“No, it´s not. And I guess a lot of the confusion and problem comes from this.

A critic´s job is to analyze critically the movie, trying to figure out what are his aestethics options, how they interact between itselves, and what can be concluded from that in regarding the social-cultural context of the society that made the movie. Giving a judgement of value is not part of the job. Obviously, critics have their preferences, but a good critic is able to study any work of art. ”

Well Felipe if you had continued reading my post instead of stopping at that sentence and extrapolating what you wanted, you might have seen we have similar opinions on what makes a good critic:

“The good reviewers out there will go a step further and tell you exactly why the movie worked or did not work, citing examples from similar films in the genre or techniques used in by other filmmakers. Sure, it can be fun to eviscerate a piece of crap, but trust me, its much more enjoyable to actually see a good movie. Its not about being a snob, though you’ll find enough of those in any circle- fanboys certainly not excluded.”

Now sure, you pointed out how the critic will also tackle the socio-political context, but in the end, we both agree that a good critic will look at the work of art and consider what it is and how they are affected by it. But let’s also not pretend there is not a business aspect- the greater percentage of critics actually making money in the business ARE telling you if it is worth your time and money- that’s part of the job- it may not be part of the art of criticism, but those are separate ideas- something I tried to articulate- perhaps not well.

You´re completely right, Wesley. That´s something I overlooked in my later reply. But, to make things clearer, my point is: despite the general opinion, “movie reviewers” and “film critics” are two distinct beasts. And any review of a movie that doesn´t come from an analytical, intellectual standpoint is by its very nature strictly subjective and personal, and has a very limited scope or value.

(BTW, I´m not saying, however, that academic film criticism is deprived of subjectiveness. There´s no such thing as a perfectly neutral point of view when we´re dealing with art. But there´s a big difference between criticism that´s done to better understand the movie artform, its industry, and our society, and the criticism whose main focus is entertainment issues. The latter one it´s not very serious and not very relevant. The first one is crucial to the development of film and filmakers. Maybe the whole problem with movie critics nowadays is that there´s too much voice being given to the first kind, and their noise is baffling the quieter, smarter reflexions of the second.)

A critic´s job is to analyze critically the movie, trying to figure out what are his aestethics options, how they interact between itselves, and what can be concluded from that in regarding the social-cultural context of the society that made the movie.

That is part of a very well articulated response. It’s also fundamentally incomplete. I hate to cite Wikipedia for something like this, but it was the best definition for ‘film criticism’ I could find quickly on the internet:

Film criticism is the analysis and evaluation of films, individually and collectively. In general, this can be divided into journalistic criticism that appears regularly in newspapers, and other popular, mass-media outlets and academic criticism by film scholars that is informed by film theory and published in journals.

So, while, technically, ‘film criticism’ considering the aesthetics and the implications of a film, most people consider the terms ‘movie reviewer’ and ‘film critic’ to be interchangeable. And I would say 90% of the people who get paid to share their general opinions about a movie would consider themselves critics.

I really didn’t want to rise to that one, and you all retorted far better than I could.

My point exactly. If we didn’t have a standing military protecting us, it would happen much more often and much more recently. By pointing out how long ago it was since the last time we were invaded, you highlight how effective our military is at prevention and why they’re worth appreciating.

Who have they ever stood against trying to invade you?
The last military attack was Pearl Harbour, and they pulled that off without a hitch, the end result being the US ended up joining a war that the President had already wanted to join, he just didn’t have the support to do it.
(Man that Japanese General must have been well popular).
And the eventual victory was done by calling a nation wide draft and forcing a mass expansion of the army – which the fella who had wanted it said should be made smaller after that war.

At the very least having “G.I. Joe” not being American is almost insulting to the WW2 soldiers that were given that nickname.

What about to the soldiers of other countries whose modern fictional action figure counterparts are fighting under a sepo nickname rather than their nickname their countries have for their troops?

“Support Our Troops” will go away the moment we live in a world where our very freedom doesn’t depend on their existence.

Really man, who is trying to enslave you?
No one cares about your freedom.

The collapse or rise of the GOP won’t change that. Foreign invaders don’t stay away out of the goodness of their hearts you know.

Who the heck has ever tried to invade you – even before you had a really big army, no one was trying.

And, that´s also untrue.

United Stares suffered from very few invasions, none of wich in it´s mainland because of two well-know variants of military strategy: size and location. US is just too big and too far away from its enemies to be properly invaded. No army in the world has or ever had enough manpower and equipament to sustain an invasion force against a country of continental size, that´s surrounded by water in most of its borders.

I mean, think at the trouble that US itself has in securing Iraq. Now think about the toil it would be to secure 25 Iraqs at the same time. That´s the United States size, for ya.

Nothing against giving appreciation for your troops, they sure try very hard to protect the US, and I guess they should be complimented. But, realistically, if another nation wanted to attack the US, it won´t be the bravery and valor of your soldiers that are going to save the motherland: Europe´s history is full of very brave, very commited, very effective cadavers under their earth.

It´s more the sheer difficulty of the task that keeps enemies at bay. And, of course, those big, sexy, atom bombs.

If we didn’t have a standing military protecting us, it would happen much more often and much more recently.

Geography has done more to protect the US than its military. At least until we and Mexico decide to get our shit together.

No, it´s not. And I guess a lot of the confusion and problem comes from this.

A critic´s job is to analyze critically the movie, trying to figure out what are his aestethics options, how they interact between itselves, and what can be concluded from that in regarding the social-cultural context of the society that made the movie. Giving a judgement of value is not part of the job. Obviously, critics have their preferences, but a good critic is able to study any work of art. I, personally, recognize and can dissert about the amazing characteristics of a lot of films that would not care about, if making and watching movies wasn´t part of my job.

Problem is, we live in a society where the ethos of “consumerism” is widespread. People pay money for the newspaper, and they seem to think they should receive something very useful back. They are not interested in musings about the blockbuster specific aesthetics, or how “G.I. Joe” plot structure is yet another example of how Holywood industry became dependant of extradiegetic narratives to sustain its bussiness model. They want to know if the critic liked or disliked the film, and wether or not its worth its time or money. And truth is, this is an unfair question to ask. Critics are humans: they like some stuff, they dislike others, mostly because of deep personal preferences and very diverse life experiences. And a question such as this is posed to them, they can only give a subjective answer. And that´s not because they don´t have objective knowledge: they do. But the public is not interested in it.

And them, we arrive at the fundamental problem. Critics usually don´t like blockbusters, mainly because blockbusters are aimed to an audience far younger, far less reflective than them (what´s perfectly fair). Critics could, however, say some very insightful things about blockbusters (as Thomas Schatz did in his works: I recommend!). But the public is only interested in hearing if the critics liked it or not. And when they say “Well, actually…” , public blame them for giving a “subjective”, “artsy” opinion.

If you want to know more about movies, you should read movie criticism. If you just want to know if it´s a good move to spend a few sweaty bucks in the newest flick opening this week, you should ask a friend from the same demographic as you. No critic can tell you what you will like: believe me, if there were a way to make such an failproof prediction, Holywood´s financial situation would be much less dire than it is today…

…from Harry Knowles.
______________________

Doesn’t Joe in this movie stand for Joint Operations – Europe?

And isn’t this movie suggesting that the US Armed Forces should be under the control of the United Nations?

Can you honestly remember the last time the US was invaded?!?!? 1812, perhaps??

My point exactly. If we didn’t have a standing military protecting us, it would happen much more often and much more recently. By pointing out how long ago it was since the last time we were invaded, you highlight how effective our military is at prevention and why they’re worth appreciating.

As has been pointed out, its the critic’s job to tell you why they liked or disliked the film, and whether or not they feel its worth your time and money. The good reviewers out there will go a step further and tell you exactly why the movie worked or did not work, citing examples from similar films in the genre or techniques used in by other filmmakers. Sure, it can be fun to eviscerate a piece of crap, but trust me, its much more enjoyable to actually see a good movie. Its not about being a snob, though you’ll find enough of those in any circle- fanboys certainly not excluded.

No critic that wants to be taken seriously is going to go into the theater ready to loathe the film. Sure, they might be suspicious based on past works by a particular director or might not be a fan of the subject matter, but their responsibility is to keep an open mind and give their impressions, backed with arguments if they didn’t agree with what they saw.

I wouldn’t particularly care if Paramount denied critics a screening, but here’s the thing- they certainly don’t keep it balanced, cherry picking the positive quotes they want in their advertising, oftentimes relying on quote whores in the industry who never have a bad thing to say about any film, provided it means a nice hotel and screening or for some truly pathetic individuals, seeing their name in print. Some of the big studios want to have it both ways in this fashion, so you can’t expect the critical community to sit back and not say a word about that particular disparity.

I have to confess a lot of times I’m disappointed with the fanboys, whether I’m one of them in the property involved or not; if they love the property so much, wouldn’t they fight to see that it gets an appropriately spectacular treatment rather than dully nodding to whatever is offered them? Why is a bad review such an egregious insult? Are they making money off the film? Do they have a vested interest beyond finally having approbation that something they like is getting the spotlight?

That would also explain a lot of the confusion I had with certain characters “Countries of Origin” on their datacards…

@Raskal66: That was actually what I thought they were going to do… Label it “G.I. Joe” in the US, “Action Force” internationally… Been done before…

I guess, not being American, I just prefer the idea of an International UN-sanctioned team fighting global terrorism… Oh, and I also thought the Red Shadows were far more scary than the Cobra troopers…

I’m now going to dig out my old Action Force Marvel UK comics, my Battle/Action Force weeklies and my Marvel G.I. Joe comics!

Aaaah! Nostalgia!

8/10

The know-it-all, my-oppinion-is-natural-law stance is not dependant on any socio-political position.

But neither is it dependant on a job title. Or haven’t you read the responses to the most recent Comic Critics about Cry for Justice, or any post where Jeph Loeb’s name comes up? There are just as many “my opinion is the only opinion that matters” people in this community at CBR as there in any organization. Why single out reviewers? Is it because they have one of the coolest jobs on the planet?