Do You Think Film Critics Are Too Hard On Superhero Movies?

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 12 years ago

   I was just reading Peter Travers latest review on the "Green Lantern" film.  Although I do disagree with quite a lot about what he said of the movie, and he definitely gets a few points wrong when talking about the comparisons of the comic book to the actual film itself.  However, I will go on record to say that the movie wasn't that bad, as Travers described.  Although I wouldn't say it was great either, as I would probably say the word "mediocre" fits how "Green Lantern" actually was as a film.
   
   Anyways, what surprises me the most were the number of comments about his review.  Take in mind unlike most film critics, I do like to try to factor in as much of the target audiences' perspective as humanly possible; without jeopardizing my own opinions and analysis of said movie.  However, some of the comments are starting to make me wonder if maybe I need to lower my standards for films to meet the target audiences' criteria of what they want. 
   
   As it seems one commentor said it best to summarize the majority of the comments, that people generally watch movies for escapism and for fun only, and not to think.  Personally, I always thought that I did do a great job factoring in target audience perspective, but I may be wrong on that as it seems.  As one of these commentors credited Roger Ebert for at least acknowledging that it was a comic book movie and gave it a two and a half stars out of four; even though he claimed the whole premise of the movie was absurd to begin with. 
   
   Although I can't say the film was anywhere near as bad as Travers made it out to be, I don't know if I would be willing to give it a generous rating like two and a half out of four.  Sure, it's a comic book movie, and I certainly don't expect every comic book film to turn out like "The Dark Knight", as that would be absurd.  As that's kind of like expecting every musical to turn out to be as great as the "Wizard of Oz" or "Sound of Music."  That's crazy.  However, I do expect a strong story or at the very least, a strong character development to where you're given enough reasons to genuinely care about the characters in the movie.  Unfortunately, Green Lantern fails to deliver on both, as I honestly didn't give two cents to a rat's a** about any of the characters by the end of the film, as everything was done sort of half a** outside of the cgi and 3-d cinematography.  I would go into more detail, but you'll have to read my review to know more about what i mean exactly.   sorry if that seems self promotional, but I was just saying why I can't give away my full opinion on this movie, as I hope many of you will understand.  Simply put if you want me to explain my opinions here further, then I should tell you that you're wasting you're time.  The only way you'll know is unless you read my review.  Otherwise, I can't say.  sorry.
   
   
   I know some of you are probably wondering...then why even open up a thread if you can't share your full opinion?  Well the answer is fairly simple. I just want to know YOUR OPINION about this issue, as it might determine if whether or not I should lower my standards for what makes a great film based on the target audience perspective. 
   
   by the way, here's the link to the review, as it shows a lot of the comments below it too, so  you'll know what I'm talking about. 
   
   http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/revi … n-20110616

   replyreport
   1. 60

      deblippposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      With any genre film, you're going to have people on two extremes: Reviewers who just don't "get" the genre and will hate regardless, and fanboys/girls who love everything about the genre and will love regardless.
      
      Neither review has any value because neither review uses true critical thought.
      
      I enjoy reading film criticism when the critic understands the film, regardless of the type of film.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Stevennix2001posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's definitely true.  However, it's rather surprising that Mr. Travers would write his review this way, as you can normally tell that he puts a lot of research into each of his film critiques.  unfortunately, from reading this review, I felt this was more along the lines of some ranting fanboy talking crap about the film. very un-travers like if you ask me.  However, I don't know if it's fair to say that he didn't get the genre, as he was right about there being another green lantern character before Hal Jordan.  However, what surprised me the most was that he didn't do the research that he normally puts into it to know that the Hal Jordan story line operates in a different story arc than the original.  Something that I never would've expected from Travers, as you'd expect this from other critics as most tend to be biased towards certain genres.
         
         
         
         I don't know about that.  Most fanboys that Ive spoken to in chatrooms and forums are hypocrites at best if you ever actually debate with them.  Like a few years ago, most fan boys would claim that Bryan Singer could do no wrong when he made the first two "X-Men" films.  Well since making "Superman Returns", and how lousy "X-Men Origins" and "X-Men 3" did under two different directors, fans have now put Singer in league with Joel Schumacher and George Lucas.  Saying he's a arrogant pompous ass that's a hack, and never made a good film in his life.  Also, you are aware there was a "x-men first class" boycott, right?  Well, fans claimed that since Singer was involved as a producer, and because Marvel Studios wasn't handling it instead of Fox, then they're going to boycott all things "X-men" in films; until the rights convert over to marvel studios.  Same thing with spider-man, as there is a boycott going on for that reboot too.  many fans have said that they don't give a rat's ass how good the critics say the next spidey film will be, as they'll only see it if marvel studios is involved...period.  therefore, i wouldn't say that fans will love everything about the genre regardless, as most are hypocrites.  No, if you want to say something about the fans, it's that they expect everything to be damn near close to the source material as feasibly possible to make them happy.  if you stray even a little bit, then you piss them off.  sure, you could get away with it in the past, but most fans are so picky these days. trust me, you'd know if you talk to them a lot like I do.
         
         
         You are talking about Peter Travers' review and some of the fan comments right?  I just want to make sure we're still on the same page here.
         
         
         
         Same here.  That's why i'm such a huge fan of Travers, but this review is so unlike him to say the least.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      tony0724posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I myself could care less what pompous and pretentious windbags have to say about either music or movies. That being said it is a rare day I will pay money to go to a movie theater anymore. In a saturation of superhero movies , remakes and sequels I just feel like the modern entertainment dollar is wasted.Hollywood has lost all creativity. And there are a couple of movies I rented for a dollar from Redbox and still felt ripped off ! The Kings Speech was really good but aside from that we really don't have any " Gone With The Wind " or " Casablancas " anymore do we ?

      replyreport
2. 59

   optimus grimlockposted 12 years ago

   I dont pay any attention to them because the bags of hot air that need to be poped. If I wana see a movie I go see it!!!!!! i'm goin next week to watch transformer 3 I cant wait!! Credics love a movie about a stutering king but slam a little kid that doesnt because he's on south park a lil 1 sided if ya ask me!!! Wow wwwhhhaaaatttt  a ttttarrrrfic audiance!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      that's an interesting point there optimus.  although it does me make me question why you follow me if that's the case.  not that im complaining though, as im merely curious now. 

      replyreport
3. 86

   Sychophantasticposted 12 years ago

   I try to make all my reviews positive. I don't really understand why people care what critics think. The only thing that should matter is that the review presents a point of view and defends it. I happen to love all movies, so that's easy for me.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      agreed.

      replyreport
4. 74

   Drake0525posted 12 years ago

   When I go to watch a film, typically, it's gone through a certain "screening process" which weeds out most films that wouldn't be to my taste.  I watch the trailer, I look for familiar faces in the cast and crew, hit up IMDB to see what the rating is, etc.  So when I watch a film, it's with the mindset that I will like it.  As a result, my reviews tend to be optimistic, even if I don't like a film, I try to be fair when reviewing it.  It's the rarest of films that I watch which has no redeeming qualities at all.  More often than not, if a movie doesn't resonate with me, it's one or more fatal flaws - and in the review, I'd point to exactly what those were.
   
   I can't comment on Green Lantern as I haven't seen it, but the comic-book genre is now getting old.  Much of what comes out is very formulaic, we've seen it all before under various titles.  If the critics are overly harsh with comic-book films, that'd probably be why.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I can see where you're coming from, as I kind of have a similar methodology when deciding which films to review.  And like you, I do try to be fair to every film that I review; regardless of how I feel about it.  That's why i always factor in the target audiences tastes.
      
      Hmm..you do have a good point there.  I never looked at it that way.  Thanks for the input.

      replyreport
5. 60

   recommend1posted 12 years ago

   The post above - that the genre is getting old - is at least half right in my opinion as comics are not so popular with the cometition of tv and games.  The other issue is that the basic 'hero' ideal has been debunked and so every movie is 'hollow' with the meaning already been done before.  The possible gap between fans and critics may be because the critic should have been trained to see the underlying meanings and 'philosophical' questions that these fantasy characters are exploring - while the fan is happy with the 'adventure' romp.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.  However, this is why this review surprises me so much.  If you read Travers' review on the last two "hulk" films, and "X-Men" films, then you can always tell that he puts a lot of effort into at least trying to understand the symbolisms behind the characters.  However with this film, it seemed like he just shrugged it off and wrote a half ass review based solely on his own opinion.  Although I am a fan of his, I'm starting to wonder if he's losing it, as his last few reviews haven't been that great, and he's starting to show some forms of bias; something that I thought would never happen with Peter Travers.

      replyreport