Normally when critics don’t like it it’s a good movie.
Critics don’t judge entertainment they judge “art”. Artistic films are not made to entertain, they are made for concept or to “get a message across”. A Critics opinion is not for the public, it’s for pretencious “artists”
You’re being downvoted but in a way you’re right.
You cant be a food reviewer and review a pepperoni pizza as “the worst soup I ever had”. You need to review things as what they set out to achieve.
I also think there’s a certain…let’s slide into whiskey, for a minute. Whiskey affectionados, the ones who know when to spell it with or without an E, own their own glencairn glasses and such, tend to dislike Crown Royal effectively because it’s a basic bitch whiskey. There’s way more exciting whiskies out there than Crown. Crown Royal sells a LOT of whiskey, a lot of it to people who don’t even recognize it as whiskey. In their mind, “it’s Crown Royal.”
So the whiskey critic who went to booze school and got a master’s degree in liquoroloy will pan it, and folks who just want something easy to drink over rocks or to booze up a diet coke will read the expert review and say “This man is obviously a rock chewing idiot.”
Early feelings at the time about Willis feel very similar to the problem John Krasinski has. Krasinski wants to be an action star, and in a vacuum is legitimately good at the roles, but he is so well known for comedy that there is a hurdle to overcome in the minds of the audience.
Willis was obviously able to overcome his image as a pure comedy guy thanks in part part to the strength of Die Hard.
I was too young to watch Moonlighting when it was on TV, so I never knew Bruce Willis as anything other than an action and drama guy until he was on Friends for a few episodes, and then I thought he was out of place.
The funny thing about being a critic is it doesn’t actually require any qualifications.
prepared for the downvotes here, but I cut my teeth in journalism in arts criticism and deeply respect some of the people I’ve known in the field.
I think this kind of opinion - and the irony does not escape me that I’m performing a sort of criticism here - is rather misinformed.
Yes, anyone can be a critic in the same way that anyone who can, slowly and haltingly, play a C Major scale, can be a musician.
But I believe, like my metaphor, that if you were to dive into successful and recognized critic’s (/musicians) work you’d find a lot more depth than you’d expect.
If any — Who are the critics you dislike, and why? If any — who are the critics you do like (even begrudgingly), and why?
I don’t believe all critics are unqualified or unhelpful, just that the barrier for entry is so low that any “critic review” shouldn’t facially be held as more valid than an average consumer’s view.
IMO the worst reviews tend to be from large gaming journalism companies. There’s a lot of systemic problems with them like crunch, people writing reviews on genres they don’t have experience with, nepotism, and them inflating the scores of AAA titles so publishers continue to give them early access allowing them to release reviews in time. These aren’t all necessarily the fault of the writer of each of their reviews, but do degrade the credibility of the review.
Sticking with games there’s good journalism that comes from independent reviewers, like Dunkey, but they’ll typically have a specialty in a particular genre. My general go to is usually reading Steam user reviews, but only taking to heart those voted most helpful that actually give critiques and praises. Independent critics or user reviews in my eye have the great benefits of not being beholden like large studios.
Someone did a great breakdown comparing user and critic game reviews and outlining the gaming industry’s issues in this video: https://youtu.be/YGfEf8-SNPQ?si=
Off of digital media entirely Project Farm is probably one of the best out there if you’re looking for tools.
I’ve worked as a film critic, and I was shocked by other critics. They didn’t have the knowledge of cinema, directors etc to say anything meaningful other than just what they thought. The they have the film a random (seemingly) star rating or dice toss.
what kind of publication? mine was on something related to the big uk papers: The Times and The Guardian.
Unpopular opinion but I don’t think this movie is good lol. I get that it’s very nostalgic and it has its moments but otherwise it’s not too different from any other late 80’s/early 90’s action film. Which is frankly not a high bar to achieve.
I mean nobody is going to call it some high art cinematic masterpiece. But it is a fun entertaining movie.
I understand how, in retrospect, it may feel like it isn’t groundbreaking, but do consider that before Die Hard, there really wasn’t anything quite like it.
A quote straight from Wikipedia:
It is considered to have revitalized the action genre, largely due to its depiction of McClane as a vulnerable and fallible protagonist, in contrast to the muscle-bound and invincible heroes of other films of the period.
While it did sort of fall apart and away from what made it great in the later sequels, I think it’s important to put the film into the context of when it was released and what it did to the genre.
All that to say, Die Hard fucking rules.
That was my complaint after Die Hard with a Vengeance. He became a little indestructible and lost some of the flaws that made the character exciting to watch. The first 3 are great in keeping true to the character, but the movies after DHwaV are just generic action movies borrowing a character’s name.
I maintain that Live Free or Die Hard is a much better movie when you watch the uncensored version. Yeah, a lot of the shit McClane goes through is not something any regular Joe would survive but the movie at least tries to make it survivable. And the uncensored version adds in a lot of the blood that should’ve been present with all of that bullshit in the first place.
Exactly, this is 100% Seinfeld is Unfunny material.
In the eighties, action films preferred invincible heroes who slaughtered mooks by the dozen with casual disdain. Die Hard popularized grittier and more realistic action, with heroes who are vulnerable and suffer from character faults. It also popularized the concept of action movies confined to limited space, a setup that this very wiki calls ““Die Hard” on an X”. (For example, Speed is “Die Hard on a bus.”) Also, at the time it came out, people were shocked at the idea of a comedic actor like Bruce Willis being an action star. Nowadays, what with Tom Hanks Syndrome, comedic actors doing serious roles aren’t nearly so amazing. Younger fans might not even know Willis got his start in comedy.
Just learned about the Seinfeld is Unfunny trope from your comment. What a helpful expression in describing media/pop culture progenitors!
That’s because it set the mould, and dozens of copy cats followed the formula thereafter.
Maybe so, but if they did it better then as someone who watched it later it doesn’t do much for me.
My kids watched it for the first time ever last weekend. They had no nostalgia or frame of reference for it and yet they both loved it - “the dumbest fun movie I’ve seen in ages”. We’re watching #2 tonight.
I don’t recall the reviews of the first movie but I vividly recall LOTS of articles exclaiming about all the unnecessary violence in the second movie. One news piece had some “expert” show how many times MacLaine would have died, broken bones, etc if it were real. So much free advertising.
