A new name for this section?

[PaulR]

Given the general tenor of the comments posted so far may I suggest it be renamed "The Bile and Venom" section?

Mind you, nothing wrong with a bit of bile I say.

 

[Saturlight]

What use is a critic who has only good and godly things to say about film, TV or radio? There's no bile, they're just comments with a slight injection of caustic mirth hammered in.

And Paul, by definition,a "critic" criticizises, not praises to the hilt everything he or she sees, or hears.

If you're referring to me, I do praise The Vaults of Horror, but I cannot help but NOT heap praise on the Sham-shack Redemption because A) I think it's mediocre, and why the heck should it be named "2nd best film ever" when it's basically it's rubbish, and a few hundred thousand films are much better than it - in my view.

I get your meaning Paul, but some of the best critics use their caustic keyboards, ie Garry Bushell, and one of the best ever Alexander Walker, now sadly deceased - he who worked for The London Evening Standard.

Best wishes, from Saturlight. ;)

 

[PaulR]

Saturlight

I wasn't refering to you, just an observation in general! I also agree that criticism should not be fawning. As I said it was an observation.

And I don't believe that I was being uncomplimentary either. Long may this section flourish!

 

[jimbo]

In my opinion a lot of critics are crap, often missing the sense of a film completely. Then writing an article which attempts to project themselves rather than the film they have 'supposed' to have seen.

The best critic of films FOR ME is ME.

 

[spiney]

Critics are feared and hated by theatre directors and actors, since a bad review can quickly close a show, which has taken much effort and money to produce. Imagine working hard for months, then being publicly humiliated by somebody without any understanding of what you've done, and might just have been in a bad mood that particular night!

I well remember seeing on tv Tim Rice, standing on the stage after the final London performance of Superstar's original West End run, in 198x, ending his short speech with "up yours, Bernard Levin" (have been unable to locate Levin's review, presumably in The Times).

Films aren't quite so vulnerable, because they can be provisionally shown to test audiences, then re-edited if necessary. Even a poor film is likely to at least break even.

 

[BarMoo]

Even a poor film is likely to at least break even.

'at least' - Wrong! [there could be a whole discussion on that]

Steven Segal got the message and then promptly started to exec produce and deliver straight to video, hehe.

.

 

[spiney]

'at least' - Wrong! [there could be a whole discussion on that]


.

Well, there's the cinema release. Then first run on pay per view tv. Then the DVD. Then subscription tv. Then repeated showings on free to air tv. All these, and all over the world! Films 50 years old still generate revenue for their current owners.

PS, I see you've kept Pugwash!

 

[BarMoo]

Studios have always considered theatrical release revenue as the base for making money and breaking-even on a project. The rest only provides more: as any collector of the 'Alien' series will know.

Yes, I re-worked mhku's pug idea.

.

 

[rolfw]

I'm with Jimbo on critics, I have watched and enjoyed many many film which have been panned by the critics and equally been bored silly by some films critically acclaimed as masterpieces.

I would guess that the critics can have a bigger influence on the success of live theatre launches, as the theatre going public are more likely to read their reviews.

I do find very often that critical reviews are padded out with confusing psuedo intellectual twaddle, a little like the early NME concert or album reviews. There were times when I would be confused as to what the writer and his thesaurus was trying to say as he became wrapped up in his extreme cleverness and whether indeed, he liked it or not.

 

[BarMoo]

I'm with Jimbo on critics, I have watched and enjoyed many many film which have been panned by the critics and equally been bored silly by some films critically acclaimed as masterpieces.

I would guess that the critics can have a bigger influence on the success of live theatre launches, as the theatre going public are more likely to read their reviews.

I do find very often that critical reviews are padded out with confusing psuedo intellectual twaddle, a little like the early NME concert or album reviews. There were times when I would be confused as to what the writer and his thesaurus was trying to say as he became wrapped up in his extreme cleverness and whether indeed, he liked it or not.

You sound like a critic!

To be fair, I understand your point totally. There was a time (wobble transition) when I was a student in London that I would read the Evening Standard Film Revues and be totally lost by what the guy said. I went to see the films anyway.

Most times (with the exception of Showgirls - the biggest pile of ..) we had differing opinions.

These days the best way to 'judge' a film is to go to the mother of film websites - IMDB - and get some real-world feedback.

See Here.

 

[rolfw]

Yes I agree Mark (that's a first ) I use the database quite a lot now.