I'm just being broad here because Roger Ebert and Dave Kehr are the smartest people walking the Earth, but Critics are funny because they dock for unoriginality AND for thinking outside the box as far as story structure. Coffy and Foxy Brown? Worst reviewed movies I've ever seen, but they were made specifically without exposition because exposition is boring. Critics don't like horror films because horror films contain broad and general stereotypes and celebrate them -- because they're all gonna die soon anyway so if you're gonna make it fun for the audience you have to dislike them and not have to think too much about them, that's why it's only the b-itch and the idiot who die in these things while the good kid lives. Critics have seen every damn movie ever made, not just domestic but foreign, and know when you're not being original, and this comes into direct clash with any movie made by a major studio because producers want stuff that's proven to make money. It has to have been something LIKE what they've seen before or it won't get made. And so critics will dock you for every bit in your film where this becomes obvious. If a film has too many product tie-ins, they will notice. If it has anything cliche in it, they will notice. If you bring a romantic interest into the thing and don't do anything with her, they will notice. Critics are operating on nothing but the cerebral...so if you're a guy and you're making movies where girls are showing their breasts, they'll dock you for this because you're "not respecting women". Remember that in this day and age, women, particularly older women, make up the majority of people who read film reviews simply because they're the only people who read anything, so they're not going to regard anything piggish as being possibly artistic or they'll anger their readers. An older woman might have kids and consider this when considering a movie, and to keep the newspaper's readership where the critic is featured, will serve as a parental advisory. Plus critics want to separate themselves from the public...and will shit on films specifically because everyone likes them, thus it's not your movie they're giving one star to, it's the public they're giving one star to. A 12 year old kid is not allowed to be able to do what any adult does for a living, that's the way adults think, and that's the way adult film critics see it. Yet in the end they're all products of their roots, whether that's a well-fed one or a poor one. Driving Miss Daisy wins all this praise though it offended every black person in America. Juno was offensive to anyone with a pulse, but critics don't watch Gilmour Girls and so took Juno to be seriously original.
by Steven Escareno6 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...
by Tom Vogler4 years ago
How do film critics overcome personal bias when reviewing films?
by Steven Escareno7 years ago
Although I can't say I agree with this article, as I could list a TON of contradictions about it. However, I'll gladly keep my mouth shut to see what you hubbers out there have to say about it first, before I put...
by pisean2823117 years ago
i have found some good movies rated poorly by critics while some bad movies being over promoted..
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.