiers (as they logically should). They are a bit de-humanized as they are not often shown (it's not their POW that is the focus of this film), but they are in no way portrayed as evil (again, I might not remember everything).
Yes this movie is pro-American propaganda in a way, and therefore I understand why it could be hated. But it is in my opinion a very good war movie: well written characters, good effects that hold to this day, very memorable scenes of war (that's pretty rare in war movies to have action-packed and yet more or less accurate war scenes), showing both heroism and the horrors of war, good pacing and engaging (if a bit straightforward, but that's not necessarily bad) story, emotional but not over-sentimental.
Léo VK well I think that's one of the main reasons it's kinda hated but you have a solid point, though one thing that few people can deny is it's solid direction of "action" scenes a demonstration of how shaky camera and jarring editing can work in a good way. I haven't completely watched so I can't say more than that.
You should watch, even if you end up not liking it, it is worth your time in my opinion ;)
It is after all still a classic of war movies.
1st rule about critic club ...
Don't talk about critic club
All the time...That's why everyone is different in this world. one mans trash is another mans teasure!
let people like what they like.
+chiefmegadeth Exactly.
That's not really saying they are wrong, their review is basically just looking at their point of view and how they saw the film. A character some may find annoying or insuffrable others find charming and endearing. that's why you shouldnt just base your ideas off of one critic or be offended when they dont like a movie.
Except for chef, man. Let it burn.
+chiefmegadeth Indeed.
One mans trash is another mans pleasure.
00:18, What he should have said was "Once this liquid is consumed, you suddenly become part of the League of Super Critics."
+EverythingIC There's bad blood there.
+StudioInkblot we dont talk about that place... wait, do we?
I didnt know that! i thought it just got shut down because of youtube being stupid. Is that why he doesnt do crossovers with the old gang anymore?
EverythingIC It's complicated.
+StudioInkblot, do you have any evidence? That sounds like the rumors I've heard about other TH-cam channels *cough *chough *gamegrumps *cough
When are critics wrong?
Always, to some people.
Never, to some people.
Sometimes, to the best kind of people.
Billderbeerg S Yes. Sometimes. 100% sometimes.
I hated Trolls, and for several months I couldn't escape it
I’m just really mad that it got a useless follow-up Netflix animated series that for some reason my brother unironically likes.
Then again, he also likes Teen Titans Go, so I don’t really take him seriously anymore.
I have sunshine in my pocket . . . (I'm sorry loll)
Ikr
Kiwi Stopmotion productions FINALLY! Somebody else who hates that god awful piece of shit Trolls film. And yet, people continue to praise it while criticizing WAY better films like The Polar Express.
@@a.morphous66 That show is just SOOO annoying, boring, and useless.
I think a big problem with "criticism" is, that people tend to think enjoyment = quality and the opposite aswell.
Shouldn't your enjoyment go hand in hand with the quality of the film? Like i never heard of anyone enjoying a truly broken and unwatchable movie before
@@professordreadwin7959 Ever heard of The Room?
Korra Fan I enjoy the most of Transformers movies (except for Revenge of The Fallen and The Last Knight) even though the Michal Bay ones are brainless action flicks, the 1986 one being a bit dated and cheesy, And Predacon’s Rising only aiming at fans who have seen Transformers:Prime, and acknowledge most of those movies are not very good, but I don’t enjoy The Godfather and Godfather 2, How To Train Your Dragon, Green Mile And Wonder despite knowing and seeing that these movies are good, sometimes people would rather watch something cheesy or brainless over something that they really have to think about
Mim Silvernote How could you not enjoy the Green Mile? That film is a crowd pleaser with great acting and an interesting story. The Godfather films are good from all aspects of movie making. You can enjoy the Transformers movies, but they are definitely not good films. I didn’t enjoy How To Train Your Dragon that much either, but I can acknowledge that it’s a good movie. Enjoyment and quality are not the same.
Glimmer Tron Taxi Driver isn’t necessarily an enjoyable movie, but it’s a great film. This works the other way around too. Someone could enjoy Space Jam, but it’s a poor movie that is essentially a 90 minute commercial with Looney Tunes characters and celebrity cameos. Enjoyment and movie quality don’t always go hand in hand.
I love how when he talks about how critics must watch every movie, they show 70's and 80's horror movies as bad movies.
This is why I watch a movie for myself and decide whether or not I liked it. The critics never held sway over me.
Ditto.
segundo vargas glad to see another person smart enough to think for themselves. When my friends would recommend a movie I'd check it out. We had similar tastes as most friends did but we didn't get butt hurt like people today when our opinions differed.
Inus Berard A lot of people dont have the time or money to roll the dice on a movie that might by absolute shit. I kinda rely on critics to give me perspective on a movie.
I'll give you that. But I've seen loads of shows that critics have said were rather bad and I've actually liked a lot. Like I said, you have to rely on your own judgement and choose something that while the critics don't like, you might see differently.
Critics help me find the type of show I want to see by describing it and they warn me from wasting my money on garbage.
You've matured, Critic, you've matured.
Fantastic Caleb not really. Just look at how he treated his fanbase when he did the sibling rivalry with Beauty and the Beast.
@@811brian what are you talking about? He didn't talk about his fanbase in that video at all.
@@keelanbarron928 he made a mockery.
@@811brian can you give an example? Because i just watched it and i couldn't find it.
I for one thought he matured after “the review must go on”.
Critics, to me, are only useful when I know them and their taste. I wouldn't ever care about a nameless critic I've never heard about. I need to know the critic's personality when I want to hear a movie recommendations / warning. That's why I watch the Schmoesknow, Jeremy Jahns, Chris Stuckmann and The Flick Pick. Are their opinions more valid than the opinions of other critics? God no. But I know them from their reviews, vlogs etc. and I can infer whether or not a critique resonates with me. I don't care if some person I don't know says that the recent blockbuster is awesome or shit. Their opinion means nothing because I don't know them. If Jeremy or Chris pan a movie (or hype a movie) then I know why they do it, because I know their tastes and I can translate this into my taste and whether or not I share that taste.
What about Nostalgia critic or Angry Joe?
+Carl Bloke same logic applies
Can't trust someone that, on his right mind, believes on Anita Sarkeesian, so AJ is way out of the question. NC is so driven by nostalgia (who'd have thought of that one lol) that obviously is going to choose Reeve's superman before Man of steel or Burton's batman before Nolan's. I actually see him for his rants on shit I don't like either, but when something's new, no jugdment is better than your own.
metalliclark86 do you even watch either of them? Angry Joe doesn't think Anita a crazy SJW is right. And just because he's the Nostalgia Critic doesn't mean he is ignorant on modern day movies. You should probably take into account his reasons for the depiction of superman. He still has more professional judgment on modern movies since he's an expert and knowledgeable on modern movies same as classic movies
I used to get into AJ videos until I stumbled on that one where he actually says that anita is right about her tropes vs women bullshit (can't remember which one nor I care). regarding NC, I've already said I watch him for his entertainment value. And Devil Boner. Never forget Devil Boner. But he did chose Reeve's superman and Burton's batman, among others that can't remember, but if there's any numbers I'm sure they back it up. What's wrong about making my own mind about things? Is people THAT fearful/lazy nowadays?
If you guys don't know, Spaceballs has a 54% on rotten tomatoes. Why does such a good movie have a bad ratings?
opnions
SpaceBalls is a funny film, no doubt, but what happened was the film came out years after the last Star Wars film (Return of the Jedi), so the effect of the film was severely undermined.
@Redha Delf
Spaceballs isn’t even a good film. It contains cheap, lowbrow humor, bad puns, and half-assed references to every popular sci-fi and action film of the zeitgeist. All I can praise the film for is the use of special effects, because the same effects team that worked in Spaceballs worked on Star Wars. If you want a sci-fi comedy, go watch Galaxy Quest.
All that means is 54% of critics liked it
54% is definitly not enough for that masterpiece of a movie. Maybe I´m based because I hate Star Wars, but who cares.
Know what else is weird? Movies like Wizard of Oz and Citizen Kane were actually also panned when they first came out, but now, more than 70 years after they were released, they are seen as two of the greatest movies of all time, and two that almost everyone has seen, or what most critics say, everyone has to see.
Critics often can't recognise a masterpiece when it first comes out. Bambi was in a similar situation when it was released. And they also sometimes praise movies that will be seen as trash later, such as The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. It just goes to show that most critics aren't as intelligent or insightful as they pretend to be. I've got nothing against Doug - he's provided me with food for thought over the years in his editorials, especially the So Good It's Bad and Eyes Wide Shut ones, and when he's being himself he doesn't come across as a pretentious douchebag but a humble and likeable guy - but he's an exception, not the norm. And even he screws up sometimes (like when he said The Force Awakens is good).
Robert Moore Casablanca also got mixed reviews.
I must now find some way to fit the quote “They wouldn’t know art if the Mona Lisa KICKed them in the balls...!” into every conversation I have daily
Can't wait for the follow up: "When are Audiences Wrong?"
Nathan Schubert Your response has a few grammar errors.
+ChronoShenron movie are made for Audience not for critics so "Audience aren't wrong "
+Lotfi Leviaton You seem to have missed the point of the video.
Critics ARE part the audience, they just publicize their opinions and watch more movies. Audiences and critics are both "wrong" sometimes.
+ChronoShenron This would legitimately be an awesome video for him to do next!
lmfao, my comment that spoke truth was deleted XD anyway, audiences *are* wrong when 1 person says a movie is a masterpiece, then another believes him, and over the course of many decades society deems that single movie a masterpiece just cause 1 guy started it... like Citizen Kane (not the best, people)...
I like every movie ever made, except the shitty ones.
The Joe Cool same
Who doesn't
Conglaterdation.
So like 20% of movies
Gamer-Grape 5% tops I would say
Too many people confuse a film’s quality with whether or not they like a film. They think that if they don’t like a film that it means the film sucks. A good critic should be able to put aside subjectivity and look at things objectively.
Sprechen Sie Deutsch?
100% yes!
I can acknowledge Frozen is a good movie. I just personally don’t care much for it. And it’s not cause it’s an animated Disney film. I enjoy both Wreck it Ralph films. Frozen just doesn’t do it for me. Is it good? Yes. Do I care about it though? Not really.
@@ReinSouls In my opinion, Frozen is a decent movie but I kinda used to hate it because of "Let It Go" keeps playing everywhere and it bothered me as a kid. And my problem about the movie is that Hans is considered the main villain of the story. So how does it work? I thought this is a movie about "man vs. himself" conflict where Elsa had to control her uncontrollable ice powers to prevent everyone from getting harmed and she's originally the main villain like from the original Hans Christian Anderson story. Then again, it's a decent movie. Nothing special or anything. At least for the haters of Frozen, I absolutely agreed with them because of the problems.
Agreed. I never found The Shining scary but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad film by any means. It's still a classic, just not one I prefer to watch during Halloween.
@@poweroffriendship2.0 You can just say anything Disney does now has to involve either: A - the girl can't ever be the villain; or B - the "true love's kiss" can't ever be given by a guy to a girl.
@@radrno7 Female villains have been a thing for years. Maleficent, Ursula, or even Yzma are characters happened to be a villain and there's no problem with them getting defeated.
And the second part is where reality ensues. You're absolutely right about that "true loves kiss" can't be given by a stranger, at least for Snow White. Problem is that in Frozen, it's just poorly executed.
I took a theatre class in college to fulfill my humanities requirement, and one of the things I remember the instructor telling us is that people can and should form their own opinions independent of what critics think. That's one of the reasons I don't take them too seriously.
According to Shyamalan, critics are ALWAYS wrong.
Mirth Mouser And Michael Bay, Tyler Perry and Uwe Boll. One of the many reasons why I despise those 3 “filmmakers”. Oh, and Shyamalan, too.
Mirth Mouser Critics are actually right a lot of the time, but when they are wrong, they can get it very wrong on occasion (e.g. Ghostbusters 2016 and Piranha 3D)
I loved Warcraft. Not everyone did. Critics may not have been wrong on some of the criticisms, but to call it "Battlefield Earth of this generation" is just clickbait bullshit.
Agreed. Though I sorta think it was more like.. You're supposed to hate it.. like Adam Sandler Comedies.. Video Game Movies have had a bad track record.. however I was awestruck when I heard some critics said that the movie should've been handed to Uwe Boll to make it even worse. And.. any fans of the Nostalgia Critic will know how bad Uwe Boll's movies are.
I agree, but I read one review by a critic: James Berardinelli
ReelViews June 12, 2016
Large scale battles and magical pyrotechnics are nice supplements but the absence of well-formed characters and a meaningful narrative render such pretty things moot.
That isn't how you use moot. Moot simply means that something is infinitely debatable and thus should not be debated, as it will waste time. Plus if you go to their website, even for the more reputable sites, they are all peddling a fucking book.
I saw someone from Egbert.com I dunno if I got the web address right.. but someone from there gave the movie a 0.5/4. Look I know the movie isn't perfect, and has some scenes that make you go "Really? They put that in there?" but 0.5/4 that's a bit harsh.
As someone who has never played a Warcraft game and judging the film on its merits, I thought it was okay. I don't think it's as bad as critics make it out to be, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't have problems. The effects, action scenes, and the conflict are pretty good. However, the editing can seem really off like some scenes are missing and I found most of the characters boring, which prevent me from liking it more.
As someone who's familiar with the Lore. I can tell you guys who aren't in the know this.. It is not the same as it is in the game, there are several liberties they've taken.. like Lothar in the original lore doesn't have son, they added that in just to make it a bit more PG-13 than an R film.
I think it simply comes down to this: We all like movies that sucked. But people don't admit they sucked. If there's legitimate problems with a movie people just ignore them and say "that was a great movie" You can enjoy something and still acknowledge it has problems. People love to blindly defend something they like.
You can enjoy Batman vs Superman all you want, but ignoring the problems is just ignorant.
The simple way to handle critics is if they rate a movie highly that has a large amount problems is to no longer trust their opinion. The reason Doug is such a good reviewer is because he logically breaks down each and every problem and explains it. Even on movies he loves he's fair. That's why I pretty much always agree with him. There are far too many bias people and that is the true problem.
***** See this is the problem. Right here. I'm not going to use star wars as I'm not a fan but, If that movie has legitimate issues, and you're just ignoring them then you're at fault and being ignorant and bias.
It should be, its a flawed movie that I greatly enjoyed.
"Opinion" is something people now hide behind so they don't have to acknowledge flaws. Opinion is fine to like something, but not to blindly ignore any wrong doing something has.
I really liked Batman v Superman. Was it a bad movie? No I wouldn't call it a bad movie. Was it a great movie? No it was a slightly above average movie. It got better and better for me after seeing it 4 times. I wonder if it would get a higher percentage if all the critics went back and rewatched it. People that seem to despite it come off as one note people "If you like dark wooden joyless movies" Sometimes I do. Tim Burden was a master @ making Joyless movies fun.
+ZR J-Ro lmao above average? With all those plot holes? This is the problem right here.
+Lobo's Top 5 the problem is morons like you that think entertainment or art can be looked at objectively
drag00n365
Problem is tools like you that refuse to admit something has problems simply because you like it.
But there is one thing that we can all agree between all critics and non-critics...
That the emoji movie must be put to sleep... a very eternal sleep
Lord Solaire
Agreed
The emoji movie is the 4th stage of hell
I dont see whats so bad about it when it was made at the time movies were still quality. Sure most scenes didnt make sense at all and the JD part really had me cringed.
So you mean wished out of existence and never be spoken of again ?
Praise the Sun! \[°]/
Wait? Critics _don't_ work that way? So what actually was that juice that I drank?
+SourceMaster_ Granny's Peach Tea ;)
+Nicholas Maslennikov tbh I had to look up that reference. Also, eew.
Nicholas Maslennikov haha I thought that reference sounded familiar had to look it up tho
+Daniel Heidenreich Fuck you stole my joke
+SourceMaster_ It's that Secret Stuff that the Looney Toons drank in Space Jam.
Hmm I always saw Animal Farm as a warning against hypocrisy. Hating something so much that you become that thing but on crack.
Hmm
+Con Cahill Well I always think the movie was warning us to don't trust to animals farms because they gonna whip the mankind of the world, but well that's just my opinion
+Con Cahill It is. They just use the communism and Stalin thing for people to go even more anti-soviet, for no exact reason except for a war that didn't even have a single battle taken place...
+Con Cahill It wasn't. Unless you count all forms of Socialism as "Hypocrisy" which they are.
Based in the hatred fueled by envy, and using authoritarian means to enforce "equality", there is no destination but the hypocrisy of a _new_ ruling class.
And breadlines.
Ben Rodriguez How was it not at least somewhat about hypocrisy. The pigs end up going from animals that hate humans to being pretty much humans at the very end of the book. Sitting around a table dressed in clothes, drinking wine, and being manipulative. Hell they sent that horse to the glue farm.
Well said, Doug. Any critic/analyst/reviewer/etc. worth their weight in gold have all said at one point "Don't take my word for it. Experience it for yourself, make your own opinion, and stick with it."
And that's why I don't take all critics at face value. I'd rather find one that I agree with 90-98% of the time and stick with them.
+Samurai Echidna So.... Jeremy Jahns, Chris Stuckmann and the Schmoes?
Ben Wasserman No idea who those people are. But I do tend to agree with most things that Andre "Black Nerd" has to say about stuff. :)
Samurai Echidna Check them out
This last week with Alita and captain marvel would be a fantastic example of this.
Critics slammed alita, they said it was because her robot body was too sexual. ??? Were we watching the same movie?? Audiences loved it and had no idea what the critics were talking about.
The critics loved captain marvel for the female empowerment message. One critic admitted he had to give a positive review or risk losing his access. Audiences.... well were mixed at best. The most fair ones that werent trolls or feminists said it was a not great movie that was a little boring and the main character had almost no personality.
I can never trust paid critics.
Hopping on the Alita bandwagon with you, another complaint critics had was that it had the nerve to set itself up for a sequel.
Meanwhile....they can't wait to see how The Last Jedi and Captain Marvel set themselves up for the inevitable conclusions to *their* respective sagas!
I loved both, honestly
I liked CM as well. But Alita was minimum equally as good as CM and for me personally it was even superior to Captain Marvel. What makes that case special is that both movies have a lot similarities in their premises and got treated very differently by the same critics.
For example one critique just gave CM a 5 of 5 and Alita a 0. She didn´t even gave a single star for the CGI. Everything was terrible for her. You can´t shill more obvious than that. Alitas CGI was better than that of CM and in terms of Motion Capture pushed the technology ahead. Not even Thanos looked that good. And there quite a few of such reviews. At the beginning Alita had a decimating 39% at Rotten Tomatoes. Compare that to "The Wandering Earth" which got 76%.
No way on earth if you are any objective, you give a movie such bad ratings which was done by some of the best minds in Hollywood.
Some people commented it with: Cameron should throw the movie into the trash heap. Flat out disrespectful. If it were all for fun and bla I wouldn´t care less. But those critics cost film makers millions if they collectively shit on the same movie for no reason. If they had done the same with Avatar they might have buried it too.
kevin cope I like Captain Marvel. Hope they do a Captain Marvel 2!
@@sweetdrdre96 you just yell that at any movie with a female main character
I really enjoyed the Hotel Transylvania movies.
i really want to watch them
So did I. I heard they're making a third one. Can't wait!
I hated the second one
The first one's gold, the sequel... not so much
Oh Jay I thought the 2nd one was shit
I always love these editorials. Almost every time I watch them Doug has such a profound and well thought out insight into whatever subject he's talking about. And even though he's willing to express his own opinion, he doesn't treat it like it's law, and generally keeps a fairly open mind to other opinions except in REALLY extreme cases.
On a side note, can I please express how annoying it is that so many people saw no potential in The LEGO Movie? I'm a huge fan of LEGO, and I can say fully that LEGO has always put effort into making funny and quirky stories in relation to their products, and the message in the movie is a very sincere message that they've been trying to convey to both children and adults for years. And even with that said, they actually wrote new and original characters for it as opposed to grabbing their already existing properties, aside from Batman, but they didn't even use their normal LEGO Batman, it was more like if Batman showed up in any other comedy. So when all is said and done, it really isn't shameless marketing like everyone accused it of being, or at least not much more than any superhero movie. Anything that actually did look like marketing to me was used entirely for tongue-in-cheek humour.
Sorry for the rant, I know people actually do like the movie, it just bugs me that people think it was a surprise.
+Aaron O'neil Though i dissagree and do think that Doug and especially his brother DO unfortunately have the air of "my opinion is law, i hate this movie and it's *shit* because I don't like it" He's not a bad reviewer and is still enjoyable. Also the lego movie was awesome.
What matters is no matter how loudly someone yels about it, them disliking a movie doesnt mean youre stupid for liking it or thinking it's good movie. Everyones experiences are different.
Hell, i ADORED the good dinosaur and as an animator myself was thoroughly content with the visuals and character designs, and they shat all over that. But just because some angry nitpicky dudes online with superiority complexes thinks its shit, doesnt mean it IS shit, or *i* should feel bad for dissagreeing and loving it, yah dig?
Everyone's a judgemental asshole when it comes to movies, we just gotta love them for it XD
Film critics are experts when it comes to technicals and understanding how creators should use film to convey what they intended to convey. However, they are non essential for enjoying films. They ARE essential for films to continue getting better.
Funny thing: did you know The Empire Strikes Back had mixed to negative reviews in its initial release?
Not really, it was mixed sure but it wasn't extremely divisive like the last jedi was.
Jaden McKillip Did you know that the Thing, the Big Lebowski, It’s a Wonderful Life, Psycho, Rear Window, and the Shining got mixed to negative reviews when they came out? How times have changed.
Edit: Oops, I deleted the second Big Lebowski in the sentence, I fixed it now.
@@HugoSoup57 You said Big Lebowski twice
@@HugoSoup57 the thing was considered to be the most hated movie of all time, because ET just came out and were traumatized
I believe it. Empire is honestly kinda boring and visually dull compared to the original Star Wars, which would have been the only comparison they would’ve had at the time.
I love Forest Gump
Me too
Its my favourite film.
Agreed
Mostly everyone does. I don't.
For my own personal tateste it's so syrupy that I could choke on it. That may have something to do with me not being American and I definitelly wasn't sold on "success by innocence" metaphor/tale/whatever, despite having worked like a charm for me on "Being There".
Patrick Shields Because...?
For those who watched Lion King 2019 and like it, remember what Doug said here.
BC Nation worst live action Disney movie ever! Seriously.
Timothy Morris - Definitely! Not changing anything at all! Bullshit! At least with the Jungle Book remake, they change the monkeys to be more scary than funny, which I liked. The Lion King was boring as sin.
As a normal very well CGI animated film you could enjoy it. The main controversy of it was that animal emotion expression doesn't fit well in a realistic film.
Mhm I liked it
For those who watched Sonic the Hedgehog and liked it, remember what Doug said here.
To be fair, I think people shouldn't judge the Star Wars prequels for their effects. Sure, they are dated now... but at the time, they were good and amazing.
When looking at art, sometimes, we should think of when/where it was created.
And even then, while looking a bit dated, it's still quite stunning and Lucas' work paved the way to do even better with CGI....
Also, for the change in opinion, it should be noted that at the time, the effects were considered great, so it was visually stunning, had great effects, and the action was awesome.
Compare that to reviews when the effects don't look as great anymore and people don't care about how visually great it was and are now more apathetic to the action....
Key word is "sometimes" but yeah, good point! ;)
TheDeathmail Don't worry. Even if you take the CGI out of the equation the prequels were still bad.
Tantalized_Funyons Not overly bad.
in fact, they were decent movies (though flawed, but which movies don't have some).
Though some of the acting sucked (but hey, almost everyone sucked for the acting).
It's just that... it was Star Wars and all the flaws were more noticeable.
And the fact that while it had amazing stuff (and for the time, the effects were amazing), the movies people were supposed to love were just... good...
And people just hated JarJar that much...
(Though I loved Revenge of the Sith. In my opinion, it was the best one of all 6).
TheDeathmail I've been in too many of these debates to say that it works both ways...a lot of people also praise the prequels and notice good stuff about them that otherwise wouldn't be noticed "because its starwars!"
Granted I don't really like these movies, but I still can agree the hate can be a tad bit overbearing at times. As someone who has a bit of experience with BOTH extreme opinions...I sometimes wonder why Star Wars fans don't just get along more lol.
Alienrun They don't get along more cause people seem to like hating on things they dislike rather than move on...
John Carpenter's The Thing was disliked by critics too.
That one has a unique reason. It came out 2 weeks after ET
Imagine going from a family friendly, light hearted, charming, and funny story about a peaceful alien to a horror gore fest where an alien chops off arms and tears dogs inside out
@@isaywhateveriwantandyougot7421 well, one was rated PG and the other was R, that's kind of on the audience if they went to both.
I'm sorry, but WHO THE FUCK DOESN'T LIKE SAVING PRIVATE RYAN?
+Wes Roth Doug himself has said in the past that it's overrated.
Sandro Algra Barradas Doug is also doing this as a career, and he plays a character like 90% of the time.
The real question is do YOU think its over rated.
ZolRing This is literally like the reason Call of Duty is a thing. Its reputation is well earned, aside from it being one of those important War Films that focus more on the history and drama, than the glory and action.
+Wes Roth He maybe playing a character, but his opinions on movies are usually genuine... though he does oveplay his reactions for laughs.
Me? I think it's a good film, not an absolute classic. One part I don't like is the ending at the graveyard. Maybe it's because I'm not American and I don't like sentimental patriotism.
Sandro Algra Barradas Not really sure about patriotism, just a guy visiting the grave of the man who saved his life. I'd call it more of gratitude or even a bit of regret.
The Internet IS one person. He's not a drunk asshole but instead he's an underrated cartoon superhero known as Freakazoid! :)
Doug at the beginning was so close to say "Nurse!" after that greeting
Childhood
As a kid, I loved Thomas and the Magic Railroad, and even today, I treat it as a precious childhood memory.
Critics are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get .
Those are some nice shoes
The gaming corner
I wish I had shoes like that
Run Forrest Run
well, in a box of chocolates you get chocolates.
Dude most of them come with a sheet of paper that says all the flavors and which ones they are
In my opinion, critics should make their reviews for the target audience of each movie, and try to judge the movie with as much objectivity as possible from that audience's perspective. I don't care about what genres the critic personally enjoys, he or she should say something like "If you like mindless action, this one's for you". If a critic who hates mindless action movies makes a negative review of a mindless action movie, simply because he or she doesn't like the genre, that review is useless to the target audience.
+fireluigi12 Scew objectivity. Critics are human beings. They aren't omnipresent entities. They have opinions and express them. It's HOW they do it which makes them worthy of the title. Otherwise they just end up like the rest of the useless fuckers who review films on TH-cam.
killboggins Should journalists stop being objective, too?
+fireluigi12 they aren't, most newspapers have a bias politically one way or the other
+fireluigi12 this is my thought too.
+fireluigi12 You are saying they should be objective, they say that it is not possible. But you can get some of both universes. And many reviewers do that: they give their experience of the movie, and then they give their opinion of what is the audience for this movie and recommend it (or not) in that basis, etc.
But another problem is about the role of the critic: one thing is to give the review of a movie that isn't in the cinema yet, so is a review that can help people to decide to watch it or not.
Another thing is a review for a movie that has already been watched: and its an opinion of why you think is a good movie (even when many don't think so) or not, etc. Or maybe you go with another question: why did it work? Why it didn't work? And this would be a job for a critic that knows best how to seaparate the elements of a movie, a reviewer who knows about making a movie (so he can say: it wasn't because of the script, but because of the screenplay, etc).
To me there is a big confusion about what role has the critic in that particular case. So sometimes they act godly, sometimes they act humble, sometimes they put in your shoes and think what are you expecting for this movie; sometimes they confuse everything and they say a movie is bad, just because they didn't like it, and they didn't know what to expect from it.
To this day I will never understand why people don't like the Star Wars prequels. I love them all.
Because it’s not perfect like The Empire Strikes Back, so it automatically bad, which btw I thought was ironically boring and underwhelming.
Androo Gnoix Did you just call the Empire Strikes Back boring? How dare you, that movie is a masterpiece.
Androo Gnoix Empire Strikes back is great, that movie deserves all the acclaim it gets.
Let's see...
the overused of CGI
Anakin's bad actors
the political talks
midichlorians
the dull villains
Jar Jar Binks
the unnecessary additions of older characters
plot holes
characters with rediculous accents and bad lip syncing
here is a nice video that explains most of these things: th-cam.com/video/8O_jWOFeX6U/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=FanboyFlicks
TMNT 1990. Dark, violent. Awesome.
Movies I love that everyone hates:
White Chicks
Now You See Me 2
The Man With The Golden Gun
Die Another Day
Superhero Movie
Drillbit Taylor
Watchmen
There I said it.
I like the live action Scooby Doo Movies and the Cat in the Hat movie...
Here's a few of mine:
A Haunted House
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
The Beverly Hillbillies Movie
Identity Thief
Year One
Thank you I love the now you see me movies
Hooded Man *i HaVe sEvErAl QuEsTiOn.*
TheIntergalacticN okay I like those but fucking *SUPERHERO MOVIE* I need to ask you why you like it but, I don't want to start a war
Honestly I tend to look at Critics in opposite light.
You have so many critcs out there. You can literally get any opinion under the sun if you look hard enough. For me, the most important thing is find a critic you can relate to. As a movie viewer I have my own personal likes and dislikes. I like certain tropes, dislike others. Maybe I love story, or characters, or complexivity, or simplicity.
So really important thing to me is to find a Critic who shares my view on movies. He/she likes movies for exact same reason I do. They look at the world and people in same lens that I do. So when they review a movie, more often then not I will think the same way. This gives the Critic credibility in my eyes.
Its all about building a relationship. For me to trust a Critic, I need to learn about them as a person. Their likes and dislikes. Vices and passion. If I love X-men, I really want to watch a review of X-men movie by a fellow fan.
Personally Double Toasted crew of people and the former Spill crew really resonate with me. They hold a ton of intersecting opinions and hobbies of myself. Their reviews may not be accurate for everyone, but since they share a lot of similar interests with myself I rarely ever disagree with them.
Listening to them for years and years I only found myself disagreeing with them once. It was over Cloud Atlas. I loved the movie a lot but they universally hated it.
Yep but ultimately I takes a critical observation of the critics themselves to come to that type of conclusion. That critical view of a critic's views is what Doug is plugging for hear.
THE PHANTOM MENACE IS NOT A BAD FILM. It's not necessarily great either, it's an honestly decent to (in my opinion) good film.
+LilKenGaming same
+LukaANDkrusty
That's because now they actually know what a bad Star Wars film looks like.
+Max Nobel Ya people are too hard on the phantom menace, the lightsaber fights and podracing were some of the most enjoyable scenes in all 7 movies now, unfortunately there were gungans (yikes), and not great connection of the story
+LilKenGaming yeah
+Max Nobel That's your opinion, but unfortunately it's totally wrong, the prequels were hot dog shit made by a senile old man with WAY too much power.
Doug's absolutely right here; nobody is in control of your opinions about anything except YOU. Plus, it should be all about communicating and sharing your thoughts and opinions with others. Even if two parties have differing opinions about something, that's what they should do. But unfortunately, because of the anonymity that the Internet affords, people can hide behind false identities, not show their faces, and therefore become "drunk A-HOLES (as Doug here put it)" about someone's differing opinion about something.
It shouldn't be this way, online and in real life. It should be about listening, communicating, and sharing in a positive, friendly, intelligent manner with others despite differing opinions about a particular subject.
No, it's not merely subjective opinions. Some critically-acclaimed movies are genuinely bad.
If I have a problem with modern critics it's that so often, they seem to be trying to walk in lockstep with the majority opinion, or be 'edgy' by wildly diverging. Like, I'll sift through RottenTomatoes and see largely the same sentiments over and over. Blatant Oscar bait gets praised as if it's actually doing anything we haven't seen before. Films are bashed just for their genre (I remember a review of Dredd where it was blatant they'd only seen the trailer). Or, you have that one guy who just has to write the lone negative review of a Pixar movie. It's getting to the point when I'm more interested in a film if it has a 50-70% on RT, because I'd like to see something capable of generating divided opinions.
+AlexReynard honestly i think good art should be devisive. Look at Man of Steel and the Force Awakens. Not in therms of rotten tomato rankings but how people talk about the film. its split. there are those who defend both movies to the death and others who hate each movie with a burning passion, that means a filmmaker did something right imo.
nowknowthis
Maybe not 'right', but certainly did something interesting. Hell, as a fervent Michael Bay hater, I was somewhat disappointed when Dark Of The Moon and Age Of Extinction turned out to be somewhat competent. By being mediocre, they weren't the stunning, bombastic, world-ending awfulness of the first two. I could build up a sweat talking about those!
+AlexReynard I get what you're trying to say, so don't take this as a discredit to your opinion, but you realize of course that initial statement sounds like a catch 22. You take issue if the critics opinions align, but you also take issue if there's divergence.
+Button Jam Touché. But what I'm actually bitching about is allignment for allignment's sake, and divergence for divergences' sake. Like, I'm fine with basically everyone agreeing that Wizard Of Oz is a good movie, because it is. And I'm fine with, like, the lone hypothetical person who'll lay out a million geeky reasons why they unironically love Battlefield Earth. My problem is when there's a movie specifically designed to get critical praise, and the critics actually fall for it. Some historical drama, possibly about race, with a lot of Oscar-hungry actors acting their pants off, and it's all sad and deadly serious and *every fucking second of it is calculated as fuck and 10,000% unoriginal*. When critics actually fall for fake shit like that, it irks me. Similarly, if most critics agree on something because it is genuinely good, like Toy Story or Zootopia, there's always gotta be one person to ruin its Tomatometer score, not because he actually dislikes it, but because he knows that disliking it will make a name for himself. It's easy to get attention by kicking a puppy, and that's all these type of critics are doing.
Whatever critics decide, I want it to be their genuine opinion, not some back-patting party, or an edgy rebellion against it. It's about MOVIES, not the critics themselves.
+AlexReynard And then there's moviegoers like you who continually spout this nonsense about critics trying to be "edgy" or "follow the majority".
You get butthurt when they don't think the same thing as you. Then you accuse them of being negative just to get attention.
You're the problem, not critics.
Movies are subjective, period. There's no such thing as 'absolute quality', and people thinking there is are probably not very smart. We all have our different criteria and standards of what makes a good film. Often enough I've hated a movie for the exact same reason critics were praising it for, and vice versa. And it's not that a it happened a few times. It happened a lot of times.
The thing is, people are sheep and tend to subscribe to the popular opinion. A 'Fresh' on Rotten Tomatoes sounds official! It's done! The movie is now definitely good. Meanwhile, a movie branded as Rotten is most certainly bad. Nobody would even bother to see exactly who it is rating it that way. When you look at the breakdown you often see some 50 middle-aged women writing reviews of movies, so it stands to reason your tastes and their taste would differ. But no, their opinion decides whether or not a movie is 'absolutely' good or bad.
I take even greater issue with food critics. That is the most useless profession on the planet, because their opinion, logically speaking, should hold no weight whatsoever. Yet people give weight to their opinions because our society has created this type of construct. He's the 'official' person to review food. Fkk your own personal taste, he's the final authority!
+Red John what gets toted as absolute quality is based on historical analysis that people go to film school to continue the questioning and shaping of... some people completely submit to that sort of a standard because their so entirely fatigued by going down that rabbit hole
you're right
Alex Amaya It makes perfect sense. It's just that your understanding of the word 'objective' is flawed.
It may very well be the case that if a director spends copious effort on his project he may actually end up worsening the experience for some. Some people may actually prefer a simplified product. For example, Beethoven's Fur Elise is one of his most famous compositions, even though it's one of his most simplified pieces. It's so simple it's taught to beginners pianists. He's produced many, many more complicated works that aren't nearly as popular. So why is that piece famous even though not a lot of effort was spent on it, yet obviously more advanced compositions are practically unheard of? Simple answer: Subjectivity. People just like Fur Elise better. That's it.
But again, the keyword in the previous paragraph is 'some people'. Some people might hate Fur Elise, and they wouldn't be wrong for doing that. In fact, what I'm saying is that there is no 'right' or 'wrong'.
*if my criteria says foodfight is a good movie and grave of the fireflies is garbage, that is completely valid?*
Of course! But it is valid TO YOU.
If there were a universal criteria regarding movies, then there would be BINARY rating for movies. It would either be a BAD movie, or a GOOD one. There wouldn't be any middle ground. The simple reality that some movie critics rank a movie 10/10, yet others rank it a 1/10 should tell you that there's no objectivity involved in movies.
I dislike war based films, and I did. Not. Like. The Hurt Locker. It bored me. Irritated me, even. No matter how many critics tell me it's a good movie, I can honestly say that, watching that film, I did not feel entertained. So am I wrong? Of course not. It's just my preference. I also dislike pizzas. I think they're the worst choice when it comes to fast food. Nobody would say 'You're wrong if you don't like pizzas', so why suddenly change your attitude when it comes to movies?
Ever heard any Physicist say "I disagree with Newton's laws of motion. They're not right"? Or did you perhaps ever see a mathematician saying "I disagree with Fourier Series. It's wrong"? No, you didn't. And you would never see one. Because there's no room for 'opinion' of 'taste' in those fields.
Movies and music isn't one of those fields. Therefore, when you defer to movie critics (which disagree amongst themselves too, btw) to tell you whether or not a movie is good, you're basically a sheep who's too weak minded to form an opinion by yourself.
Alex Amaya Another, more relevant examples...Anthony Hopkins just said that playing Hannibal Lecter was 'too easy'. That's the role he's actually most famous for. Why is it that the role in which he exerted the least effort most praised, yet the ones in which he pushed himself harder aren't lauded as much?
Christopher Lee said that the most important role, and his 'best performance', was Muhammad Ali Jinnah from the film Jinnah, but...you don't like that one, do you? I'd be surprised if you'd even have heard of it. You, like myself, probably prefer Dracula and Sauron.
Alex Amaya i mean, isn't the problem not whether or not critics are right but how people dismiss those with whom they don't agree
i think there's a sort of conflation between art/movies and rhetoric...
people can get very caught up in rhetoric and are willing to embellish and stylize their points based on what suddenly occurs to them might persuade the listener, whereas critics aren't invested in persuading anybody they're simply giving their two cents, which through the lens of the rhetoricist or the lecturer comes off kind of hollow and pompous... from that perspective there's no point in giving an opinion that isn't meant in developing the opinions of others, when actually because movies and art are, or at least can be, strictly for entertainment the role of a critic as appreciator of craft but not ideology rally leader is actually, if done right, a very light form of release as opposed to pain staking inspector general
there's also another element of a mass crowd lending what seem like a monolith voice of approval or disapproval or cult or whatever, but i think that's mostly an illusion... take titanic for instance, in one sense you can talk about its mass appeal and its record breaking release and James Cameron's approach, but at the end of the day the group of people that would go see it at a midnight showing are as cult and select as the group that might go see the Goonies or the evil dead... critics are individuals but somehow they get caught up in this momentum of precariously establishing sides in a quasi-existent public narrative
thin line between the lecture and the novelty
Alex Amaya well yknow... criticism is so hard to get away from and can become so ubiquitous... maybe part of the function of a movie critic is giving a person a chance to really concentrate and filter their opinion as a sort of escape from the more typical trope of family/occupational criticism that is the unfiltered rambling of people just blowing off steam that they think is however priceless
the world we live in is what we make it... but the world you're talking about is a real dogged cog grinding us down that we need to respond to... the way that the erosion of standards becomes a little degradation of the world around us... i don't know what civility is, but or irrationality for that matter, but at a certain point it can't just be people being openly critical and the criticism itself has to become the mode for motes of improvement
So, there are not such things as "guilty pleasures" films?
No
+Kommentor Postker of course there are. But the core of a guilty pleasure film is acknowledging the fact that it's bad, but enjoying it anyway. I love Burlesque. It's a guilty pleasure. It's terrible, thus the guilt, but I enjoy it anyway.
+Kommentor Postker It would only be a "guilty pleasure" if you honestly believe it's objectively bad and that you should feel bad for enjoying it anyway. But as long as it makes you happy, it doesn't really matter what other people think of it, and anyone who's going to judge you based solely on your opinions is not worth considering. So there's no reason to really feel guilty about it.
+Kommentor Postker Next time someone asks you to "turn your brain off," ask them to turn theirs back on :B1:
Meh.
-sigh- is it....bad that i like the prequels of Star Wars? I wasnt big on the second one, thought the first was ok, and liked the third, but i dont hate them the way a majority of people do.
Were you a kid when you first watched them? I find that the people who enjoy the prequels view them as they did as children.
We can can like movies that we recognise as bad, personnaly i like the prequels despite that they're bad movies, the problem is that some don't make the difference between liking and finding good a movie and therefore pretend that these movies are good without solid arguments to back their claim.
The star wars: the phantom menace movie was way better than the last Jedi. Seeing the upcoming star wars movies made me appreciate the prequels. Episode 1-6 were gold step by step character development and Dept which Disney would allow George Lucas to show his vision of star wars in upcoming movies rather than recycling the previous movies. Such a shame.
@@chiyaan83 Gold step by step character development ? Obi-wan got none, Anakin was rushed, the jedis are morons...
Dept ? The political aspect is so bad that we don't even know the motives of the CSI, they could be the good guys and we wouldn't know, on fact there is a theory that they are the good guys but got hijacked by Dooku and the others.
Lucas' vision ? Star wars original trilogy was NOT made by one man but by a group of talented people including Marcia Lucas (the one that got the idea of killing obi-wan), Irvin Kirshner (director of episode V) and many other's
Recycling : The idea of introducing a cycle was Lucas' one, not disney (it's very obvious in the phantom menace, even more than in force awakens), and Lucas made the prequels recycling the ideas his friends told him NOT to use in the original trilogy, while Disney used elements from the original version of Return of the jedi, the version that Lucas butchered by making things like not kiling Han solo to continue to sell his toy (no kidding, it's the real reason).
When Lucas made the prequels he was no more an imaginative artist, he was the leader of a big merchandising company, he became exactly what he hated, it's very tragic.
Same here, I love episode 3 so much.
This is why I watch Nostalgia Critic. Granted, I have been upset with him before, maybe left an angry comment once or twice (which I must say that I am sorry for as I probably could've handled it better), but ultimately, he does help me see things from a new perspective. His reviews help to educate me in ways I could never have discovered on my own, even when I disagree with what he says. Plus, his presentation is done in a humorous way that makes it a lot easier to take, even if he's trashing something I like. It's more fun because I can still get a laugh out of it and enjoy the time I spent watching his review. I'm very glad he's done what he does and despite some differences and harsh words, I'm glad to be subscribed. Thank you Nostalgia Critic.
I love this perspective. Too many people see disagreements as reasons to get legitimately angry, when it should be looked at as an opportunity to share and learn! :D
John Carpenters The Thing was hated on release but today its thought of as one of the greatest horror films ever made.
The opposite happened to the Phantom Menace
The Thing had the bad luck of coming our right after 'ET'
Yeah, imagine coming from that alien story to 'The Thing'
“Some people can read War and Peace, and come away from it thinking that its a simple adventure story, others can read the back of a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe”- Lex Luthor
This popped into my head while watching this.
This video hits hard with Captain Marvel and Godzilla KOTM
Dude the critics are absolutely SLAMMING Kotm for little to no reasons. Like, look at some of the reviews on rotten tomatoes. It's as if they were put to knifepoint and told to knitpick until their brain fell out.
ommlettuce Ikr! No reason to give it such a low score for just having a bad story and "unlikeable" characters! Like seriously! Can we just for once enjoy some amazing monster fights?
@@ethanjones1327 It's a kaiju movie. It's all about watching cool monsters do cool things with some human filler. That's what it's always been.
@@ethanjones1327
Idk about that. There were definitely some really nice visuals and good acting by the cast. It's miles better than the dark blandness and boring acting from the first one. Not to say it's a good movie, it's just a movie about a bunch of giant monsters fighting, but it's definitely not so dumb it's Pacific Rim, and it's not so dull it's the first movie again. The only problem I can say about it is the cheap writing and the rushed pace, where the movie really makes it clear it's trying to build this cinematic universe while already having a ton of stuff happening at the same time on the same scene. Other than that, it's really not a bad movie. Just ok.
@@MrCool-db2jn the humans were fine unlike some godzilla movies where I just skip to the monster fights, I didn't mind watching the whole thing. I can say Kotm is my favorite Godzilla movie
Oh my God. Could you imagine if you met the Internet in the form of one person? I feel like making eye contact with them would be like looking into Cthulhu's soul. You just wouldn't be able to comprehend what you saw, and end up a blubbering psychopath.
+Masterxl MVs go to yzzerdd.com if you want that
Nah. It will be an extremely bipolar psychopath.
Killa5109
MYZTERXLPRJZOZ SSHCJSSB SIIZJXAEJF A HIDIOD DSJBDSKDS IIEHHSNKZX!!!!!
Masterxl MVs it is the internet ^:)
Killa5109
*(Wispers)* I can't hear you over the sound of my mind being flayed by all the evils of the world.
When he said “Rush Hour”, he had my full attention
It's not science, not mathematics, IT'S ART.
And when it comes to art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I liked the first Hotel Transylvania movie, the second didn't seem to have the same feel to it.
I feel I owe you an apology, Doug. I've seen the remake of Beauty and the Beast and when I heard you say that you thought it was bad, I'll admit I felt a little peeved by it. I gave myself a bit of time to gather my thoughts and think things through and even went back to your sibling rivalry on it, this time sticking through to the end. And I remembered that just because you thought it sucked doesn't mean I should let that bother me. In fact, your thoughts on the remake were my exact thoughts on Cinderella, because the original from 1950 is my favorite Disney movie. Long story short, I loved the Beauty and the Beast remake, but I will at least acknowledge why you don't like it. I doubt you'll ever read this, but I still wanted to let you know anyway. Keep up the good work.
I liked Phantom Menace. I'm NOT kidding. Actually, it's my favourite prequel of all three.
Why? Because it does the best job of balencing itself out; for every BAD thing that came with it, there was an equally GOOD thing.
For every Jar-Jar Binks, you have Darth Maul.
For every half-assed, tensionless and cheesy space battle, you have an occasionally-passable, ocasionally-badass podrace.
For Yoda, Mace Windu, and every member of the Jedi coucil stroking their chins and saying "Anakin is too old; he cannot join, get him out of here while we continue to do nothing!" you have Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn and Ewan McGreggor as Obi-Wan Kenobi.
+Iron2Man911 That's a net zero. There was so much bad stuff, that it made watching it for the good parts pointless. I don't want to watch something that feels like a chore, just to see one or two cool moments.
They should have went all in on making it kid friendly, or making it more serious, All those "bad parts" would have fit in a less serious movie, and fit the character designs much better.
+Iron2Man911 Darth Maul's lightsaber had more character than he did. He was a zero-effort villian who barely served any purpose in the story, and the potential he had to be an enemy who haunts obi-wan in the consecutive films was wasted by killing him.
Although it's not Ewan McGregor's fault, Obi-Wan's character in Phantom Menace was entirely devoid of emotion, barely does anything to contribute to the story, and his actions don't even make sense. Obi-Wan, the pupil, is constantly pushing for caution and moderation, while Qui-Gon, the supposed wise master, acts on whims, tricks and cheats people out of their property, and generally makes brash decisions not fitting of the role his character was supposed to fill. The phantom menace had good visual design - that's it. On every other level it is fundamentally broken.
+Jonathan Odne
Here's more of my argument (that I couldn't post because it was too long; not all)
On top of that, the movie just feel much more fast paced to me: they land on Naboo, fly off to Tattooine, stay there for a while, go to Corascant, back to Naboo, movie ends. A lot of the scenes are long, sure, but the majority of the movie is spent with our characters just trying to get to ONE particular location but can't because they encountered an obstacle and had to work to overcome it. The dialogue is bad, some of the acting is horrendous, and the abundant CGI looks dated to our modern eyes, but ultimatley PM is the fastest moving prequel with enough cool stuff, AS EQUALLY GOOD, as the bad is bad, and that's why it's my favourite.
Attack of the Clones slowed down too much in the filler between the action scenes, and gave me too much cringy dialogue between Anakin and Padme to justify waiting that long for the fight between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett on Kamino, or in the asteroid field.
+Iron2Man911 Apparently, I can't spell (top line: feels).
+Iron2Man911 it wasn't that bad of a film as it was a complete disappointment when compared to the original trilogy don't get me wrong though I still thought it was pretty bad but that's because I read the original books by RA Salvator the first book had so much potential by cutting out a shit ton of content and adding a slapstick character who was never even in the original story.
personally, i'm a "screw the masses" type of person.
WOW HOW EDGY BRO!
did i ask for your sarcasm?
3edgy5 me
***** XD i can't even be mad at that.
Thomas Hall Bruh you haven't even hit puberty yet gtfo of youtube
Fun fact the Thing 1982 is largely regarded as the most hated movie of 1982, it was panned so hard by critics who definitely showed a bias towards E.T. which came out literally two weeks prior. Nowadays, not only is the Thing considered by many as one of the best horror movies ever made, a lot of people consider it one of the best films of all time.
Critics are wrong whenever you enjoy the film or hate it contrary to their opinion. Your opinion is yours and it doesn't matter if everyone else hates something if you like it then you like it.
Yeah I can understand.
The Ratchet and Clank Movie's out in the US now. Since I'm from the UK (AND HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL JULY!) I decided to look up the reviews.
As it's a video game movie, it was clear first impressions weren't... stable to put it mildly, as video game movies tend to suck or go live action. Yet despite it getting generally negative reviews, like 6/10 on IGN and currently 21% on rotten tomatoes, fans still praised the movie and not because of the CG being identical to the cut scenes of a game! They got the voice actors from the games playing their characters (with a few other known names to get more recognition), the weapons from the games, the characters from the games really being themselves, basically so much dedication has gone into this, even Insomniac lend a hand!
It was mainly just the humour that was a little problem because while there are scenes that would give a good chuckle, they probably weren't sure to fully adapt that into the game, I think probably because of its innuendo vibe, even though that's one of the franchises strength.
So I'm not gonna wait out those 3 months, I'M GONNA WATCH THIS MOVIE SOMEHOW LIKE THEIR'S NO TOMORROW!
+GoldenLombaxGirl I'm seeing it tonight. I just beat Up Your Arsenal last night, I am so hyped
Awesome! :D
+GoldenLombaxGirl No Rachet and clank actually sucked.
+GoldenLombaxGirl It's out in the UK now, you don't have to wait till July
Really? I had a look on Odeon in my area and it said so along those lines.
i like nostalgia critic's editorials the most
Some critics bashed Infinity War for being to confusing and too fast pace, like they expected a summary of 10 fucking years worth of movies and their plots to understand what is happening. This pisses me off because such a emotional and impactful movie such as Infinity War getting negative reviews just due to ignorant people.
Firepopcorn 123 Yeah they probably felt that it would be too hard for new fans to get into Marvel when watching the film, but that’s the whole point of the MCU, you have to start with Iron Man and watch the 20 or so movies that follow before watching Infinity War.
Isabella Nash that is kinda a cheap move. People don’t have to do anything. When a kid goes in theatres and watches a movie because he sees the hulk is in it or Spider-Man, he goes and watches it as a casual fan. He is new and doesn’t understand the plot and what is going on and who those heroes are. Why are they fighting, who is Thanos, what are those Stones?. Which makes the causal fan a fanboy, leading him to buy all their movies and merchandise, Meaning more money to Marvel. Critics are right to complain about that. I feel the same when I start a new show. That is why I am careful when I start a new serie. I get addicted and feel forced to watch all episodes in order to catch on, which is time consuming and not very satisfying.
Alphaplayer 1722 so what is your solution to this
Lilstrangeo maybe a bit more exposition? For the kids ofcourse. Marvel movies are made for kids, but are also enjoyable by adults. The casual fan shouldn’t feel the need to catch on. Just let Thanos explain in the beginning what he plans to do, and during the rest of the movie let him explain to every hero he encounters to make them understand- or let them die opposing him.
But I mean considering how much money it made and the incredible reception by audiences, I doubt the Russos are losing sleep over a couple people not liking the movie.
Saving Private Ryan is corny? What kind of idiotic statement is that?
I hated Ryan The Pirate
The film can get rather sentimental and sappy. That being said, from a technical standpoint it's incredible. The battle scenes are mesmerizing at times, it's the stuff in between that's the problem.
American Beauty is corny? Wtf is that?!! A few scenes, I guess, but it's still a masterpiece. It didn't win 5 oscars for nothing.
Yeah, how dare a movie has a heart.
+The White Mage Well no shit. Nobody likes pirates, man. Greedy douchebags. Privates, however, are another story.
2:17
Wait. Forrest Gump is considered today to be corny, cliched and inappropriate? My brain just doesn't compute...
+poontang3zizo I'm more shocked about Saving Private Ryan being mentioned there
+poontang3zizo
Yep. By today's standards.
+poontang3zizo Yeah, how the fuck can it be clichéd if it was the first of its kind?
And it may be considered inappropriate considering it's rating nowadays, but that's a problem with the rating not the movie itself.
poontang3zizo Seinfeld effect.
Maybe not corny and cliched, but remember that scene where Jenny puts Forrest's hand on her breasts and he's confused and uncomfortable? That's what we call sexual molestation.
I love not being a critic. I watch movies all the time, I cant even remember the last bad movie I've ever watched was. Seriously.
I tend to enjoy EVERY movie I watch.
We are the few people that love watching movies nonstop. Never stop what you like.
To some degree, I wonder if critics and review systems have trained this generation to actively seek out problems with media. Like, it's good to refine your taste, but sometimes I think people unintentionally deny themselves enjoyment for the sake of having the "correct, educated opinion". I know I do that.
I'm learning to put more focus on finding what _does_ work about a movie, and I've been enjoying things a lot more. :)
I loved the prequel trilogy, and I love the original Trilogy, let the hate Commence.
Totes
STAR wars one will always be the my intro to starwars
The Star Wars Prequels and Original Trilogy both hold up a hell of a lot better than the crap Kennedyfilm has been pushing out (barring Rebels and Rogue One).
The Ramblings of a Nobody The prequel trilogy wasn’t half bad tbh, just hated on for not being as good as the original movies. The OT wasn’t flawless either you know.
Do critics take Red Bull or Cocaine to watch a ton of movies a day?
both
And more
+mdyiya Nop, don't need it. Love it
I don't really use critics to see if a movie is worth it. If the trailer shows me enough interest(Or I go with a family member or friend) I will go.
AeluronLightsong I normally check to see how well the movie does and what some of the reviews say unless it is an MCU movie.
I think what makes a critic call a movie "good" is the moviemakers' genuine passion and earnestness put on screen in the final product. I wish more critics would call out movies that are blatant award bait, more than cynical cash-grabs.
I remember Nostalgia Critic noted something similar in when is a movie so bad it's good. Films like Plan 9 from outer space and the Room are bad movies but they're made with a lot of effort by amateurs which can make them more endearing than big studio films that are being designed to win oscars.
Yes, Phantom Menace got positive reviews. It deserves such.
The problem is that the majority of critics are self-righteous and self-center that they believe that their opinion is fact but the same I could say about the opinion of the masses.
Virus Reaper
Exactly.
I don't think you are right. That's a popular assumption, sure, but I find it really reductive.
More of a vocal minority
Virus Reaper whether it’s logical or not doesn’t give them a pass to act self-righteousness because they go to the movies more often. Yes maybe their argument vs someone who doesn’t watch a movie can be based on more and “better” reasons, but no matter what, there can be good reasons to like or dislike movies always. They act like they are infallible because their success rate at seeing which movie will be remembered or forgotten is better. Their is no reason to have this attitude, it’s childish. You cannot be a pro on everything in life, there isn’t enough time, so critics shouldn’t make fun of people just be because they like movies more than the average Joe.
Which critics are you talking about? Cite them below.
My friend likes Adam Sandler movies.
That is all.
0_0
+Gandhi gee that's kinda harsh coming from you Gandhi
Hotel Transylvania movies are pretty good.
+Soap Sud Gaming | CS:GO and MORE I liked the old Sandler movies. . . when I was a kid.
Waterboy was pretty good because his "Backwoods Hick" persona works perfectly. His problem is that he uses that same persona in movies that don't need it.
I think the biggest problem with critics, is that so many of them are dishonest.
critics can completely destroy an artist with a dishonest bad review
Critic: Spider-Verse is an experiment, not an actual film.
I love the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I rarely meet someone, critic or peer otherwise, who agrees. I guess this video summarizes why I might like it more than other people do.
I love the first one and I really like the second one.
I liked the Scooby Doo live action movies.
+KBMotifs Your days are numbered.
I've been a one man army for a long time, I'll be fine.
Traitor
As did I.
No matter what anyone says about those movies (personally I think they're okay kids films), Shaggy was spot on! Genuinely one of the best casting decisions ever.
this is why NC is my favorite critic. He knows he's not always right.
+james roper Have you seen his Top 11 F*ck ups? They're funny. :)
How could critics loathe this line “Wait!! We can’t stop here. This is bat country!”