Reviewing the movie reviewers

Movie critic Kenneth Turan’s essay Monday for the On Second Thought series prompted a lively response at latimes.com. Here is a sampling of the reaction.

--

Mm. It is funny, but I always felt about Mr. Turan’s reviews what he felt about “Amores Perros.” Sort of dull and listless. Some film critics don’t seem to really love films even though they are paid to review them. I guess [that’s] why they feel the need to be overly critical . . . rather than constructively critical. There should be a saying like “those that can’t, teach; those that can’t teach, criticize; and those that can’t criticize, teach criticism.”

--

Frank Stanton

--

Well, I guess if a critic can never be “wrong” about a film, then he can never be “right.” The notion that “everyone is entitled to an opinion so I can’t be wrong” is silly, to me, because opinions can be stupid.

For the most part, film critics are becoming irrelevant. I and others I know will check rotten for an aggregate opinion, but what any one critic thinks doesn’t matter to me, because I’ve never encountered a critic whose tastes, as far as guiding what I will like, is better than a flip of the coin.

--

Joe

--

Hey Frank Stanton: Please, in a world of shills, Turan has always been an honest & dependable critic. I thought “Perros” was great, and I use that word rarely. But, hey, if he didn’t dig it, he didn’t dig it.

--

PCM

--

I went to film school, and I’ve never believed in film reviews. For someone to tell you about something they have seen, and tell you whether it was good or sucked, is ludicrous.

--

Jester

--

Am I the only person in the city of Los Angeles that has a problem with Mr. Turan not reviewing “Amores Perros” when it came out? Hmm.

Let’s see: You work for a paper that is meant for a metropolis with a population that is almost 50% Hispanic; you work for a publication that rarely, if ever, reviews films from south of the border; and one comes along that may be worth all of our time in hearing your opinion on, and you decide to sit it out, and warm the critic’s bench of benches!

Although I admire the fact that you feel able to justify your behavior, I must state that you are a great disappointment to The Times’ readership community.

Critics have a responsibility to see beyond their own tastes and opinions. I don’t care whether you liked it or not, but to not review a film that has had such an impact on today’s youth is very irresponsible.

--

Context Please...

--

I wonder if there’s something [more] stupid and useless, regarding movies, than checking the “aggregate opinion” on Rotten Tomatoes or similar places. An opinion is worthwhile if it is personal, even if wrong. A statistic of opinion is nobody’s opinion, even less [their] judgment or ideas.

To value a movie by considering a score on Rotten Tomatoes is the same as going only to see movies that made more than $100 million at the box office -- the same as not having personal tastes and opinions and being preoccupied only [with being] always with the majority.

--

Sascha

--

Context Please: Your and other knee-jerk comments show what a need there is for informed, thoughtful criticism. And research.

When Turan said he “passed” on the film, it means he gave it to another critic to review -- in this case, the great Kevin Thomas. So the film was reviewed by The Times, something you could have easily found out if you went to meta, which, I guess,

has replaced interesting,

textured writing with a scale

of 1-100 (criticism for illiterates?) for many in this

forum.

--

Context Pretty Please

--

After reading these comments, I think Mr Turan needs a hug. First, I appreciate the article and only wish Mr. Turan would have gone a little “deeper” into his thought process with [regard to] critiquing film. . . . Secondly, although I am a Rotten Tomatoes guy, I always refer to a shortlist of dependable critics and Mr. Turan’s name is at the top of that relatively short list.

As he wrote, if the critic does her/his job well, then, “informed, thoughtful, well-written opinion, an expression of personal taste based on knowledge, experience and insight that helps readers both decide what to see and understand what they have seen,” is what is offered. Few do this more consistently and better than our own Times staff of critics.

But, hey. If you are in the world of criticism, I suppose you better be able to take a little, too, eh?

--

Rick