I like Mark Kermode, but he is a bit of a contrarian at times. He can also be very hypocritical/sefl-contradictory, too.

No matter how many times he says otherwise, I have seen the first two Twilight films and they are indeed pants, regardless of if they are aimed at my demographic or not. And Bella is not the kind of role model I want my daughter to latch onto when she's older, and that is the target market.

Like I said, maybe I am hyper sensitive because I don't read too much criticism. It just seemed like he never missed the opportunity to stick the knife in. It didn't seem like he was going in to enjoy the experience, it seemed like he was going in to see how it didn't meet his standards.



I gave a quick outline of my use of the rating systems to make sure the film isn't getting a 4, which in my experience is generally a good guide to it sucking. But generally that's as deep as I go.

Music. The bands I like areNext, some of the best music and literature I know - lots of it - I wouldn't have liked much, or at all, without critics. Classical pieces such as Rachmaninov, or Wagner, spring to mind, or the plays of Shakespeare, or one of what became my all time favourites, the Canterbury Tales. What you often need, or if not "need" then what is extremely helpful, is someone who knows and understands - who is thus acting as a critic - to explain to you why this has merit. And the more you learn, the more you might understand, and the more you might appreciate.'"

As I first wrote, I usually watch a film, enjoy it or not. Then watch something else. Unless it's a film like the one about the fast food restaurant where the staff were prank called and there's an interesting back story worth reading about, the film is over when it's ended.

I don't get into film debates with friends, I don't remember and quote famous movie lines.

But the last Transformers film was so awful that I had to check with an outside source whether it was as bad as I thought. So I was perfectly accepting of his review of bashing his head against walls and heavy objects.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "I could point to wonderful series like the recent Waldemar Januszczak programmes, '" Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Hoaxed by artist Jamie Shovlin, Januszczak later that year 'revealed' in his paper how the 1970s glam rock band Lustfaust had "cocked a notorious snook at the music industry in the late 1970s by giving away their music on blank cassettes and getting their fans to design their own covers".[6] The band had never existed outside Shovlin's fiction.[7] Januszczak replied that Shovlin should be applauded for his capacity to remind us of the crucial place of the artist in today's society as he made clear that "Reality simply cannot be trusted any more".'" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_J ... ite_note-8

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "I could point to wonderful series like the recent Waldemar Januszczak programmes, '" Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Hoaxed by artist Jamie Shovlin, Januszczak later that year 'revealed' in his paper how the 1970s glam rock band Lustfaust had "cocked a notorious snook at the music industry in the late 1970s by giving away their music on blank cassettes and getting their fans to design their own covers".[6] The band had never existed outside Shovlin's fiction.[7] Januszczak replied that Shovlin should be applauded for his capacity to remind us of the crucial place of the artist in today's society as he made clear that "Reality simply cannot be trusted any more".'" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_J ... ite_note-8

Ah, I see where you're going wrong, you mistakenly think criticcriticus[/i, which is from the Greek [ikritikos[/i, meaning "able to discern or judge".

A critic whose professional job it is to produce such reviews is meant to be able to judge something, from a position of knowledge. It could equally be a favourable judgement as an unfavourable one.

I'm not thinking that at all.

I'm suspecting that critics gain notoriety and readership by bashing rather than offering genuine criticism. If a work is bad then it should judged as bad. But not judged as bad and then the artist hit with a brick.

I don't subscribe to the Times so I can't read his article.

But from the wikipedia entry he was writing in his article about a German 70's band and he is quoted as saying they "cocked a notorious snook at the music industry in the late 1970s by giving away their music on blank cassettes and getting their fans to design their own covers".

That suggests that they are a real band and they actually did that.

The famous art critic writing in the Sunday Times that they did that suggests that they did it too. After all, he's the famous art critic writing "from his position of knowledge".

His argument that, "Nobody can know about every obscure electro-noise band that ever recorded an album" is true. But if you're a knowledgeable art critic and writing about it as if it actually happened shouldn't you actually know whether it happened?

If he's duped into believing that happened, might he be just as easily duped that a pile of trash is art when the truth is that it's just a pile of trash?

Can't see it myself. Surely a critic who was permanently and stubbornly negative would be shown the door in five minutes? Surely if a critic was always "bashing" then everyone would know what they did, so it would be pointless? Do you have at least one example of such a critic?

Most of these newspaper critics get freebies or goodie bags from companies behind the product in return of a favourable review.

When it comes to films, Kermode is very good, as was Barry Norman. What Film making background Jonathon Ross or Winkelman have, I don't know, but suspect its very little.

As for reviewing a film to watch, I firstly look at the films poster. If it says, " from the producer/ director of ..." I avoid it.

You'll be fooked if it's subtitled won't you?

Not at all, most films I watch are foreign and I can get by in French and German.

Best film I've seen this year is The Berlin Files. Would love to see the Suns film critic reviewing that one.

Film [imaking[/i prior to becoming a critic, about as much as Kermode and Norman, I believe. I don't know much about Winkelman, but in all honesty Ross is pretty damn knowledgeable about a lot of film, regardless of what other things people think about him.

Watch the film and make your own mind up , be a lion not a sheep