No, I didn't. I said that companies that have financial stakes in both a publication and a movie can and do rig their reviews accordingly. I don't think it helps the gross at all; I do think it undermines the criticism just to make sure that EW doesn't devote a full issue to Harry Potter (which actually does keep the hype going) and then top it off with Glieberman or Schwartzbaum saying, "Hmmm, actually it's shit D-." People would ask why EW spent all that time promoting HP with the multi-covers and the interviews and the whatnot if their writers thought it sucked. That's the only reason.

Which if his reviews bother you the most? I will admit that he can be an idiot, but some of them are spot on.

Yeah, so a review doesn't make a difference in this situation at all. My point stands.

Your "point" may stand... alone, a million miles away from any relevance to what Sanjuro's post is. Your "point" makes it seem like he was making a point about why people go to see movies. He wasn't making a point about why people go to see movies. He was making a point about the integrity of the critical infrastructure and if the integrity of the critical infrastructure is the situation under discussion (which it is: see the thread title) then yes, it does make a difference in the situation.

Yeah but what does that even matter? I guess I just don't belong in this topic. Film criticism doesn't influence anything, really. It provides another perspective. If it's a boring rigged perspective, it still isn't influencing anything. I get that it's stupid, but that's kinda obvious. Corporations controlling things has little to do with bad criticism itself, maybe deceptive criticism. I mean you can't really prove that that happens if they just say a generic praising review. Most people do that when they're trying their hardest to draw attention to themselves, regardless of whether money is involved. Meh I'll drop it, it's not that relevant to what you guys are talking about.

Though I stand by the "privileged RYM user" comment.

Seriously the first person who came to mind when I saw this.

Actually no, that would be Ken Hanke. Everytime I see his stupid fucking face on RT I know I'm gonna get some equally stupid quote to go with it, his reviews are terrible too, but it's those little quotes that somehow is considered the highlight of his review that really sum up how much of a pretentious asshat he is.

Actually most RT critics are fucking retarded lets just stick to that.

They're all way better than Ray Carney though.

I may go to BU to study with Carney for two years.

Don't forget to bring some seltzer bottles and the clown car.

Oh and Glieberman fucking SUCKS.

He gave positive reviews to some of the Seltzer/Friedberg movies, does anything else even need to be said?

My problem with critics is they either end up being pretentious clowns like Carney or they try to play the role of consumer adviser which for such a subjective form of media is completely impossible not to suck at.

I hate how good movies will get low ratings just because they are deemed not of interest to whatever their target audience is (sometimes wrongly) assumed to be. How many times have you seen a critic give a low rating to one of the few kids movies that don't suck becuase they're "too depressing or scary for kids", even though those often end up being the films kids love the most because they like to be scared.

If you're gonna be a critic it pays to know shit like that.

Basically most of the criticism levelled at "A Serbian Film".

"It crosses the line"

"It's not entertainment"

"Only psychopaths and pedophiles would want to watch this movie"

"Anybody who watches this is sick as the people depicted in the film!"

Blah blah blah.

Ok I take back what I said about this, it sounds like my kind of movie.

sounds more like compliments if anything else

Precisely.

Thanks to these ridiculously pretentious statements, I'm pretty much obligated to see this now.

No, you aren't. You should take personal responsibility for your attraction to dog shit rather than inventing nonexistent social obligations.