3 ms·
That's the problem with critics, they get paid to analyze things. Sometimes things don't really need to be analyzed, just taken at face value.
by dennisnedry 11y ago
That's the problem with critics, they get paid to analyze things. Sometimes things don't really need to be analyzed, just taken at face value.
- 2muchcoffeeman 11y agoI think understanding when a movie is just for fun is part of a film critics job. In Australia we used to have Margaret and David before they recently retired. They were really good film critics with tastes that covered a large spectrum of movies.
- icebraining 11y agoOn the other hand, there's "Man Getting Hit By Football"[1]. One can find a film too simplistic to be appreciated even if one takes it as "just for fun". As people whose work is very subjective, critics don't lend themselves to be read in an ad-hoc fashion, in my opinion. One should follow their reviews, compare them with the works one has also watched/read, and only then decide which critics are more appropriate for you. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1LWhNpTJU