Do you feel that movies are being criticized more than movies in the past?

I'm hearing/reading a lot of reviews of recent movies that have an average or poor grade. I pose this question because there are many classics, and that 21st century movies aren't remembered beyond the season it came out. Whether it's poor writing, or our views of movies have changed, I'm not sure. Also, I want to know if you agree or disagree with the view I've shown.

Maybe it's because a lot of people in the industry today are only there to make easy money, or perhaps because others are over-reliant on special effects.

Don't get me wrong, special effects rock - Star Trek being a prime example - but that movie was amazing due to the fact it had an interesting plot, well-developed characters and a somewhat witty script, aswell.

Maybe just maybe the movies deserve it....

I think you're just comparing the best 10% of yesterday with the worst 90% of today.

There are a lot more critics these days. Many classics has 100% ratings on RT but only because like 20 reviewers have rated it, if they came out today they would probably get what the top films of this decade get which around 90-95%. I for one enjoy films of this past decade a lot more then most classics I have seen but that is just me. I sometimes wonder why classics are praised so highly. For example many Hitchcock films didnt get very good reviews when released yet years later they are considered some of the best.SaintLeonidas

2001: A Space Odyssey wasn't received very well. In fact, the producer (I think it was the producer) had a heart attack after the film had ended.sammyjenkis898

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"]2001: A Space Odyssey wasn't received very well. In fact, the producer (I think it was the producer) had a heart attack after the film had ended.super_mario_128

He thought the film would ruin his company. I actually think it was a member of the company that was backing the film. I'm not sure..sammyjenkis898

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"]He thought the film would ruin his company. I actually think it was a member of the company that was backing the film. I'm not sure..super_mario_128

I think it's that you are only comparing the best films of the past with more recent average films, The Class, for example, was universally exalted on release recently.

It has to do with a variety of factors. The limitations of being able to accomplish a variety of special effects back in the day demanded focus on elements that are the most important to a film's quality: writing, script, direction, dialogue, convincing acting, etc. Effects were simply there to compliment all of those things instead of becoming more and more prevalent as to overshadow and take priority over them.

I always like to look to the Sci-fi genre from decades past: Alien(s), Terminator, Blade Runner and compare them to today's films for a few prime examples of this (I'm a huge fan of Cameron and Ridley Scott if you can't tell). If studied closely, there really are not that many huge FX shots in these movies, and the ones there are are very brief, focused, and always have some goal in mind of what it wants to covey instead of just being there to shock and awe with bang and flash. Watch the nest scene in Aliens for example. I have never watched such a tense scene with barely ANY special effects used at all (not to mention a few repeated shots). There's only a handful of the Aliens ever shown, and they were mostly shown during the build up to the attack with all the others being one second glimpses. Most of the tension and chaos was conveyed through the helmet cams, great acting, the Captain's inability to act under fire, and the chaos that ensued because of it. Now that is good film making. These scenes are also shot with very plausible direction, not 360ing and rapidly flying around the action as everything explodes to high heaven as it does today. It is as if you are directly in the thick ofit, not watching as an objective viewer standing way back.

There's barely any of this type of directing today. There are a few films nowadays that tend to get back to the fundamentals that make a great movie what it is, but it's pretty rare. Movies are being more critized today because they are simply inferior films. It's a shift in priorities and a different generation of film makers that are not up to the task. Oh, all of this is referring to Sci-fi/horror movies btw. Call me a minimalist, but more is not always better...in some instances, it's less.

Maybe they deserve it.Bourbons3

There are a lot more critics these days. Many classics has 100% ratings on RT but only because like 20 reviewers have rated it, if they came out today they would probably get what the top films of this decade get which around 90-95%. I for one enjoy films of this past decade a lot more then most classics I have seen but that is just me. I sometimes wonder why classics are praised so highly. For example many Hitchcock films didnt get very good reviews when released yet years later they are considered some of the best.SaintLeonidas

Part of that was Hitchcock's chosen genre to work in being suspense/thrillers weren't considered too highly by the critics of that time. The same way thrillers and suspense of today are still not thought of highly by critics of today.

I'm sure with time films of the last decade will be seen as classics as films of the 40's through the 60's are seen as classics today. As for why films are criticized more today than films of the past it's because everyone who is anyone thinks they can be film critics. With the internet making it easy to let everyone know what they think of a film then more criticism of a film is able to spread to more people. Hell, I'm guilty of that as pretty much anyone here who likes to critique films. I just try to do so minus the malice and hate a majority of those criticizing films have begun to see as fashionable.

It is a reflection of current society. Like video games today seem to be missing something, same for movies.

Here's the best way I can put the idea;

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/unions/read_article.php?topic_id=24782647&union_id=2574

Just read the first 2 paragraphs.

I'm hearing/reading a lot of reviews of recent movies that have an average or poor grade. I pose this question because there are many classics, and that 21st century movies aren't remembered beyond the season it came out. Whether it's poor writing, or our views of movies have changed, I'm not sure. Also, I want to know if you agree or disagree with the view I've shown.

CRS98

Actually, plenty of "classics" got a pretty poor critical reception when first released. A lot of critics hated John Carpenter's The Thing, and I hear that 2001 and Blade Runner weren't initially liked all that much either. Fight Club did better critically but was pretty much a flop commercially. Movies are just like any other form of art. Some paintings are immediately loved. Others just sort of fade into obscurity and aren't appreciated until audiences start to "rediscover" them later. Some movies are truly ahead of their time, and some movies can be helped or hindered by the current cultural climate.

I think you're just comparing the best 10% of yesterday with the worst 90% of today.

Oleg_Huzwog

That's another excellent point. There has ALWAYS been an overabundance of bad art compared to a small percentage of good art. But the thing is that bad art gets weeded out over time. In 40 years, you're not going to remember the huge number of bad movies you saw in 2009, you'll only remember the few good ones. But in the year 2049, of course it'll look like movies all suck. You won't have had time to forget the bad movies, because the bad movies will have just been released.