It seems that most movies seem like good ideas from the previews (especially since many movies now are built and sold around the potential movie trailer) and yet many times aren't that good. However, how else do people decide what to see if they don't "normally like the movies critics like" or "don't care what critics say"? Are you more apt to believe the movie studio who produced the flashy preview and desperately needs you to go see their film (preferably in the first week)? Seems just as manipulative and untrue as any "stupid critics bashing of a 'good' movie".

i agree, previews usually mean little, i first read a critic's review to see if i want to watch a movie, if i think a movie will be cool and the review is good I usually will go see it. If the critics review is bad then I wait to hear what a few of my friends, who have the same taste in movies as me, say.

b/c critics suck. i heard one say how the movie of 2003 was mystic river & that when someone in 10 years loooks back to the greatest movie of 2003, theyll think of mystic river & not return of the king.

now thats a bunch of bull****.

I think of rottentomatoes.com, imdb.com and recommendations of friends.

Of course, previews usually get you interested, but as for deciding what movie to see, the only "critics" I listen to are regular folk.

If a preview looks good to me, I go see the movie and usuallly would never read any reviews at all. If it looks bad, I usually don't go see it unless reviews or friends tell me it was good.

quote:

---

b/c critics suck. i heard one say

---

Some critics suck. If you only listen to one, that's stupid. Read a few reviews. More importantly, figure out which critics have tastes similar to yours. Of course, if you're the kind of person who thinks action movies or predictable romantic comedies are good film, you'll probably never agree with the critics.

bobcat,

I don't agree that most movie previews make the movie seem good. I'd say only like 20% look even slightly interesting to me.

What is a critic?

All it is is someone's opinion. There isn't anything special that qualifies that person to be a critic. The only difference between me and a critic is that the critic has a TV show or a newspaper column.

Ok, and a lot of money,too!

Although I read reviews, I take them with a grain of salt. The people who write them HAVE TO watch as many as ten movies in a week. It's their job. We're lucky to manage to see two or three new movies a month. Imagine it being necessary to watch GIGLI and the Olsen twins' movie and even worse.

My wife of thirty-five years and I don't agree on movies. I really enjoyed EYES WIDE SHUT; it's a good thing Stanley Kubrick was already dead when it was released, because she would have found him and killed him with her own two hands. How can I trust the opinion of someone I've never even met?

quote:

---

I don't agree that most movie previews make the movie seem good. I'd say only like 20% look even slightly interesting to me.

---

Ditto.

I don't mean to make it sound like all critics are right, but generally, if critics are lauding a film, its usually pretty good (and if they're all saying its bad, its probably bad, w/ some exceptions).

What I'd like to understand is, if you DO feel that critics are idiots and don't know anything, how else do you determine whether a movie is worth seeing? It seems that most of the people who are seeing movies on opening weekend won't know anyone who's seen it, so that's not the main reason. I somehow doubt people in this boat read rottentomatoes or other internet hype sites (ain't it cool, etc.). So basically, what else are you going on than the preview, which was simply made to make you want to see the movie, be damned if its actually any good (again, given that some movies are made around the premise that will make for a good preview, not necessarily a good movie).

As for the bad critic who said mystic river was better and more memorable than return of the king, would you like to compare notes on how many movies have hyped themselves to be the best thing since star wars? There are morons everywhere, the question is, who's more likely to be a moron? Surprisingly, I'd say the movie studios who make the previews would be more likely to be "wrong" about the quality of a movie than a critic or some other outside source.

quote:

---

There isn't anything special that qualifies that person to be a critic. The only difference between me and a critic is that the critic has a TV show or a newspaper column.

---

that could be the single most logical explanation i have ever heard to describe a movie critic

Another difference would be that most critics see several hundred movies per year, and you probably don't. That alone gives them a more valuable opinion as to the relative quality of films more than your average joe. That said, I still usually ignore what critics say.

When you see a preview, it is the choice of a marketing company to pull out the 3-5 minutes of the highest interest of the film to come up with a "tease" to get you to see the movie. Whereas, a critic saw the film and tells you his opinion of the film. From my observation, the preview will about 85% of the time tell me whether I will want to see or not. I find that critics vary so much in their responses that there opinion is oftentimes useless.

I sometimes read Ebert if I'm not sure if I want to see a movie or not. Sometimes he'll give a movie a bad rating, but he'll say some stuff that makes me think I might like it so I'll see it anyway. The same is true for movies with higher ratings by him. If it looks like a gay story and Ebert thinks it's original, he'll probably give it a good review, but I know not to see it.

I guess what I'm saying is that he's consistent. His opinions of movies aren't the same as mine, but he gives you a good idea of what to expect and you make your own choice on whether or not to see the movie.

I would say that I probably respect Roger Ebert as a film critic more than just about any other. I usually agree pretty closely with the way he reviews movies so if he says one is good, then I will definitely take that into consideration more closely than Joe Schmoe film critic. Mike LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle on the other hand, is a person that absolutely baffles me with his film reviews. Probably 75% of the movies that I enjoy he completely shreds to pieces and usually gives very good ratings to movies that I've never heard of or have no desire to see. Then, of course, there is always IMDB to reference, which gives you ratings of the general concensus of movie viewers. That is a good benchmark to go by.