The problem with RT is the pass/fail system… though really, the problem is that people us it to signify anything other than a movie’s wide-ranging likeability. So I guess my problem is really that the site’s format encourages looking at movies as good or bad, without any real reason for further discussion.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter has a 35% Fresh rating. Wreck-It Ralph has an 82%. Without writing another article here in the comments, let’s just say that I feel Abe does about a bajillion times better job of executing its concept than Ralph. But Ralph isn’t as difficult a sell or ambitious a movie, so it gets rated like it’s over twice as good. We could discuss the merits of my take, which would be GREAT, but RT does not encourage that sort of discussion within the confines of its own self.

Metacritic at least operates on something other than a pass/fail.

Personally I have a small group of people (friends and critics) whose opinions matter to me, plus my own feelings about a movie’s potential, its subject matter, and/or the people involved in making it. That usually covers it.

Many moons ago I presented a scholarly paper I had written about CITIZEN KANE (I love mostly classic films, personally). Anyway, the paper had already kinda/sorta won a lot of kudos from professors and some small film circles, and, as a collegiate project, my faculty advisor wanted me to present it at this national college writing conference, so I did. Part of the responsibilities of all presenters is that you also have to read and critique what other students have written. I had the good luck of drawing the long straw, meaning that my paper went first in this one particular focus group discussion, and, as expected, the academics who were there loved it (not bragging, just saying that this was the end result of, like, three years of work on my part, and it showed). Going first is good and it’s bad … because almost anything you say about others’ works is going to get massive scrutiny on the part of the other participants, so I tend to be very low-brow, basic observations, etc.

Anyway, this one young guy had written a very nice research paper, but it’s basic flaw was that he had absolutely nothing to SAY about this work of art he was analyzing. Everyone pretty much pointed that out, so, when it got to me, all I did was agree with what everyone else had already said but I added that I’d really like to ‘know’ what he thought about the art if he wanted to tell the group. Well, this (for some reason) just enraged the guy, and he started calling me all kinds of names. He took the position of demanding how I knew what I knew about my own paper — how did I think anything I had to say was even relevant to CITIZEN KANE — and I said, “Well, that’s what I wrote … I WROTE what I thought about CITIZEN KANE, which is essentially what a critic does in analysis and that, by its very nature, it doesn’t HAVE to be right, it’s only one interpretation, but I was very clear what the film meant to me; so I was just curious what this work of art that you studied meant to you.”

Needless to say, the guy didn’t do well the rest of the conference. Methinks he may not have even written his own paper, but you get the gist of it.

Your assertion about grindhouse cinema is flawed because you’re claiming that expertise in avante-garde filmmaking is inherently better than a expertise of film history as a whole. They are simply different animals, and both of them contribute to the even larger conversation on “film, period.” What makes “grindhouse” better than “mainstream?” Nothing, because it isn’t better any more than horror is better than comedy or foreign is better than domestic.

As for the problems of cash flow, that’s a business conversation and not necessarily relevant to the point I’m making. Most movies are made for revenue, too, but a) we don’t discount the medium and b) we don’t even necessarily discount the movies.

Besides, a lot of critics DO specialize (so, it’s not a “fact” in the way you claim). Frankly, one could argue that newspaper film critics are specialists in mainstream filmmaking. Which, it’s important to remember, is the most WIDELY recognized type.

tl;dr- If you ain’t doing it for fun and for free, your opinion is likely invalid.

–What was the artist trying to accomplish?
–Did the artist accomplish it?
–Was it worth doing?

I like these questions because they help separate a good discussion of the worth and meaning of a film without tying it in to simply “I enjoyed it/I didn’t enjoy it”.

I can think of a lot of films I don’t personally enjoy, but am able to recognize as quality films because I can consider what they were trying to say and see that they achieved it.

These questions also let me consider films based on their intent. What I expect to get out of the latest Die Hard film is not what I tend to expect from Spielberg. A movie can have very low goals (entering action) and achieve them and so be successful from that point, even though it isn’t going to be a award winning or culture changing film.

I actually did mean this to come off pro-critic, though I was more focused on just trying to break into what can be a pretty thorny issue, so that might not have come out as clearly as I would like.

And yeah, that youtube link is exactly the kind of thing I like. It doesn’t matter whether you buy the guy’s take or not; what matters is that he’s actually digging into the why and the how of the movie. I actually do need to go watch that now; thanks for reminding me…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qQm1rBqh53Y

(as posted by Paul a while back)

His explanation of that particular film put it in an all together different light for me, and when I went back and watched it that weekend – I actually liked it a lot better thanks to his review or criticism of the film itself.

That’s my 2 cents at least.