Im surprise that The Thing isnt on this list. The movie even got a Razzie nomination for Ennio Morricone, but today is considered one of the greatest monster movies evwr.
Yup. The Thing deserved to be on this video, as did many others (though I do talk about The Thing in another video along similar lines, though from the perspective of it flopping at the box office and not simply being a critical flop: ruclips.net/video/eK_ZvdO_iXs/видео.html)
It’s weird to me that sci-fi movies used to have that perception of being “warm and gooey” because sci-fi books have always been dark, bleak, violent, and even downright nihilistic. Sci-fi is honestly one of the darkest and most horrific genres there is. Writers like Harlan Ellison, Kurt Vonnegut, and Isaac Asimov, etc. have written some of the most terrifying stories of all time.
But of course! Don't you remember in Alien, you know, the Ridley Scott movie Alien, that has the mirrored balls, the bright primary colors, the funky music, the jive talk, the dance sequences, you know, Alien! THAT movie! (Come to think of it, I wonder if the critic saw that the cast that included a wide variety of people, not just burly white American military types as was common in scifi back then, and assumed it must be counterculture)
Your point is well taken. I read Pierre Boulle's "Planet of the Apes," and it never bothered me that the excellent 1968 film adaptation is so different from the novel. But it's tough to avoid comparing film adaptations to the source material -- and can be an interesting exercise. For instance, Spielberg's "Jaws" is a better experience than Benchley's book, IMO, with its novelistic character intrigues that would only diminish the film. Crichton's "Jurassic Park" is a good read, but putting it on the big screen elevated the story to new heights, an amazing, unforgettable spectacle and thrill ride. Conversely, Denis Villeneuve's approach to "Dune" is to drain Herbert's work of all its ideas and characters and reduce a thoughtful and profoundly complex novel to the "Feelies" out of "Brave New World" -- all sound and spectacle, one-dimensional characters, instantly forgettable dialogue, and extra-textual plot twists that render the whole thing incoherent (it's cinema for illiterates, basically). In the case of Herbert's "Dune" and many others -- Tolstoy's "War and Peace," Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre," Alan Moore's "Watchmen," et al -- one has to wonder if any film adaptation could do justice to the original material... which is why no film has yet come close. What I'd really like to see, however, are some fearless, inventive novelizations of David Lynch films like "Eraserhead" and "Mulholland Drive." Now, that would blow some minds!
Reviewers aren't artists and several book fans get irritated when key plot points and characters are missing that are important to the story It's a very fair comparison.
@@JetsetComedian There is a world of difference between reading the book after watching the film, and watching the film after reading the book. But TBF, I avoid trailers and reviews, and consider it madness to view either before watching the film.
@@jamesodonnell3636 I appreciate it's difficult to avoid, and agree entirely that it's is a fascinating exercise, but I think it should be expected of a "professional" critic. A film adaptation will only ever match one person's interpretation, completely. The director. And they rarely live up to anybody's expectations. But to judge a piece of art, on your own expectations, is beyond pretentious.
It's interesting how the voices of critics can fade into obscurity while the brilliance of the artist endures. Despite some academics pointing out grammar errors in Shakespeare's works and making fun of him at that time, his plays continue to captivate audiences and scholars alike. No one remembers the names of those critics, but the value of a first edition of Shakespeare's works speaks volumes about his lasting impact-worth millions even after nearly 500 years. True genius transcends the nitpicking of the time!
I usually enjoy criticism, especially contemporary criticism. Predicting how a thing will be received years into the future is an impossible task, and sometimes the reverse is also true: what's hailed as a contemporary masterpiece then fades into obscurity. Sometimes, you can't even properly judge, as with the surviving Greek plays: the best of the best might simply have been lost to time, and what's left is simply what survived.
@@shortcat Or a piece may simply remain ignored. As much as we would like to tell ourselves otherwise, there is plenty of art that, still, after decades or even centuries, has not been appreciated enough. That said, the original point is still somewhat correct, in that time does have a vague tendency to correct things somewhat. I just wouldn't put too much faith into it.
Main thing about "Lolita" and its film adaptation is that it's a book with an odious, unreliable narrator who deceives the reader through his own rhetoric and emotional appeals where the titular character is little more than an object to be projected upon by Humbert Humbert, and Kubrick turned it into a dark sex comedy. Dolores was 16 in the film; when she turned 14 in the book, *she was already too old for Humbert's tastes*. You'd *have* to change it to adapt it to film - a lot of what the book does only "works" in the written word - but at that point, is it even an adaptation?
For years when ALIEN was broadcast on T.V. the review in the Guides always said: "Jaws in outer space". Star wars had the headline: "High noon in Outer Space".
What needs to be said about film criticism is that its solely of its historical moment. There are numerous films that have transcended their initial poor critical reception and gone on to become landmarks in film history. There's also the inverse: films lauded by critics that have not stood up over time. In short, what smart critics writing today recognize is that they are not the final word and that it's audiences, over decades, who ultimately determine the consensus about a film's quality, value and appeal. That said, keep in mind, the vast majority of films fade from public memory over time - most deservedly so, others not. It is up to us to assure that the films worthy of rescue from oblivion continually have the chance to be rediscovered by audiences.
There's something to be said for film criticism helping in either saving from or relegating to oblivion many movies, I think. When a consensus is formed on whether or not a film is good, I think it's more likely to stand the test of time. I think a lot of these cases where a film is rediscovered can just as easily be chalked up to sheer luck - someone discovered a print that somehow made it to right hands to get it to theaters to be seen again by a new critic and resuscitating its legacy, or giving it a new one. For better or worse, audiences do look to critics - amateur or otherwise, from movies to products - to get a sense of what something is like. I think that's one of the challenges we face now, and will be facing well into the future: curation. With so much being made, it's going to become more difficult to reach a consensus of what's good, at least on a broad, societal level. I think the job of critics and curators is going to become much more important going forward. Your points are pretty important, though, and food for thought for me for another video on the role of criticism in a broader sense, from people streaming games to critics writing in depth about movies. Thanks.
What about APOCALYPSE NOW? Though it continues to be a polarizing work, there’s just no question that it’s held in far more esteem now than in 1979, when critics and the press in general seemed to be far more interested in Coppola’s excesses as a human being than in his work as a director.
A friend of mine spent years looking for a book of film analysis entitled "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange", and had great difficulty in part because all the bookstore clerks he talked to first had to explain to him kindly that "A Clockwork Orange" was by Anthony Burgess.
I remember people not quite knowing what to make of "The Empire Strikes Back." The open, somewhat downbeat ending was tough to take, not having "Return of the Jedi" around to watch next. And I recall critics absolutely *loving* "Return of the Jedi" when it came out, even though I think most critics and fans will call it the weakest of the original trilogy today. The effect of that big happy ending was tremendous. (Personally, I don't think "Empire" is the best Star Wars movie--that's still the original, as odd and ragged a movie as it is. But the grim, tight last 30 or 40 minutes of "Empire", with Darth Vader reeling everyone into Cloud City, springing his trap and giving the big reveal to Luke, may be the best sequence in the entire series. It's just that everything that comes before that isn't quite as brilliant as "Star Wars." In particular, I think Han Solo seems really kind of unlikeable in "Empire", not the charming rogue he was before--which is unfortunate because he's the movie's romantic lead.)
I know George Lucas pushed for the happy ending. Lawrence Kasdan and Gary Kurtz, towards the beginning of production, pushed for at least one character to be killed off but Lucas wouldn't allow it. I think. in general, some people were also surprised by the tonal shift from the first Star Wars. That reception might've also played into why Return of the Jedi was a more happy ending. Yeah, Star Wars is in a class by itself. It was a huge shift for the entire movie landscape, and for sci-fi. Here was a universe that felt lived in, not immaculate and clean like everything else before it. Overall, though, I think the original trilogy is a very strong trilogy. Not the greatest of all time - that's still Lord of the Rings for me, which, I think, is far more consistent as a trilogy - but certainly top 5.
I think this is spot on. It came out at a bad time and was up against some stiff competition, but I think Babylon will probably get reviewed upwards in the future.
Babylon, as was mentioned, is one. I think John Carter, Jennifer's Body, Constantine, and The Lone Ranger are others that are seeing a new appraisal or will see one.
@@Syntopikon I am gonna sound like a madman saying this, but i do feel Blonde, may recieve some positive reception in the future it may still receive divisive in feminist and political circles like fight club. Sasquatch sunset is another one that i think will get much more positive reception in future. I am not a zack Snyder fan, i hate most of his movies, but i have seen critical reception for watchmen and sucker punch turn around a bit. Terrence malick's song to song may also come around a bit. The Man Who Killed Don Quixote i bet will be more loved in future than it is now. The extended cut of the counselor may also recieve better reception just like how the final cut of blade runner did. Megalapolis is a divisive one for me. It may get better with time or worse. Only time will tell. Under the silver lake may also be recieved well in future. Killing them softly and liam nesson starring The Grey are also strong contenders for becoming beloved in the future. One good example btw i have of critical reception turning around in just last 5 years, is Hideo Kojima's video game Death Stranding. Every prominent critic initially dismissed it as a boring slog but post covid and a steam release, everyone suddenly loves that game. The tv show, The OA, believe it or not, initially recieved mixed reception. I was there and the mixed reception was partially why i skipped it. But almost a decade later, everyone wants the OA to be revived.
In 30 years critics are probably gonna say Babylon is one of the best movies that came out in the 2020s, probably megalopolis too, which i wish I could see, but it's only playing in 1500+ theaters 🤬.
Agreed on Babylon. Megalopolis is going to be interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing it. I think a lot of these movies that are seen as polarizing now will definitely see an upward appraisal over time.
EDIT: these seems to keep posting to the wrong comment 🙈 Babylon is better than its reputation but still kind of awful. It felt messy and unfocused (although that was probably the intention), but the performances were really great. I felt like I had a metaphorical hangover after watching it, it was a lot of unpleasant stuff. A good film should rapture you, not exhaust you, but that's subjective. For instance I had a wonderful experience watching Moulin Rouge the first time (went in blind because I wanted to watch something else but that cinema was full), while I know a lot of people found it just exhausting.
@@KatharineOsborne I do see your point, I didn't see it at my local theater unfortunately, but I saw it shorty after it's release, but I thought it was a good movie, which I knew critics and audiences reaction were mixed, it's just a big artsy film about the film industry in the 1920s and further on. I still do think critics are sleeping on this movie and realized later on that this movie is better than they thought like other films in the past. The critics job is to judge the film, while the audience's Job is to enjoy it or not.
It might also be interesting to look at once-hailed movies that have been forgotten or have fallen into disrepute -- not necessarily because they went out of fashion, but because critics and audiences appear to have bought into the marketing hype when they were first released and today we wonder what all the fuss was about. The nearly unwatchable Haggis "Crash" comes to mind, along with slick but hollow For Your Consideration pictures like "American Beauty," "The King's Speech," "Shakespeare in Love" (charming but featherweight), "Green Book," "CODA," "The Artist," "Million Dollar Baby," "Mystic River," "Garden State," "The Blind Side"... (Note that a lot of these are simplistic, patronizing treatments of racial subjects that are even more obviously cringeworthy now than they were when they were released.)
I think that subject would be a lot more interesting! Another movie I’d add would be Driving Miss Daisy, critics loved it at the time but now it’s considered to be mediocre at best by your average Joe
Chris Crawford once said that there are three types of audiences - critics, casuals, and connoisseurs. Critics are loud but no one will care about what they say after a few months. The casuals are more interested in immediate consumption (turning off your brain) than getting deep into art. The only audience you should care about are the connoisseurs, as they're not only the ones who will see the art and meaning in your work, but they will keep coming back year after year to reinterpret your work in multiple contexts. Someone only needs to look at this list to see he's right. Also, Alien was "disco-inspired"? What?? Did that critic even see the movie at all??
I mostly agree with Kubrik. If I didn't like a movie the first time, or simply didn't completely understand it (like watching Blade Runner or 2001, but I was also young), a second watch is important. That being said , it's very rare that if I like a movie the first time, my opinion will change when I watch it again.
The thing about critics now is they no longer have the power. Which can be seen as a good or bad thing, depending on where you fall on the spectrum. 50 years ago, Roger Ebert won a pulitzer prize for movie criticism. That could never happen today. Because, from an objective POV, criticism in movies now has been reduced to a simple number grade. The rotten tomatoes score. And nuisance no longer matters, its not just a simple 👍🏼 or 👎🏽. Was it good, or not? It doesn't matter anymore what parts were good. Nobody is gonna read that. All people do is simply look at that tomato meter, and see if its fresh 🍅 or rotten. So if youre someone who hates movie critics, thats a good thing. But if you're somebody who enjoys reading, decoding, and understanding the nuances in criticism, that is a devastating thing.
One of the main complaints of Empire Strikes Back at the time was that we had to wait three years for the conclusion. As another reviewer at the time said "It has no beginning or no ending, it's all middle.' Not untrue.
The only poor review I've ever seen for ESB was by some A-list critic whose name escapes me. He lambasted it just because it was sci-fi and in his not-so-humble opinion, sci-fi was bad. He suggested taking your kids to see Tender Mercies instead.
You’re wrong to accuse critics of not taking the time to ‘get it right’. Their view is subjective, but based on sometimes a film education and having watched thousands of films. They have expertise. By dismissing reviews written after one viewing you assume that they are operating from the same perspective as, and with the same level of knowledge as, you. They are not. They are infinitely better placed to assess a film after one viewing than the average audience member. And remember, it’s just an opinion- you can ignore it. Why people have a go at critics I will never know. See the film, make your own opinion. One last point- just because a film becomes widely regarded as a classic over time, it doesn’t mean that the opinion at the time of release that rips it to pieces is incorrect. And judging criticism from a time before you were even born, stripped of the social and political context of the time, is absurd. Great video, love the channel, but that final line is silly.
This video really confirms that some critics seem to have forgotten what their job is. A critic's job is to tell us what they personally thought of whatever they're reviewing, but, as this video shows, many of them have taken it upon themselves to (incorrectly) decide what the general audiences want from the media they consume.
Speaking of Stanley Kubrick, geniuses are often panned in their own time, because they are so misunderstood, because they're often miles ahead of conventional thought processes.
Stanley Kubrick was very popular during his time. His films did get mixed reviews and were controversial but he wasn’t as hated as some people on RUclips say
Well, Pauline Kael was useful for only one thing personally: pretty much if she hated a movie it would quite often be something I thought was great (basically, any Kubrick. She really seemed to have an axe to grind against Kubrick). Conversely, a lot of movies she raved about were pretty meh in my book.
It's not as funny as the first Star Wars because as we know that's it's underlining basis. It's been a long time, but I don't even remember the Humor. I guess the droids and their interactions with one another and Han Solo having some humorous moments, however all of that seemed to get exacerbated in Empire, but it's so secondary in both films. But apparently Lucus must have taken those reviews to heart, because he started implementing over the top creatures to generate comedy.
Sorcerer is a much overlooked masterpiece. I saw it again for the first time in years and was at the edge of my seat. It truly deserves a second look. One thing that did not help box office receipts is that it opened the same weekend another little known film called Star Wars opened
Film critics love to bash sequels for not living up to how amazing the original was, forgetting that they didn’t like the original when it first came out, either. Reviews for A New Hope were mixed. Then they said Empire Strikes Back didn’t rise to that level. Oddly, Return of the Jedi got great reviews based mostly on how well the first two movies went.
9:54 To be fair, Kubrick’s Lolita ruined the story of Lolita. Most fans of the book hate the movie (I would even include myself in that group). It completely missed the point and forever warped the public’s outlook on it.
top critics see 2 or 3 movies a day during the morning usually for free in screening rooms in New York or LA which is a totally different experience and intention than a general audience that pays to see a movie usually at night or on the weekend. This is why you can get wildly diverging views on a works "value".
You could do a whole video on just the films Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert got wrong based on their knee-jerk reactions. For example, Kael inexplicably thought "The Stepford Wives" was misogynistic, somehow completely missing the fact that the two protagonists are presented as the coolest chicks ever (You would totally want to hang with them!). Meanwhile they're married to cowardly men who have to gang up on the wives one by one and replace them with less-threatening vapid versions that reflect the husbands' shallow desires. The movie couldn't have been more clear on this point by centering the story on independent-thinking creative women and making the men of the town the villains of the story. Kael wasn't much of a thinker, obviously. Rather than recognizing an ally who is adept with satire, she misunderstood and attacked it. Why? I'm guessing it's largely the critics' hatred of the horror genre. Roger Ebert was especially guilty of this sort of shallow reading and even worse at writing reviews about himself (e.g., his most famous review is for North: "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it."), making him the absolutely most ineffective critic of all time, one whose air of authority is belied by tantrums because the film he saw wasn't the film he would rather be watching. Rather than objectively reviewing films to help audiences navigate the new titles premiering each week, he used his position to proselytize. He almost always hated horror films, so he rated them poorly, regardless of quality. All the following received 2 or fewer stars from Ebert: Clive Barker's original Hellraiser (1987), Day of the Dead (1985), The Shining (1980), An American Werewolf in London (1981), and Army of Darkness (1992). I can't find what he gave the original Alien (1979), but like a lot of other films, he went back and tweaked the rating so that his website now has it (and The Shining) at 4 stars. Horror-adjacent directors like Tim Burton didn't fare well either (e.g., Edward Scissorhands (1990), Beetlejuice (1988), Batman (1989)), the aforementioned Lynch (e.g., they both hated Lost Highway (1997) and Fire Walk With Me (1992), neither review of which is on Ebert's site, but Blue Velvet, Dune, and Elephant Man are, all of which are panned. Also Ebert said Lynch demeaned Diane Ladd by directing her performance in Wild At Heart... which went on to earn her a Best Supporting Actress nomination!), and he seemed to hate John Carpenter in particular: In the Mouth of Madness (1994), The Fog (1980), and Big Trouble in Little China (1986), and while Siskel liked The Thing (1982) and Escape from New York (1981), Ebert hated them. Yes, every one of these titles received 2 or fewer stars and/or thumbs down. (As far as I can tell, S&E never reviewed They Live (1988); Carpenter parodied the critics in that film as aliens, so I guess they recused themselves.) What else did Ebert get wrong? Lots of movies that are today considered modern classics like The Usual Suspects (1995), Dirty Dancing (1987), Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), Gladiator (2000), Die Hard (1988), and Fight Club (1999). Yep, all 2 or fewer stars from Ebert. Siskel and Ebert both hated Reservoir Dogs (two thumbs down). How is this possible? Because for the most part these were not established directors (and the rest had made films S&E didn't like; see Brazil). Contrast with, say The Godfather, Part III (1990). Ebert gave that 3.5 stars. The inclusion of Sofia Coppola should have demoted it at least one star. (Note that Ebert originally gave Part II only 3 stars, although that's since been revised. Both versions of the review are on his website, unlike The Shining, where his original assessment has been scrubbed so that, ironically, the reviewer can't be reviewed.) Back in the days when I watched, "At the Movies," I generally avoided films where Ebert gave it thumbs up and Siskel didn't, because a recommendation from Ebert alone couldn't be relied upon to mean anything. If Siskel alone liked it, I might give it a chance because sometimes we agreed (though not about Aliens (1986), among other titles). In general though, they weren't reliable reviewers for anything from broad comedies like Ace Ventura (1994) that they would have liked if it was, say, Jerry Lewis (i.e., an established comedian) doing the same exact antics to more literary movies like Brazil (1986) which both hated even though it's almost universally regarded as Terry Gilliam's best film. Ebert's reviews were rarely insightful or useful; they were just about his hangups. It is a setback to film analysis and criticism that he remains the most recognizable name in the business years after his death, primarily because he was so ineffectual in his role that he convinced the public at large that film critics have nothing insightful or useful to say, meaning most people don't even listen to what any of them have to say.
Roger Ebert was the best critic of all time. And I agree with some of his reviews of the titles you mentioned. (He was right on Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet, Edward Sissorhands, Batman, Army of Darkness. The Usual Suspects.) The reason he hated Die Hard is because the movie started off serious and then in the second act it became silly. ('We're going to need more FBI guys", says the overly silly Deputy Police Chief.) I believe Roger came around on Brazil because he pitched the DVD set on one of his holiday specials. Now here are some titles he liked that some other critics did not... Beavis and Butthead Do America, Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer, This is Spinal Tap, Dark City, Blade Runner, Taxi Driver, Pulp Fiction, Evil Dead 2,. These are just at the top of my head. BTW, Roger always liked Alien.
Here are some others Rger Ebert liked (I have not seen all of these)... The Dead Zone, Child's Play, Seven, Fright Night, Dawn of the Dead, Halloween, Scream, Poltergeist, Candyman, The Serpent and the Rainbow.
Main takeaway from the vid: Many critics like to see "good cinema" in a very specific way. They think that a great movie as to be a slow, methodical, deliberate think piece with lots of Shakespearean dialogue and compiled of completely original ideas. Basically, they want to gatekeep art... Now that's what you call ironic.
6:00 Another issue with the "lack of character depth" criticism of horror movies results from the critics failing to understand that the monster is a character too.
I really like the point you made at the very end. I've reviewed albums and, when I do so, I listen numerous times before writing a review. Watching a movie only once and reviewing it isn't really a great way to have the best opinion.
You're doing it right. I think for proper reviews, that's the best way to go about it. I think books + video games might be the most difficult thing to do this for, but both of those are also a lot more actively involved than watching movies or listening to music, so maybe the calculus is different.
Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom was also condemned for being too dark and violence compared to the first film. But the mine chase scene was well praised
Many of the flaws in these films are more obvious once we've studied all the classics in the black and white era. Once I saw more of the old stuff I understood what the critics were complaining about.
No. They are not really flaws in those movies. A lot of the stuff people back then didn’t like in those movies were really their strengths. They were just not the same as what they had seen before. I, however, don’t remember there being no ounce of character development in The Empire Strikes Back because Han and Leia go through a lot and open up to each other. Luke as well gets challenged a lot during his training with Yoda and we got to see how Darth Vader leads his fleet.
Literally some of the greatest films of all time on this list… 2001 a space odyssey is 100% one of the most innovative and visually beautiful films ever. Kubrick managed to make a horror film that’s rated U
One great thing about them is that they met a movie on its own terms. They didn't set a standard and try to the hold the movie to it - they asked what a movie tried to do and sought whether or not it achieved that standard. They tried to meet filmmakers at a mutual level.
@@AbrasiousProductions I agree but I can also understand their points of view. For instance, a person who thinks of, say, “Aliens” as peak science fiction probably wouldn’t have the patience to absorb all the nuance and detail in a relatively plotless film like 2001.
If you want to understand it, meet some people whose brains have been destroyed by LSD. Those films are drenched in LSD. That's the only valid reason to reject them, as they are otherwise fascinating. Some of the LSD choices Clockwork Orange are the lead character's makeup and the facial close-ups, the jarring unemotional violence, the sexless sex, all the things that make the film cold and heartless. The LSD in 2001 is the whole final sequence, and the setup with the monolith that looks like a blank film screen.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 wish I could try LSD but I can't find any that's clean, I'm in a great place mentally so this would be the perfect time to try it.
Your observations are on target for most of the films, but "A Clockwork Orange" did win Best Film and Best Director from the New York Film Critics so some of that city's critics must have praised the film upon its release.
I saw The Empire Strikes Back with my father when I was 14. Afterward, I said that it was a good bridge movie, expecting it to be the setup for Episode VI. It was, and many consider it to be among the best of the SW movies. It took quite a while for my friends to convince me to see Fight Club. They were right. It was not just an ultraviolent fest. There was real essence to it.
Fight Club, which I saw at the cinema, is an almost complete package. It's entertaining, it's gorgeous, it's endlessly quotable, it is insanely funny AND deep, and it has a stunning twist it doesn't even need. 😁
@@damiantirado9616 Hoover thought so at first, but his Hollywood girlfriend changed his mind, pointing out that most of the businesspeople in it were honest decent types: George's dad, Mr Martini, Mr Gower, even loudmouth Sam Wainwright. Only Potter was a villain capitalist.
@@billolsen4360 well that flew over the head of most conservatives. Ronald Reagan and ayn rand criticized the movie and it was the reason they went to the CIA to complain about communists in Hollywood and even Ben Shapiro today criticized the movie for that. However as someone who loves movies I can tell you that it’s a wonderful life still has a communist message. Since the main character gives up his own passion to devout the betterment of society. The entire movie is a critic of how banks and private businesses caused the Great Depression. It doesn’t promote communism but it’s certainly anti capitalist. Most of the popular movies have some sort of pro communist message since a lot of people in Hollywood and art in general is field with leftists. Star Wars, Rambo, etc
Critics didn't even understand Starship Troopers even when Verhoeven made Robocop, Showgirls, Total Recall, Spetters, Flesh & Blood etc. earlier. The problem with critics is that they have "tunnel sight". They are unable see anything unless it's right in front of them, or think outside the box. How can narrow minded people become a critic? That never made sense to me.
2001 was bashed by critics? Wow. I never would have guessed that. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert are the only critics I know of who went back and admitted to being wrong about reviews they'd given. Siskel bashed Tremors and then went back later and said he watched it again and couldn't understand what his problem was the first time other than maybe he just wasn't in the right mood because he really liked it upon rewatch and Ebert trashed his own review of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly saying that he should have given it his highest rating. He said he gave it three stars but the review clearly reads like it should've gotten four and that he maybe was a bit too pretentious when he was younger. I miss those guys. They may have seemed like film snobs but they really weren't. Siskel loved the original Mortal Kombat movie so much he said it made him want to give the game a try for God's sake lol. He even tried to convince Roger (who said he was on the fence about it) to give it thumbs up..
When I first saw "Empire Strikes Back" I thought it was too violent and upset that it had no ending. When I first saw "2001 A Space Odyssey," "Blade Runner," "A Clockwork Orange," and "The Shining" I thought they were slow, boring, and pretentious. I've since changed my mind - about Empire.
A good storyteller always leave you with significant questions to ponder at the end of the tale. Like "Who is Leia really in love with? We all know she likes a challenge and that'd be Han." "Is Jabba going to kill Han?" "Was Vader lying?" "Is Luke the product of a rape?" "Is the Rebellion doomed?" "Are these precious movies going to be eventually highjacked by a gaggle of teachers' pets from the UCLA film school plus a host of hack TV directors from that wretched hive of scum and villainy known as Disney?"
TESB is indeed the best Star Wars movie. Movie critics are generally frustrated film makers and have to degrade true art to maintain the legitimacy. Had there been newspaper Fresco critics in the 15th & 16th century, I suspect many of them would have had snarky remarks for Leonardo's The Last Supper and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. 13:28 Stanley sure did a brilliant takedown of the New York critics in that one quote. The truth can hurt.
To be fair to the critism of Blade Runner, wasn't there a lot of studio interference leading up to it's original, theatrical release? I'd say the turn around is mostly down to Scott getting to eventually release the movie as he intended.
Fight Club was a rare movie where the author of the book, Palahniuk, said the movie was better than his book. The movie is pretty faithful to the book but it smooths out some of the rough edges.
I thought Fight Club was brilliant and hilarious and saw it as a *satire* of toxic masculinity--but a large fraction of its fanbase seems to see it differently, and I think that has affected perceptions of the film: people don't like the *fans* of the film.
You left out _Psycho_ and _The Godfather: Part II_ both of which got mixed reviews in their first few months of release, but then critics did a total about-face on them by awards season and suddenly, they became Oscar-winning masterpieces. _Psycho_ was reassessed cuz of its extraordinary box office. _Godfather 2,_ I'm not sure why it was suddenly praised by awards season. Also, everything Sergio Leone, _Barry Lyndon, Vertigo, The Thing, First Blood, The Exorcist, Night of the Living Dead, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, It's a Wonderful Life, Bonnie and Clyde, Scarface, Dirty Harry, The Rocky Horror Picture Show_ and _Apocalypse Now._ A lot of my favorite movies were not favorites on first watch. Many of them got either a mixed or negative response from me on first go. A lot of which critics were also initially mixed on. Including _The Godfather: Part II, Alien, Blade Runner, First Blood, The Shining, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Sorcerer, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Vertigo, The Thing_ etc. If I was a critic, my reviews on first watch for these titles would've been similar. Of course, Kubrick is correct in saying that some movies just take more than one viewing to appreciate. There's a video of Spielberg telling Kubrick about how even HE didn't like _The Shining_ when it first came out.
critics are....AT BEST.....right 50% of the time....probably less. they do NOT know more about movies than you do (you being anyone reading this). They do not necessarily "get" the underlying themes or messages. I've read a long critique of a film by a famous critic....simply because I was amazed at how he completely missed the point that the director and screenplay writer were getting at. Somehow they landed the job......they get paid to write.....and it honestly seems like their opinions are based on who is paying them or political mechanizations of hollywood. Trust your own opinion.....thats the only one that matters anyway when you're watching a film.
Interesting video. It's kind of stunning to discover that films like "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Alien," and "Blade Runner" were initially panned by the critics, but I actually agree with their criticisms of "Empire Strikes Back" (per this video). It's an amazing sequel and I love it dearly, but it definitely loses some of the wit, humor, and spontaneity of the original "Star Wars." A tonal shift is fine, but "Empire" is a tad stodgy, saved largely by the amazingly realized space and lightsaber battles and the introduction of AT-ATs and Yoda... and those cool bounty hunters! But the wompa looks like a yeti puppet, the stop-motion and puppet tauntauns are far less convincing than the original film's banthas and dewbacks, and the character dynamics are definitely more forced and less fun (does *anyone* believe the "love" story between Han and Leia? Is it in any way romantic? No.). It's also a *big* step in the wrong direction that Episode V's Darth Vader suddenly begins impulsively choking subordinates to death -- a trope that's been endlessly satirized, because it's just plain dumb. We know he's a badass, we don't need to see him killing junior officers just to prove how tough and mean he is. If Vader comported himself like this, his command would be catastrophic. It implies that he's stupid, and that's one thing Vader never was in "A New Hope."
Babylon at least from the fans perspective it's gonna have a better review in the future and maybe become a cult classic movie. So for this year Megalopolis is the same path too. Agree?
Amusingly, Alien may be one of the most philosophical horror movies ever created. The character of Ash brings up a whole ton of moral questions to be asked - whether about AI, or human/worker rights, or the limits of the pursuit of knowledge, or the ethics of developing biological weapons - take your pick.
Three Amigos? It is safe to say that the boomer critics of the eighties were not able to understand the genius of one of the best comedies of the eighties.
Let's not forget one of the biggest "critical flop to critical masterpiece" transitions of all: Jean Renoir's LA REGLE DU JEU. When it first came out, that film was hated.
There's a video of Spielberg talking about how Kubrick badgered him for his opinion on _The Shining_ when it was in theaters and Spielberg admitted to Kubrick that even HE didn't like it, but he liked parts of it. Of course, Kubrick is correct in saying that some movies just take more than one viewing to fully appreciate.
@@rustincohle2135 I know. He was right the first time. Individual portions of The Shining are excellent and iconic. Atmospheric and tense but as a whole, it falls apart. It does not work as a movie. Kubrick was more interested in the individual scenes and not the movie working as a cohesive thing with its own internal logic intact.
The Empire Strikes Back is my favorite Star Wars movies. Our rag tag heroes are now in deep shit and it ends like that. 1:57 WHOA. That is so far off the mark Lol. Dogmatically Atheistic, Materialistic and Earthbound is quite the intellectual insult lol. When a mind is unable to entertain these ideas and ponder them and their utility, they walk off instead.
Never, ever trust people who critique and criticize what they themselves have never done. That's pretty obvious. 💪😎✌️ Especially when it comes to the basics of storytelling; most critics don't know sheet about them. Think about it: name ONE "film critic" who's harsh on masterpieces who also achieved accolades for crafting an exemplary story, series, film, or whatever. In my 30+ years of work in production, I've never once encountered one. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
Exactly. IMO every film critic should be a former writer or especially director. That should be a prerequisite to get the job. And not an Ed Wood or a Tommy Wiseau obviously.
I'm not saying critics are experts that know everything, but you can definitely critique something even if you don't know how to do it. You don't have to be a director, DP, or screen writer to know something is or isn't good.
I think your final point, about professional film reviews in general, is pretty devastating. What truly great films reveal themselves fully on first viewing? Most of my favorites, including Blade Runner, didn't make any sense to me until I revisited them. Yet again and again, film reviewers humiliate themselves by publishing their hot takes, which time often bears out as utterly blind to the true virtues of the film. Film reviewers are usually highly educated on film history, and keep up with standards and modern conventions. They watch several new films a week, sometimes several per day. But in their official capacity, they watch films with a notebook open, scribbling thoughts and impressions, so as to try and cram the rigor of film analysis into their first viewing. So ultimately, they're actually missing the actual experience of watching the film. They say there's no wrong way to watch a film, but when you're trying to analyze it before you even know where it's going, it seems to me you're already missing the most important part of the experience. It's like when viewers watch a mystery, and try to guess the answer before the film ends, or try to predict the surprise twist. What's the purpose of outsmarting the film you're watching? Does it enhance the experience? To my mind, it would do the opposite. I think many film critics quickly lose the skill of just watching a film, for the very reason that they're trying to form an opinion on it before they know what it is. So it's no surprise that films like, say, Fight Club, or 2001, or Blade Runner, end up misunderstood. These are movies that transform through the course of their runtime, becoming something at the end that no one could possibly predict at the beginning. So whatever notes a critic might be writing through the first half, whatever predictions they make, whatever ways they size up the film, become utterly meaningless by the end. You can't criticize any of these movies from first watch. There's no possible way to truly understand them without a second viewing, for the simple reason that the first half isn't complete without the transformative addition of the second half. They demand to be re-experienced. Moreover, these are all films that must be understood in at least two completely different and contradictory ways to be understood at all. No hot take on any of them can truly take in the duel reading of the mirror-image narratives that are necessary to understand them. These days, it really seems like critics are getting better about films, reluctant to just write off something they don't initially understand, more humble in the face of movies that demand deeper scrutiny. Of course, the vast population of armchair critics that make up the internet, and youtube in particular, are still often just as thoughtless with their useless hot takes and reflex judgements. But I'm seeing more and more re-evaluations and second looks floating around, which I really appreciate. After all, why cling to disliking things? Wouldn't we all rather like things than not?
I like what you said about trying to guess an ending. Too many people put so much focus on predictability or not that they forget just how meaningful the journey can be. Me personally, precitability is often irrelevant because realistically, the filmmakers have the potential to take us just about anywhere with a story - for better or worse - so it's best to just go along for the ride and let it take you where it takes you. Oftentimes the characters' growth and related themes is the most meaningful point
@@Chrisratata Agreed. I think people often get caught up trying to outsmart films because they want to prove themselves smart, rather than being open to a new experience that might actually enrich them. This might sound judgemental, and honestly, it is. But the truth is, I think we're all a little guilty of it.
1:09 Bland? I remember seeing Empire strikes back decades ago on VHS. I still remember sitting 2 hours being totaly in awe from nearly every scene. Until today, no other movie had the same effect on me.
Faltou mais filmes da Hollywood clássica como "Strangers on a Train" (1951) e "Vertigo" (1958) que também foram criticados em sua época de lançamento e hoje são aclamados
Where is Carpenter? You want to talk about classics that got shit reviews…look no further than his “Remake that became the definitive version,” of The Thing. Critics at the time hated that movie, largely for the gore but it’s an disputed classic now. Great section on Kubrick. Paths of Glory is an amazing movie.
Carpenter actually features pretty heavily in next weeks video. He's one of the all timers for me. The dude has so many classics, it's impossible to go through all of them in detail.
@@Syntopikon I was pleasantly surprised this week when Turner Classic Movies did a back to back of his movie They Live followed by The Hidden, with Kyle Maclachlin. It was nice to hear a little blurb in the beginning about the movie, similar to how they would Citizen Kane.
Critics are no predictors of what movies will be remembered. They usually praise boring art cinema like Howards End and Power of the Dog. Films that are highly-praised while out, but not remembered. Look at Siskel and Ebert's special about the best films of the 1970s. It's mostly forgotten films with a few exceptions.
Those are great movies, but a fun mindless popcorn flick can be great too. It's just like music, there's great prog, but also great pop, it's all what's you are into, or in the mood for.
I always find it funny that movies that recieve and even win major awards are criticality derided. If a movie that becomes a classic( take Vertigo) that gets lukewarm reviews then I understand. A film like 2001 that receives 2 of the highest nominations(diector, writing) and winni g in special effects does not fit this category.
The film which I have been disappointed with is AD ASTRA having watch to the end of the movie, I just felt I wanted the time back. I really doubt that this movie will be fondly looked back on in the future.
If you're gonna criticize something, take the time to get it right. Lotta wisdom there. Nobody wants to hear your opinion if your opinion is uninformed. If your review of a film is "The film is boring" then congratulations, your review is boring.
"get it right" is pretty meaningless. Not a single person on this planet holds some definitive authority over what is and isn't great. You have your taste and I have mine, sometimes we agree sometimes we disagree.
@@Syntopikon ah well that’s it then, that’s where the sanders accent comes from! Ha nah but it is cool and distinctive. Now that I listen again it has vague elements of Richard Nixon in it, which could explain it… but also means I have zero idea what I’m talking about. Manhattan? Nixon? I don’t know. It’s a great voice though.
Sorry, while I think Kubrick makes visually stunning movies. This can not be denied. But many of his movies are so slow, it's like watching paint dry. I remember very well seeing seeing 2001 when it opened in 1968 in Seattle. Half the audience walked out. While i still think the ending is great, the movie as a whole is boring.
I think a lot of people would agree with you. I personally don't mind the slowness as I like movies that just saunter along apace, but I can see why it's not for everyone.
@Syntopikon You wouldn't be the only one. People like what people like. And that's OK. I sort of think the reason that it became a classic is because directors found it so revolutionary. And in marveling over all that, they appreciated all the subtext. Which is everything in the movie. It might be a great film because of all that. But it is a very boring movie.
Critics are complete and utterly useless especially today. They're completely media illiterate nowadays and their critiques only care for whatever agenda they're pushing to ingratiate themselves to studios, most likely Disney. Before, some had some value... nowadays they're just a particularly insidious form of advertising and an attempt at shaping public opinion.
Im surprise that The Thing isnt on this list. The movie even got a Razzie nomination for Ennio Morricone, but today is considered one of the greatest monster movies evwr.
The Thing was Ennio Morricone? I thought Carpenter made the soundtrack, like usual.
@@rottensquid not this time, for what a recall Carpenter wanted to do the ost as usual but the studio wanted morricone to do it.
it got a razz?! wow 80s critics were morons
Yup. The Thing deserved to be on this video, as did many others (though I do talk about The Thing in another video along similar lines, though from the perspective of it flopping at the box office and not simply being a critical flop: ruclips.net/video/eK_ZvdO_iXs/видео.html)
Stanley Kubrick got a Razzie nomination for The Shining as well - at the first ever Razzies.
The one review of Alien I recall from the day was complaining how Ripley didn't have sex with anyone. The '70s for you.
Meaning?
@@tsitracommunications2884 Horror movies had a lot of sex scenes
@@kris1123259 not all. Alien sure didnt
Well , I mean it did have a sex scene, but it was more like alien rape.
@@tsitracommunications2884The original scripts had a lot of sex references
It’s weird to me that sci-fi movies used to have that perception of being “warm and gooey” because sci-fi books have always been dark, bleak, violent, and even downright nihilistic. Sci-fi is honestly one of the darkest and most horrific genres there is. Writers like Harlan Ellison, Kurt Vonnegut, and Isaac Asimov, etc. have written some of the most terrifying stories of all time.
Like how scifi and cartoons especially where kiddie nerd shit along with comic books
“Disco-inspired art direction”??? On the film Alien??? I’m kinda concerned as to what kind of ‘discos’ the reviewer was going to!
I mean disco is frightening, but not in that kind of way.
He means how it looks
But of course! Don't you remember in Alien, you know, the Ridley Scott movie Alien, that has the mirrored balls, the bright primary colors, the funky music, the jive talk, the dance sequences, you know, Alien! THAT movie!
(Come to think of it, I wonder if the critic saw that the cast that included a wide variety of people, not just burly white American military types as was common in scifi back then, and assumed it must be counterculture)
There were so many drugs in the 70s you could just walk into a discotheque and watch everything turn into something made by H. R. Giger
@@TheMightyPika Oh yeah! That ALIEN film! The one where The Village People are hunted down by a xenomorph? Yeah, that was a cool film!
Reviewing a film, by comparing it to the book is artistically ignorant.
Your point is well taken. I read Pierre Boulle's "Planet of the Apes," and it never bothered me that the excellent 1968 film adaptation is so different from the novel. But it's tough to avoid comparing film adaptations to the source material -- and can be an interesting exercise. For instance, Spielberg's "Jaws" is a better experience than Benchley's book, IMO, with its novelistic character intrigues that would only diminish the film. Crichton's "Jurassic Park" is a good read, but putting it on the big screen elevated the story to new heights, an amazing, unforgettable spectacle and thrill ride. Conversely, Denis Villeneuve's approach to "Dune" is to drain Herbert's work of all its ideas and characters and reduce a thoughtful and profoundly complex novel to the "Feelies" out of "Brave New World" -- all sound and spectacle, one-dimensional characters, instantly forgettable dialogue, and extra-textual plot twists that render the whole thing incoherent (it's cinema for illiterates, basically). In the case of Herbert's "Dune" and many others -- Tolstoy's "War and Peace," Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre," Alan Moore's "Watchmen," et al -- one has to wonder if any film adaptation could do justice to the original material... which is why no film has yet come close. What I'd really like to see, however, are some fearless, inventive novelizations of David Lynch films like "Eraserhead" and "Mulholland Drive." Now, that would blow some minds!
Reviewers aren't artists and several book fans get irritated when key plot points and characters are missing that are important to the story
It's a very fair comparison.
@@JetsetComedian There is a world of difference between reading the book after watching the film, and watching the film after reading the book.
But TBF, I avoid trailers and reviews, and consider it madness to view either before watching the film.
Lolita should've never been adapted
@@jamesodonnell3636 I appreciate it's difficult to avoid, and agree entirely that it's is a fascinating exercise, but I think it should be expected of a "professional" critic.
A film adaptation will only ever match one person's interpretation, completely. The director. And they rarely live up to anybody's expectations. But to judge a piece of art, on your own expectations, is beyond pretentious.
It's interesting how the voices of critics can fade into obscurity while the brilliance of the artist endures. Despite some academics pointing out grammar errors in Shakespeare's works and making fun of him at that time, his plays continue to captivate audiences and scholars alike. No one remembers the names of those critics, but the value of a first edition of Shakespeare's works speaks volumes about his lasting impact-worth millions even after nearly 500 years. True genius transcends the nitpicking of the time!
I usually enjoy criticism, especially contemporary criticism. Predicting how a thing will be received years into the future is an impossible task, and sometimes the reverse is also true: what's hailed as a contemporary masterpiece then fades into obscurity. Sometimes, you can't even properly judge, as with the surviving Greek plays: the best of the best might simply have been lost to time, and what's left is simply what survived.
The One and Only True Critic of Anything and Everything - including Art - is Time.
Not necessarily. A piece may not age well but be perfectly on point in it's time.
@@shortcat Or a piece may simply remain ignored. As much as we would like to tell ourselves otherwise, there is plenty of art that, still, after decades or even centuries, has not been appreciated enough. That said, the original point is still somewhat correct, in that time does have a vague tendency to correct things somewhat. I just wouldn't put too much faith into it.
Main thing about "Lolita" and its film adaptation is that it's a book with an odious, unreliable narrator who deceives the reader through his own rhetoric and emotional appeals where the titular character is little more than an object to be projected upon by Humbert Humbert, and Kubrick turned it into a dark sex comedy. Dolores was 16 in the film; when she turned 14 in the book, *she was already too old for Humbert's tastes*. You'd *have* to change it to adapt it to film - a lot of what the book does only "works" in the written word - but at that point, is it even an adaptation?
For years when ALIEN was broadcast on T.V. the review in the Guides always said: "Jaws in outer space". Star wars had the headline: "High noon in Outer Space".
Which is funny, since Peter Hyams' "Outland" is the one that was *literally* High Noon in outer space.
@@MattMcIrvin It used to say that in T.V. Guide.
What needs to be said about film criticism is that its solely of its historical moment. There are numerous films that have transcended their initial poor critical reception and gone on to become landmarks in film history. There's also the inverse: films lauded by critics that have not stood up over time. In short, what smart critics writing today recognize is that they are not the final word and that it's audiences, over decades, who ultimately determine the consensus about a film's quality, value and appeal. That said, keep in mind, the vast majority of films fade from public memory over time - most deservedly so, others not. It is up to us to assure that the films worthy of rescue from oblivion continually have the chance to be rediscovered by audiences.
There's something to be said for film criticism helping in either saving from or relegating to oblivion many movies, I think. When a consensus is formed on whether or not a film is good, I think it's more likely to stand the test of time. I think a lot of these cases where a film is rediscovered can just as easily be chalked up to sheer luck - someone discovered a print that somehow made it to right hands to get it to theaters to be seen again by a new critic and resuscitating its legacy, or giving it a new one. For better or worse, audiences do look to critics - amateur or otherwise, from movies to products - to get a sense of what something is like.
I think that's one of the challenges we face now, and will be facing well into the future: curation. With so much being made, it's going to become more difficult to reach a consensus of what's good, at least on a broad, societal level. I think the job of critics and curators is going to become much more important going forward.
Your points are pretty important, though, and food for thought for me for another video on the role of criticism in a broader sense, from people streaming games to critics writing in depth about movies. Thanks.
False, great criticism is more lasting than public mood
What about APOCALYPSE NOW? Though it continues to be a polarizing work, there’s just no question that it’s held in far more esteem now than in 1979, when critics and the press in general seemed to be far more interested in Coppola’s excesses as a human being than in his work as a director.
Your analysis / criticism of how critics expect philosophizing during moments of horror is the best way of putting it that I’ve ever heard.
Glad you liked it. The ability to empathize with the character should be important to any kind of criticism.
They should have liked "Alien 3" then.
Let's make a film called Stanley Kubrick.
A friend of mine spent years looking for a book of film analysis entitled "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange", and had great difficulty in part because all the bookstore clerks he talked to first had to explain to him kindly that "A Clockwork Orange" was by Anthony Burgess.
I remember people not quite knowing what to make of "The Empire Strikes Back." The open, somewhat downbeat ending was tough to take, not having "Return of the Jedi" around to watch next. And I recall critics absolutely *loving* "Return of the Jedi" when it came out, even though I think most critics and fans will call it the weakest of the original trilogy today. The effect of that big happy ending was tremendous.
(Personally, I don't think "Empire" is the best Star Wars movie--that's still the original, as odd and ragged a movie as it is. But the grim, tight last 30 or 40 minutes of "Empire", with Darth Vader reeling everyone into Cloud City, springing his trap and giving the big reveal to Luke, may be the best sequence in the entire series. It's just that everything that comes before that isn't quite as brilliant as "Star Wars." In particular, I think Han Solo seems really kind of unlikeable in "Empire", not the charming rogue he was before--which is unfortunate because he's the movie's romantic lead.)
I know George Lucas pushed for the happy ending. Lawrence Kasdan and Gary Kurtz, towards the beginning of production, pushed for at least one character to be killed off but Lucas wouldn't allow it. I think. in general, some people were also surprised by the tonal shift from the first Star Wars. That reception might've also played into why Return of the Jedi was a more happy ending.
Yeah, Star Wars is in a class by itself. It was a huge shift for the entire movie landscape, and for sci-fi. Here was a universe that felt lived in, not immaculate and clean like everything else before it. Overall, though, I think the original trilogy is a very strong trilogy. Not the greatest of all time - that's still Lord of the Rings for me, which, I think, is far more consistent as a trilogy - but certainly top 5.
Honestly this just makes me wonder what movies that critics dislike currently would be more beloved in the future.
Babylon would definitely be one.
I think this is spot on. It came out at a bad time and was up against some stiff competition, but I think Babylon will probably get reviewed upwards in the future.
Babylon, as was mentioned, is one. I think John Carter, Jennifer's Body, Constantine, and The Lone Ranger are others that are seeing a new appraisal or will see one.
@@Syntopikon I am gonna sound like a madman saying this, but i do feel Blonde, may recieve some positive reception in the future it may still receive divisive in feminist and political circles like fight club.
Sasquatch sunset is another one that i think will get much more positive reception in future.
I am not a zack Snyder fan, i hate most of his movies, but i have seen critical reception for watchmen and sucker punch turn around a bit.
Terrence malick's song to song may also come around a bit.
The Man Who Killed Don Quixote i bet will be more loved in future than it is now.
The extended cut of the counselor may also recieve better reception just like how the final cut of blade runner did.
Megalapolis is a divisive one for me. It may get better with time or worse. Only time will tell.
Under the silver lake may also be recieved well in future.
Killing them softly and liam nesson starring The Grey are also strong contenders for becoming beloved in the future.
One good example btw i have of critical reception turning around in just last 5 years, is Hideo Kojima's video game Death Stranding. Every prominent critic initially dismissed it as a boring slog but post covid and a steam release, everyone suddenly loves that game.
The tv show, The OA, believe it or not, initially recieved mixed reception. I was there and the mixed reception was partially why i skipped it. But almost a decade later, everyone wants the OA to be revived.
In 30 years critics are probably gonna say Babylon is one of the best movies that came out in the 2020s, probably megalopolis too, which i wish I could see, but it's only playing in 1500+ theaters 🤬.
Agreed on Babylon. Megalopolis is going to be interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing it. I think a lot of these movies that are seen as polarizing now will definitely see an upward appraisal over time.
EDIT: these seems to keep posting to the wrong comment 🙈
Babylon is better than its reputation but still kind of awful. It felt messy and unfocused (although that was probably the intention), but the performances were really great. I felt like I had a metaphorical hangover after watching it, it was a lot of unpleasant stuff. A good film should rapture you, not exhaust you, but that's subjective. For instance I had a wonderful experience watching Moulin Rouge the first time (went in blind because I wanted to watch something else but that cinema was full), while I know a lot of people found it just exhausting.
@@KatharineOsborne I do see your point, I didn't see it at my local theater unfortunately, but I saw it shorty after it's release, but I thought it was a good movie, which I knew critics and audiences reaction were mixed, it's just a big artsy film about the film industry in the 1920s and further on. I still do think critics are sleeping on this movie and realized later on that this movie is better than they thought like other films in the past. The critics job is to judge the film, while the audience's Job is to enjoy it or not.
It might also be interesting to look at once-hailed movies that have been forgotten or have fallen into disrepute -- not necessarily because they went out of fashion, but because critics and audiences appear to have bought into the marketing hype when they were first released and today we wonder what all the fuss was about. The nearly unwatchable Haggis "Crash" comes to mind, along with slick but hollow For Your Consideration pictures like "American Beauty," "The King's Speech," "Shakespeare in Love" (charming but featherweight), "Green Book," "CODA," "The Artist," "Million Dollar Baby," "Mystic River," "Garden State," "The Blind Side"... (Note that a lot of these are simplistic, patronizing treatments of racial subjects that are even more obviously cringeworthy now than they were when they were released.)
American Beauty and Mystic River continue to be highly praised by the public. Have you already joined Letterboxd and IMDb?
@@DiogoMatheus-pj8bx No. See Esquire (September, 2019): "The Troubled Legacy Of 'American Beauty', 20 Years On"
I think that subject would be a lot more interesting! Another movie I’d add would be Driving Miss Daisy, critics loved it at the time but now it’s considered to be mediocre at best by your average Joe
Chris Crawford once said that there are three types of audiences - critics, casuals, and connoisseurs. Critics are loud but no one will care about what they say after a few months. The casuals are more interested in immediate consumption (turning off your brain) than getting deep into art. The only audience you should care about are the connoisseurs, as they're not only the ones who will see the art and meaning in your work, but they will keep coming back year after year to reinterpret your work in multiple contexts. Someone only needs to look at this list to see he's right.
Also, Alien was "disco-inspired"? What?? Did that critic even see the movie at all??
Bro, your burn on critics' imaginations when it comes to horror was absolute chef's kiss. 🖤
I mostly agree with Kubrik. If I didn't like a movie the first time, or simply didn't completely understand it (like watching Blade Runner or 2001, but I was also young), a second watch is important. That being said , it's very rare that if I like a movie the first time, my opinion will change when I watch it again.
The thing about critics now is they no longer have the power. Which can be seen as a good or bad thing, depending on where you fall on the spectrum. 50 years ago, Roger Ebert won a pulitzer prize for movie criticism. That could never happen today. Because, from an objective POV, criticism in movies now has been reduced to a simple number grade. The rotten tomatoes score. And nuisance no longer matters, its not just a simple 👍🏼 or 👎🏽. Was it good, or not? It doesn't matter anymore what parts were good. Nobody is gonna read that. All people do is simply look at that tomato meter, and see if its fresh 🍅 or rotten. So if youre someone who hates movie critics, thats a good thing. But if you're somebody who enjoys reading, decoding, and understanding the nuances in criticism, that is a devastating thing.
One of the main complaints of Empire Strikes Back at the time was that we had to wait three years for the conclusion. As another reviewer at the time said "It has no beginning or no ending, it's all middle.' Not untrue.
The only poor review I've ever seen for ESB was by some A-list critic whose name escapes me. He lambasted it just because it was sci-fi and in his not-so-humble opinion, sci-fi was bad. He suggested taking your kids to see Tender Mercies instead.
@@BigAL68xyz Actually that would have been Return of the Jedi which was in release the same time as Tender Mercies.
You’re wrong to accuse critics of not taking the time to ‘get it right’. Their view is subjective, but based on sometimes a film education and having watched thousands of films. They have expertise. By dismissing reviews written after one viewing you assume that they are operating from the same perspective as, and with the same level of knowledge as, you. They are not. They are infinitely better placed to assess a film after one viewing than the average audience member. And remember, it’s just an opinion- you can ignore it. Why people have a go at critics I will never know. See the film, make your own opinion.
One last point- just because a film becomes widely regarded as a classic over time, it doesn’t mean that the opinion at the time of release that rips it to pieces is incorrect. And judging criticism from a time before you were even born, stripped of the social and political context of the time, is absurd.
Great video, love the channel, but that final line is silly.
This video really confirms that some critics seem to have forgotten what their job is. A critic's job is to tell us what they personally thought of whatever they're reviewing, but, as this video shows, many of them have taken it upon themselves to (incorrectly) decide what the general audiences want from the media they consume.
I'd add that a critic should also put the film within a wider context, relating it to similar films (as I assume they've more knowledge to work from).
Eyes Wide Shut was also critically panned on release
Yup. Interestingly, there's a new adaptation of the work it's adapted from, Traumnovelle (called Traumnovelle).
drinking game: take a shot when the narrator says 'quote' or 'end quote'
You’d be blacked out halfway through
Speaking of Stanley Kubrick, geniuses are often panned in their own time, because they are so misunderstood, because they're often miles ahead of conventional thought processes.
Stanley Kubrick was very popular during his time. His films did get mixed reviews and were controversial but he wasn’t as hated as some people on RUclips say
Well, Pauline Kael was useful for only one thing personally: pretty much if she hated a movie it would quite often be something I thought was great (basically, any Kubrick. She really seemed to have an axe to grind against Kubrick). Conversely, a lot of movies she raved about were pretty meh in my book.
She totally missed the boat on 2001 and Chinatown. How is that even possible?
She herself is overrated as a reviewer. There is no joy in how she takes in a movie.
@@eddiek8179 I always thought she was writing/reviewing to get high fives at the next cocktail party.
@@johnradovich8809 That's one of the best descriptions I've heard on how her mind works. Kudos.
Most Carpenter movies were considered trash to Critics, it took a long time for his movies to become the classics that they are nowadays!
It's not as funny as the first Star Wars because as we know that's it's underlining basis.
It's been a long time, but I don't even remember the Humor. I guess the droids and their interactions with one another and Han Solo having some humorous moments, however all of that seemed to get exacerbated in Empire, but it's so secondary in both films. But apparently Lucus must have taken those reviews to heart, because he started implementing over the top creatures to generate comedy.
Sorcerer is a much overlooked masterpiece. I saw it again for the first time in years and was at the edge of my seat. It truly deserves a second look. One thing that did not help box office receipts is that it opened the same weekend another little known film called Star Wars opened
I wonder if any of these critics Went back to these film again and had a new understanding or did they say the same option
Film critics love to bash sequels for not living up to how amazing the original was, forgetting that they didn’t like the original when it first came out, either. Reviews for A New Hope were mixed. Then they said Empire Strikes Back didn’t rise to that level. Oddly, Return of the Jedi got great reviews based mostly on how well the first two movies went.
9:54 To be fair, Kubrick’s Lolita ruined the story of Lolita. Most fans of the book hate the movie (I would even include myself in that group). It completely missed the point and forever warped the public’s outlook on it.
top critics see 2 or 3 movies a day during the morning usually for free in screening rooms in New York or LA which is a totally different experience and intention than a general audience that pays to see a movie usually at night or on the weekend. This is why you can get wildly diverging views on a works "value".
You could do a whole video on just the films Pauline Kael or Roger Ebert got wrong based on their knee-jerk reactions. For example, Kael inexplicably thought "The Stepford Wives" was misogynistic, somehow completely missing the fact that the two protagonists are presented as the coolest chicks ever (You would totally want to hang with them!). Meanwhile they're married to cowardly men who have to gang up on the wives one by one and replace them with less-threatening vapid versions that reflect the husbands' shallow desires. The movie couldn't have been more clear on this point by centering the story on independent-thinking creative women and making the men of the town the villains of the story. Kael wasn't much of a thinker, obviously. Rather than recognizing an ally who is adept with satire, she misunderstood and attacked it. Why? I'm guessing it's largely the critics' hatred of the horror genre.
Roger Ebert was especially guilty of this sort of shallow reading and even worse at writing reviews about himself (e.g., his most famous review is for North: "I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it."), making him the absolutely most ineffective critic of all time, one whose air of authority is belied by tantrums because the film he saw wasn't the film he would rather be watching. Rather than objectively reviewing films to help audiences navigate the new titles premiering each week, he used his position to proselytize. He almost always hated horror films, so he rated them poorly, regardless of quality. All the following received 2 or fewer stars from Ebert: Clive Barker's original Hellraiser (1987), Day of the Dead (1985), The Shining (1980), An American Werewolf in London (1981), and Army of Darkness (1992). I can't find what he gave the original Alien (1979), but like a lot of other films, he went back and tweaked the rating so that his website now has it (and The Shining) at 4 stars. Horror-adjacent directors like Tim Burton didn't fare well either (e.g., Edward Scissorhands (1990), Beetlejuice (1988), Batman (1989)), the aforementioned Lynch (e.g., they both hated Lost Highway (1997) and Fire Walk With Me (1992), neither review of which is on Ebert's site, but Blue Velvet, Dune, and Elephant Man are, all of which are panned. Also Ebert said Lynch demeaned Diane Ladd by directing her performance in Wild At Heart... which went on to earn her a Best Supporting Actress nomination!), and he seemed to hate John Carpenter in particular: In the Mouth of Madness (1994), The Fog (1980), and Big Trouble in Little China (1986), and while Siskel liked The Thing (1982) and Escape from New York (1981), Ebert hated them. Yes, every one of these titles received 2 or fewer stars and/or thumbs down. (As far as I can tell, S&E never reviewed They Live (1988); Carpenter parodied the critics in that film as aliens, so I guess they recused themselves.)
What else did Ebert get wrong? Lots of movies that are today considered modern classics like The Usual Suspects (1995), Dirty Dancing (1987), Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), Gladiator (2000), Die Hard (1988), and Fight Club (1999). Yep, all 2 or fewer stars from Ebert. Siskel and Ebert both hated Reservoir Dogs (two thumbs down). How is this possible? Because for the most part these were not established directors (and the rest had made films S&E didn't like; see Brazil). Contrast with, say The Godfather, Part III (1990). Ebert gave that 3.5 stars. The inclusion of Sofia Coppola should have demoted it at least one star. (Note that Ebert originally gave Part II only 3 stars, although that's since been revised. Both versions of the review are on his website, unlike The Shining, where his original assessment has been scrubbed so that, ironically, the reviewer can't be reviewed.)
Back in the days when I watched, "At the Movies," I generally avoided films where Ebert gave it thumbs up and Siskel didn't, because a recommendation from Ebert alone couldn't be relied upon to mean anything. If Siskel alone liked it, I might give it a chance because sometimes we agreed (though not about Aliens (1986), among other titles). In general though, they weren't reliable reviewers for anything from broad comedies like Ace Ventura (1994) that they would have liked if it was, say, Jerry Lewis (i.e., an established comedian) doing the same exact antics to more literary movies like Brazil (1986) which both hated even though it's almost universally regarded as Terry Gilliam's best film. Ebert's reviews were rarely insightful or useful; they were just about his hangups. It is a setback to film analysis and criticism that he remains the most recognizable name in the business years after his death, primarily because he was so ineffectual in his role that he convinced the public at large that film critics have nothing insightful or useful to say, meaning most people don't even listen to what any of them have to say.
Roger Ebert was the best critic of all time. And I agree with some of his reviews of the titles you mentioned. (He was right on Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet, Edward Sissorhands, Batman, Army of Darkness. The Usual Suspects.) The reason he hated Die Hard is because the movie started off serious and then in the second act it became silly. ('We're going to need more FBI guys", says the overly silly Deputy Police Chief.) I believe Roger came around on Brazil because he pitched the DVD set on one of his holiday specials. Now here are some titles he liked that some other critics did not... Beavis and Butthead Do America, Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer, This is Spinal Tap, Dark City, Blade Runner, Taxi Driver, Pulp Fiction, Evil Dead 2,. These are just at the top of my head. BTW, Roger always liked Alien.
Here are some others Rger Ebert liked (I have not seen all of these)... The Dead Zone, Child's Play, Seven, Fright Night, Dawn of the Dead, Halloween, Scream, Poltergeist, Candyman, The Serpent and the Rainbow.
Main takeaway from the vid: Many critics like to see "good cinema" in a very specific way. They think that a great movie as to be a slow, methodical, deliberate think piece with lots of Shakespearean dialogue and compiled of completely original ideas. Basically, they want to gatekeep art...
Now that's what you call ironic.
6:00 Another issue with the "lack of character depth" criticism of horror movies results from the critics failing to understand that the monster is a character too.
Excellent point. Monsters don't often get the love they deserve - except, maybe Godzilla, who's had a lot of ink spilt.
I really like the point you made at the very end. I've reviewed albums and, when I do so, I listen numerous times before writing a review. Watching a movie only once and reviewing it isn't really a great way to have the best opinion.
I agree
You're doing it right. I think for proper reviews, that's the best way to go about it. I think books + video games might be the most difficult thing to do this for, but both of those are also a lot more actively involved than watching movies or listening to music, so maybe the calculus is different.
Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom was also condemned for being too dark and violence compared to the first film. But the mine chase scene was well praised
Many of the flaws in these films are more obvious once we've studied all the classics in the black and white era. Once I saw more of the old stuff I understood what the critics were complaining about.
No. They are not really flaws in those movies. A lot of the stuff people back then didn’t like in those movies were really their strengths. They were just not the same as what they had seen before. I, however, don’t remember there being no ounce of character development in The Empire Strikes Back because Han and Leia go through a lot and open up to each other. Luke as well gets challenged a lot during his training with Yoda and we got to see how Darth Vader leads his fleet.
Another good case in point: BONNIE AND CLYDE.
Yes, most notably the critic who damned it, yet one week later recanted and called it a masterpiece.
I saw Bonnie and Clyde. I prefer The Highwaymen for that true story.
Literally some of the greatest films of all time on this list…
2001 a space odyssey is 100% one of the most innovative and visually beautiful films ever. Kubrick managed to make a horror film that’s rated U
There are a lot of classic movies that got bad reviews when first released. "It's a Wonderful Life," for example.
I recall that "Vertigo" was also panned by the big time critics.
17:53, a critic unwittingly describing his entire profession.
Siskel & Ebert at least were honest and it might got some of the public agree with them more. Even if they don’t agree at everything.
Honesty goes a long way
One great thing about them is that they met a movie on its own terms. They didn't set a standard and try to the hold the movie to it - they asked what a movie tried to do and sought whether or not it achieved that standard. They tried to meet filmmakers at a mutual level.
11:49 Have I been pronouncing "Dubuque" incorrectly all this time? That's the first time I've heard it said that way.
Weirdest pronunciation of "Dubuque" I've ever heard.
No. It’s not Duboke.
I'm a film critic myself and I loved the majority of these films, I can't understand how anyone could hate 2001 or A Clockwork Orange..
I know people who thinks 2001 is one of the most boring movies they’ve ever seen
@@gregbors8364 then they have no conception of real art
@@AbrasiousProductions I agree but I can also understand their points of view. For instance, a person who thinks of, say, “Aliens” as peak science fiction probably wouldn’t have the patience to absorb all the nuance and detail in a relatively plotless film like 2001.
If you want to understand it, meet some people whose brains have been destroyed by LSD. Those films are drenched in LSD. That's the only valid reason to reject them, as they are otherwise fascinating. Some of the LSD choices Clockwork Orange are the lead character's makeup and the facial close-ups, the jarring unemotional violence, the sexless sex, all the things that make the film cold and heartless. The LSD in 2001 is the whole final sequence, and the setup with the monolith that looks like a blank film screen.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 wish I could try LSD but I can't find any that's clean, I'm in a great place mentally so this would be the perfect time to try it.
Your observations are on target for most of the films, but "A Clockwork Orange" did win Best Film and Best Director from the New York Film Critics so some of that city's critics must have praised the film upon its release.
the johnathan glazer film under the skin seems to be slowly going through a reappraisal also
I saw The Empire Strikes Back with my father when I was 14. Afterward, I said that it was a good bridge movie, expecting it to be the setup for Episode VI. It was, and many consider it to be among the best of the SW movies.
It took quite a while for my friends to convince me to see Fight Club. They were right. It was not just an ultraviolent fest. There was real essence to it.
Fight Club, which I saw at the cinema, is an almost complete package. It's entertaining, it's gorgeous, it's endlessly quotable, it is insanely funny AND deep, and it has a stunning twist it doesn't even need. 😁
You could add "It's a Wonderful Life" to this list. At the time it was considered too saccharine coming right out of a terrible world war.
It was considered communist
@@damiantirado9616 Hoover thought so at first, but his Hollywood girlfriend changed his mind, pointing out that most of the businesspeople in it were honest decent types: George's dad, Mr Martini, Mr Gower, even loudmouth Sam Wainwright. Only Potter was a villain capitalist.
@@billolsen4360 well that flew over the head of most conservatives. Ronald Reagan and ayn rand criticized the movie and it was the reason they went to the CIA to complain about communists in Hollywood and even Ben Shapiro today criticized the movie for that.
However as someone who loves movies I can tell you that it’s a wonderful life still has a communist message. Since the main character gives up his own passion to devout the betterment of society. The entire movie is a critic of how banks and private businesses caused the Great Depression. It doesn’t promote communism but it’s certainly anti capitalist. Most of the popular movies have some sort of pro communist message since a lot of people in Hollywood and art in general is field with leftists. Star Wars, Rambo, etc
Critics didn't even understand Starship Troopers even when Verhoeven made Robocop, Showgirls, Total Recall, Spetters, Flesh & Blood etc. earlier.
The problem with critics is that they have "tunnel sight". They are unable see anything unless it's right in front of them, or think outside the box.
How can narrow minded people become a critic? That never made sense to me.
Right? I mean... who can watch the children stomping on bugs, and still think it's NOT a satire? 😁
To be absolutely fair about a dreadfully dismissive criticism, John Simon's line about 2001 being a "shaggy God story" was brilliant!
Can you make a part two? There are several classic Hollywood films like It's a Wonderful Life (1946), Strangers on a Train (1951) and Vertigo (1958)
2001 was bashed by critics? Wow. I never would have guessed that. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert are the only critics I know of who went back and admitted to being wrong about reviews they'd given. Siskel bashed Tremors and then went back later and said he watched it again and couldn't understand what his problem was the first time other than maybe he just wasn't in the right mood because he really liked it upon rewatch and Ebert trashed his own review of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly saying that he should have given it his highest rating. He said he gave it three stars but the review clearly reads like it should've gotten four and that he maybe was a bit too pretentious when he was younger. I miss those guys. They may have seemed like film snobs but they really weren't. Siskel loved the original Mortal Kombat movie so much he said it made him want to give the game a try for God's sake lol. He even tried to convince Roger (who said he was on the fence about it) to give it thumbs up..
I can completely understand people not liking 2001, it took me many years to appreciate and understand it.
Just wanna say how much I love this channel. Thanks man!
You forgot SCARFACE 1983.
I've only ever known Empire as part of a trilogy. It's interesting to hear a viewpoint from when it was just a sequel.
This reminds of the negative review Gene Siskel once gave The Silence of the Lambs. Its entertaining to watch that review now.
When I first saw "Empire Strikes Back" I thought it was too violent and upset that it had no ending.
When I first saw "2001 A Space Odyssey," "Blade Runner," "A Clockwork Orange," and "The Shining" I thought they were slow, boring, and pretentious.
I've since changed my mind - about Empire.
A good storyteller always leave you with significant questions to ponder at the end of the tale. Like "Who is Leia really in love with? We all know she likes a challenge and that'd be Han." "Is Jabba going to kill Han?" "Was Vader lying?" "Is Luke the product of a rape?" "Is the Rebellion doomed?" "Are these precious movies going to be eventually highjacked by a gaggle of teachers' pets from the UCLA film school plus a host of hack TV directors from that wretched hive of scum and villainy known as Disney?"
The Thing (1982)
TESB is indeed the best Star Wars movie. Movie critics are generally frustrated film makers and have to degrade true art to maintain the legitimacy. Had there been newspaper Fresco critics in the 15th & 16th century, I suspect many of them would have had snarky remarks for Leonardo's The Last Supper and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel. 13:28 Stanley sure did a brilliant takedown of the New York critics in that one quote. The truth can hurt.
To be fair to the critism of Blade Runner, wasn't there a lot of studio interference leading up to it's original, theatrical release?
I'd say the turn around is mostly down to Scott getting to eventually release the movie as he intended.
Fight Club was a rare movie where the author of the book, Palahniuk, said the movie was better than his book. The movie is pretty faithful to the book but it smooths out some of the rough edges.
I thought Fight Club was brilliant and hilarious and saw it as a *satire* of toxic masculinity--but a large fraction of its fanbase seems to see it differently, and I think that has affected perceptions of the film: people don't like the *fans* of the film.
@@MattMcIrvinI view the film as a critic against consumerism and to not get suckered by some larger than life person.
You left out _Psycho_ and _The Godfather: Part II_ both of which got mixed reviews in their first few months of release, but then critics did a total about-face on them by awards season and suddenly, they became Oscar-winning masterpieces. _Psycho_ was reassessed cuz of its extraordinary box office. _Godfather 2,_ I'm not sure why it was suddenly praised by awards season. Also, everything Sergio Leone, _Barry Lyndon, Vertigo, The Thing, First Blood, The Exorcist, Night of the Living Dead, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, It's a Wonderful Life, Bonnie and Clyde, Scarface, Dirty Harry, The Rocky Horror Picture Show_ and _Apocalypse Now._
A lot of my favorite movies were not favorites on first watch. Many of them got either a mixed or negative response from me on first go. A lot of which critics were also initially mixed on. Including _The Godfather: Part II, Alien, Blade Runner, First Blood, The Shining, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Sorcerer, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Vertigo, The Thing_ etc. If I was a critic, my reviews on first watch for these titles would've been similar. Of course, Kubrick is correct in saying that some movies just take more than one viewing to appreciate. There's a video of Spielberg telling Kubrick about how even HE didn't like _The Shining_ when it first came out.
critics are....AT BEST.....right 50% of the time....probably less.
they do NOT know more about movies than you do (you being anyone reading this). They do not necessarily "get" the underlying themes or messages.
I've read a long critique of a film by a famous critic....simply because I was amazed at how he completely missed the point that the director and screenplay writer were getting at.
Somehow they landed the job......they get paid to write.....and it honestly seems like their opinions are based on who is paying them or political mechanizations of hollywood.
Trust your own opinion.....thats the only one that matters anyway when you're watching a film.
Interesting video. It's kind of stunning to discover that films like "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Alien," and "Blade Runner" were initially panned by the critics, but I actually agree with their criticisms of "Empire Strikes Back" (per this video). It's an amazing sequel and I love it dearly, but it definitely loses some of the wit, humor, and spontaneity of the original "Star Wars." A tonal shift is fine, but "Empire" is a tad stodgy, saved largely by the amazingly realized space and lightsaber battles and the introduction of AT-ATs and Yoda... and those cool bounty hunters! But the wompa looks like a yeti puppet, the stop-motion and puppet tauntauns are far less convincing than the original film's banthas and dewbacks, and the character dynamics are definitely more forced and less fun (does *anyone* believe the "love" story between Han and Leia? Is it in any way romantic? No.). It's also a *big* step in the wrong direction that Episode V's Darth Vader suddenly begins impulsively choking subordinates to death -- a trope that's been endlessly satirized, because it's just plain dumb. We know he's a badass, we don't need to see him killing junior officers just to prove how tough and mean he is. If Vader comported himself like this, his command would be catastrophic. It implies that he's stupid, and that's one thing Vader never was in "A New Hope."
You should do a follow up involving TV shows that were panned initially but are now considered masterpieces (or at least enjoyable)
Pauline Kael had an interesting take on movies. She preferred Star Trek: Wrath of Kahn over The Empire Strikes Back.
Based
To be fair Wrath of Khan is an awesome film
Turns out “Pauleen Kale” is the shits
Babylon at least from the fans perspective it's gonna have a better review in the future and maybe become a cult classic movie. So for this year Megalopolis is the same path too. Agree?
I agree.
I liked megalopolis but am not sure if it will be redeemed but I'm sure Babylon will be remembered well
Amusingly, Alien may be one of the most philosophical horror movies ever created. The character of Ash brings up a whole ton of moral questions to be asked - whether about AI, or human/worker rights, or the limits of the pursuit of knowledge, or the ethics of developing biological weapons - take your pick.
Pauline Kael was a big hater of Kubrick's works. She spoke badly of almost all of them.
She didn't like Clint Eastwood either. The film critic in The Dead Pool that gets bumped off was modelled on her...
Dave "Disco-Inspired Art Direction" Kehr is the greatest living American film critic
Three Amigos? It is safe to say that the boomer critics of the eighties were not able to understand the genius of one of the best comedies of the eighties.
Three Amigos sold me on the poster.
Let's not forget one of the biggest "critical flop to critical masterpiece" transitions of all: Jean Renoir's LA REGLE DU JEU. When it first came out, that film was hated.
There's a video of Spielberg talking about how Kubrick badgered him for his opinion on _The Shining_ when it was in theaters and Spielberg admitted to Kubrick that even HE didn't like it, but he liked parts of it. Of course, Kubrick is correct in saying that some movies just take more than one viewing to fully appreciate.
Spielberg was right.
@@eddiek8179 He loves the film now after repeated viewings.
@@rustincohle2135 I know. He was right the first time. Individual portions of The Shining are excellent and iconic. Atmospheric and tense but as a whole, it falls apart. It does not work as a movie. Kubrick was more interested in the individual scenes and not the movie working as a cohesive thing with its own internal logic intact.
Yeah, the sequel can NEVER be better! Old cliché, worn out by lazy brains = critics. Just two letters: T2
Yes they can. Not often, but they sure can and T2 is up there.
The Empire Strikes Back is my favorite Star Wars movies. Our rag tag heroes are now in deep shit and it ends like that. 1:57 WHOA. That is so far off the mark Lol.
Dogmatically Atheistic, Materialistic and Earthbound is quite the intellectual insult lol. When a mind is unable to entertain these ideas and ponder them and their utility, they walk off instead.
I’m wondering how some of these people are professional critics in the first place when they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Never, ever trust people who critique and criticize what they themselves have never done. That's pretty obvious. 💪😎✌️ Especially when it comes to the basics of storytelling; most critics don't know sheet about them. Think about it: name ONE "film critic" who's harsh on masterpieces who also achieved accolades for crafting an exemplary story, series, film, or whatever. In my 30+ years of work in production, I've never once encountered one.
🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨
Exactly. IMO every film critic should be a former writer or especially director. That should be a prerequisite to get the job. And not an Ed Wood or a Tommy Wiseau obviously.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, critique.
I'm not saying critics are experts that know everything, but you can definitely critique something even if you don't know how to do it. You don't have to be a director, DP, or screen writer to know something is or isn't good.
I think your final point, about professional film reviews in general, is pretty devastating. What truly great films reveal themselves fully on first viewing? Most of my favorites, including Blade Runner, didn't make any sense to me until I revisited them. Yet again and again, film reviewers humiliate themselves by publishing their hot takes, which time often bears out as utterly blind to the true virtues of the film.
Film reviewers are usually highly educated on film history, and keep up with standards and modern conventions. They watch several new films a week, sometimes several per day. But in their official capacity, they watch films with a notebook open, scribbling thoughts and impressions, so as to try and cram the rigor of film analysis into their first viewing. So ultimately, they're actually missing the actual experience of watching the film. They say there's no wrong way to watch a film, but when you're trying to analyze it before you even know where it's going, it seems to me you're already missing the most important part of the experience. It's like when viewers watch a mystery, and try to guess the answer before the film ends, or try to predict the surprise twist. What's the purpose of outsmarting the film you're watching? Does it enhance the experience? To my mind, it would do the opposite.
I think many film critics quickly lose the skill of just watching a film, for the very reason that they're trying to form an opinion on it before they know what it is. So it's no surprise that films like, say, Fight Club, or 2001, or Blade Runner, end up misunderstood. These are movies that transform through the course of their runtime, becoming something at the end that no one could possibly predict at the beginning. So whatever notes a critic might be writing through the first half, whatever predictions they make, whatever ways they size up the film, become utterly meaningless by the end. You can't criticize any of these movies from first watch. There's no possible way to truly understand them without a second viewing, for the simple reason that the first half isn't complete without the transformative addition of the second half. They demand to be re-experienced. Moreover, these are all films that must be understood in at least two completely different and contradictory ways to be understood at all. No hot take on any of them can truly take in the duel reading of the mirror-image narratives that are necessary to understand them.
These days, it really seems like critics are getting better about films, reluctant to just write off something they don't initially understand, more humble in the face of movies that demand deeper scrutiny. Of course, the vast population of armchair critics that make up the internet, and youtube in particular, are still often just as thoughtless with their useless hot takes and reflex judgements. But I'm seeing more and more re-evaluations and second looks floating around, which I really appreciate. After all, why cling to disliking things? Wouldn't we all rather like things than not?
I like what you said about trying to guess an ending. Too many people put so much focus on predictability or not that they forget just how meaningful the journey can be.
Me personally, precitability is often irrelevant because realistically, the filmmakers have the potential to take us just about anywhere with a story - for better or worse - so it's best to just go along for the ride and let it take you where it takes you. Oftentimes the characters' growth and related themes is the most meaningful point
@@Chrisratata Agreed. I think people often get caught up trying to outsmart films because they want to prove themselves smart, rather than being open to a new experience that might actually enrich them. This might sound judgemental, and honestly, it is. But the truth is, I think we're all a little guilty of it.
1:09 Bland? I remember seeing Empire strikes back decades ago on VHS. I still remember sitting 2 hours being totaly in awe from nearly every scene. Until today, no other movie had the same effect on me.
I really liked Bladerunner. I think I agree with the critics on all the others
I'm not gonna lie... These criticisms of 'Empire' are starting to fire me up. Lololol
Faltou mais filmes da Hollywood clássica como "Strangers on a Train" (1951) e "Vertigo" (1958) que também foram criticados em sua época de lançamento e hoje são aclamados
The movie “Blow” only received 56% on RT. Movie is fantastic.
Where is Carpenter? You want to talk about classics that got shit reviews…look no further than his “Remake that became the definitive version,” of The Thing. Critics at the time hated that movie, largely for the gore but it’s an disputed classic now.
Great section on Kubrick. Paths of Glory is an amazing movie.
Carpenter actually features pretty heavily in next weeks video. He's one of the all timers for me. The dude has so many classics, it's impossible to go through all of them in detail.
@@Syntopikon I was pleasantly surprised this week when Turner Classic Movies did a back to back of his movie They Live followed by The Hidden, with Kyle Maclachlin. It was nice to hear a little blurb in the beginning about the movie, similar to how they would Citizen Kane.
Critics are no predictors of what movies will be remembered. They usually praise boring art cinema like Howards End and Power of the Dog. Films that are highly-praised while out, but not remembered. Look at Siskel and Ebert's special about the best films of the 1970s. It's mostly forgotten films with a few exceptions.
Those are great movies, but a fun mindless popcorn flick can be great too. It's just like music, there's great prog, but also great pop, it's all what's you are into, or in the mood for.
I always find it funny that movies that recieve and even win major awards are criticality derided. If a movie that becomes a classic( take Vertigo) that gets lukewarm reviews then I understand. A film like 2001 that receives 2 of the highest nominations(diector, writing) and winni g in special effects does not fit this category.
Why the Fuck do you sound like rich evans's George Lucas impersonation
and this is why movie critics are a waste of matter
You've never given an opinion on a movie? Everyone is a critique.
@@edwarddore7617 sorry, "professional movie critics" i should have said
The film which I have been disappointed with is AD ASTRA having watch to the end of the movie, I just felt I wanted the time back. I really doubt that this movie will be fondly looked back on in the future.
If you're gonna criticize something, take the time to get it right. Lotta wisdom there. Nobody wants to hear your opinion if your opinion is uninformed. If your review of a film is "The film is boring" then congratulations, your review is boring.
"get it right" is pretty meaningless. Not a single person on this planet holds some definitive authority over what is and isn't great. You have your taste and I have mine, sometimes we agree sometimes we disagree.
Roger Ebert liked all these movies except Clockwork Orange and Fight Club. (I hated Clockwork Orange too)
He might not have liked The Shining either...missed that one. I can't blame a critic for not liking that. I'm lukewarm myself.
can you do a video on the opposite? critical darlings that aren't talked about today
I just realised this is close to Bernie Sanders’ accent… which means it might be from New York somewhere?
I did spend a couple of years in Manhattan, but nope, I've mostly lived in California.
@@Syntopikon ah well that’s it then, that’s where the sanders accent comes from! Ha nah but it is cool and distinctive.
Now that I listen again it has vague elements of Richard Nixon in it, which could explain it… but also means I have zero idea what I’m talking about. Manhattan? Nixon? I don’t know. It’s a great voice though.
Sorry, while I think Kubrick makes visually stunning movies. This can not be denied. But many of his movies are so slow, it's like watching paint dry. I remember very well seeing seeing 2001 when it opened in 1968 in Seattle. Half the audience walked out. While i still think the ending is great, the movie as a whole is boring.
I think a lot of people would agree with you. I personally don't mind the slowness as I like movies that just saunter along apace, but I can see why it's not for everyone.
@Syntopikon You wouldn't be the only one. People like what people like. And that's OK. I sort of think the reason that it became a classic is because directors found it so revolutionary. And in marveling over all that, they appreciated all the subtext. Which is everything in the movie. It might be a great film because of all that. But it is a very boring movie.
Critics are complete and utterly useless especially today. They're completely media illiterate nowadays and their critiques only care for whatever agenda they're pushing to ingratiate themselves to studios, most likely Disney.
Before, some had some value... nowadays they're just a particularly insidious form of advertising and an attempt at shaping public opinion.