3D no better than 2D and gives filmgoers headaches

[GMichael]

Sounds like you're saying we should always just sit back and accept any action movie for what it is. Maybe you're right.

No. You shouldn't always do anything. But action movies should not always be expected to have great stories. Sometimes a simple story can be fun. Not everyone is looking for a brain teaser every time they go to a movie. I saw Avatar and enjoyed it. The story was very simple, but fun. I've even watched it several more times at home. I still enjoyed it. Is that really a bad thing? Once I am 3D ready at home, I'll probably get the 3D BR.

Then again have you seen Conan the Barbarian (2010)? Truly stupid and the 3D was awful.

I haven't seen the 3D version. Probably because I didn't think that much of the original. It was ok to watch once, but it's not on my must see list.

[Feanor]

No. You shouldn't always do anything. But action movies should not always be expected to have great stories. Sometimes a simple story can be fun. Not everyone is looking for a brain teaser every time they go to a movie. I saw Avatar and enjoyed it. The story was very simple, but fun. I've even watched it several more times at home. I still enjoyed it. Is that really a bad thing? Once I am 3D ready at home, I'll probably get the 3D BR.
...

I'm OK with that. Sometimes a flick has a lot of enterainment value without being "deep" in any sense. Avatar had a million cliches that maybe we were supposed to take seriously; well I didn't take them seriously and enjoyed the film -- including the 3D.

There are quite a few "literary" film critics out there, (English majors, etc.), who always have to have something deep -- or think they've found something deep that isn't there. Pee on these effete snobs!

I'll admit I like to check the reviews before I see a movie. I like Metacritic where you can get both pro critics and popular rating; sometimes there is a big divergence. I always thing twice if the critics are thumbs-up but the popular vote is down. E.g. Lost in Translation, (2003): Critics = 89; Popular = 6.6. So the popular was a lot closer but, IMHO, still too high. Man! What a aimless, boring flick that was.

[RGA]

I'm OK with that. Sometimes a flick has a lot of enterainment value without being "deep" in any sense. Avatar had a million cliches that maybe we were supposed to take seriously; well I didn't take them seriously and enjoyed the film -- including the 3D.

There are quite a few "literary" film critics out there, (English majors, etc.), who always have to have something deep -- or think they've found something deep that isn't there. Pee on these effete snobs!

I'll admit I like to check the reviews before I see a movie. I like Metacritic where you can get both pro critics and popular rating; sometimes there is a big divergence. I always thing twice if the critics are thumbs-up but the popular vote is down. E.g. Lost in Translation, (2003): Critics = 89; Popular = 6.6. So the popular was a lot closer but, IMHO, still too high. Man! What a aimless, boring flick that was.

The thing to remember about critics is that a lot of them see over 300 movies a year every year for decades. When there are basically 7 story types you have pretty much seen the same thing over and over and over - boy meets girl, something happens where boy loses girl, some sort of misunderstanding, it gets resolved - boy gets girl back and they live happily ever after. It gets old fast and nothing new or interesting is added to the equation then critics will be much harder on the movie than the average movie goer who sees maybe 2 of these types of movies a year - so they tend to like it more.

Movies like Lost in Translation are generally different and separate themselves from the pack - perhaps they get overrated as a result but I like the movie perhaps because I've lived in Asia and could somewhat relate to Bill Murray's character in certain respects.

The best film critics have to like movies in general - but they also have to try and rate the movie in the genre - I don't expect an action movie to be as deep or intelligent as a drama. I love some of Mel Brooks' movies which are completely idiotic in many ways but to me they're brilliant "Young Frankenstein", "The Producers 1967" and Blazing Saddles.

A critic simply needs to justify why he likes a given film or does not.

I liked Gene Siskel in the sense that even when he didn't particularly care for a genre of film like horror he could still evaluate which ones were good ones. I didn't care for either critic some years where I felt they chose a best movie of the year just to try and promote a lesser viewed movie - to me you should pick it best if you felt it was best not because you want people to watch it. Siskel chose some really stupid movies over the years - Babe 2 Pig in the City as best film of the year? Though Ebert chose some goofball movies as well.

Here are their ten best lists since 1969 - I'd say both were good critics and both had glaring omissions over the years. But they have movies like Lethal Weapon and Raiders make their lists.

Siskel and Ebert Top Ten Lists (1969-1998)

[Feanor]

...
I liked Gene Siskel in the sense that even when he didn't particularly care for a genre of film like horror he could still evaluate which ones were good ones. I didn't care for either critic some years where I felt they chose a best movie of the year just to try and promote a lesser viewed movie - to me you should pick it best if you felt it was best not because you want people to watch it. Siskel chose some really stupid movies over the years - Babe 2 Pig in the City as best film of the year? Though Ebert chose some goofball movies as well.

Here are their ten best lists since 1969 - I'd say both were good critics and both had glaring omissions over the years. But they have movies like Lethal Weapon and Raiders make their lists.

Siskel and Ebert Top Ten Lists (1969-1998)

Thanks for the Siskel/Ebert link.

I was always more likely to agree with Siskel (or him with me) than Ebert. In general I found his recommendations to great although I'm not endorsing his Top 10's per se.

I certainly agree that he was able to appreciate films regardless of genre. He was a critic who could appreciate the enterainment value of a movie as well as any "deep" qualities it might have