Comments on: Leonard Maltin Says There Are “No Standards” In Modern Film Criticism

By: Colin Christian

Colin Christian — Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:49:00 +0000

If found that films that split critics and audiences are usually the most interesting ones and are more likely to stick around. He’s right about silent and foreign movies, to watch them is to love them,you cannot appreciate film completely without that scope. The thing is though,genre films are the ones that really last,above any other kind,Casablanca,Citizen Kane and Gone With The Wind may indeed be great films,but do not inspire lifelong passion the same way The Bride of Frankenstein,Metropolis or even The Wizard of Oz do. Like it or not,Sci Fi,Horror and Fantasy create more long lasting fans than anything else.

By: Patrick Malone

Patrick Malone — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 23:45:00 +0000

Absolutely right. However, even most of the “professional” critics simply don’t have the knowledge that Martin cites as necessary. Much of the time, there’s a passing acknowledgement of a philosophical or political or religious theme in the film, but it’s as if the critic thinks that just acknowledging that theme passes for engagement. It doesn’t. So many of them don’t have the philosophical or religious knowledge to deal with the big questions that important films raise, and so can’t say anything beyond the banal, when they even deign to acknowledge the presence of those questions. Many also tend to get stuck in viewing everything through a political filter, and if that filter isn’t relevant, they’re lost – take, for example, the reviews of Scorsese’s Silence that only talked about colonialism, and had no idea what to do with the theology. It does no good when they have so little knowledge of the canon.

I don’t know how somebody can call him/herself a competent critic without having read Matthew Arnold or T.S. Eliot on criticism, but I get the sense that so many critics think that their job involves reporting on rumours or providing a plot summary instead of that engagement.

The other major problem it that too many critics are more interested in looking smart (by being snarky) than in being smart. Giving a sarcastic dismissal doesn’t make them look like they have such great taste when that fundamental knowledge is missing.

By: The Movie Waffler

The Movie Waffler — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 16:48:00 +0000

There’s nothing wrong with your film education beginning with Star Wars, so long as it doesn’t end there.

By: John W

John W — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:58:00 +0000

First a few caveats, I don’t go to the theater for every movie that I’m interested in seeing. I don’t have the time or the desire. I use streaming services like amazon prime, and netflix a lot both of which I’ve had long before they became more famous for their streaming services and original programing. I also buy a lot of physical media, usually used or on sale in lieu of going to the theaater. There are a lot of movies I’m going to go see regardless of whatever critics say like say Spider-Man Homecoming. Having said all that I try to seek out various reviews of a movie before I decide to watch it.

By: Knight Rider

Knight Rider — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:55:00 +0000

He has a point.
However, I’d argue that each consumer needs to find critics who suit his/her needs in film. If you are the dumb action movie consumer, your go to critics will probably be the same.
If you love artistic cinema and enjoy movies on multiple levels, read critics who understand the cinematic language and film history.

By: cirkusfolk

cirkusfolk — Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:14:00 +0000

You put Maltin’s “no gatekeepers” blurb in the article twice. Maybe this is what Martin is talking about 😉