Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Kevin Smith slams 'nasty' movie critics over bad reviews

Mar 25, 2010#1

Dei

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=490072&gt1=28101

\"Writing a nasty review for 'Cop Out' is akin to bullying a retarded kid. All you've done is make fun of something that wasn't doing you any harm and wanted only to give some cats some fun laughs.\"

And the experience has convinced Smith the system is \"backwards\" -- he'd prefer to turn the job of reviewing movies over to members of the public.

He adds, \"Realised whole system's upside down: so we let a bunch of people see it for free & they **** all over it? Meanwhile, people who'd REALLY like to see the flick for free are made to pay? Bull****: from now on, any flick I'm ever involved with, I conduct critics screenings thusly: you wanna see it early to review it? Fine: pay like you would if you saw it next week. Why am I giving an arbitrary 500 people power over what I do at all, let alone for free? Next flick, I'd rather pick 500 randoms from Twitter & let THEM see it for free in advance, then post THEIR opinions, good AND bad. Same difference. Why's their opinion more valid? It's a backwards system.\"

Mar 25, 2010#2

Thread Necromancer

:clap:

Someones getting it right.

Mar 25, 2010#3

Shegokigo

I can't wait for this to succeed and be the new style review that people look to.

For example: Netflix user reviews have managed to convince me to watch a movie MUCH more frequently than any "professional" critic. To top it off, 9/10 times, they're right.

Mar 25, 2010#4

Gusto

Your average Twitter user can't write or articulate, and has no where near the movie experience or expertise to critique something accurately.

Jus' sayin'.

---------- Post added at 06:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

Interestingly enough, this has happened before:

Mar 25, 2010#5

Shegokigo

Average, fine. There will still be better reviews in that pool of 500 than the uppity idiot "Oscar Only" type Critics that are employed professionally.

Mar 25, 2010#6

Gusto

True!

If Kevin Smith wants to read "everyman reviews", then that's cool. But I get the feeling he'll change his tune when he reads 140 characters of "Cop ot wuz greet! bruse willis is SO HAWWWT!!! <3<3<3".

Mar 25, 2010#7

SpecialKO

I went to see Mother a few days ago in New York (which was awesome, btw).

The film finishes and one guy behind me sighs and says that he was bored because he had "seen this kind of gestalt before". Listening for a few more seconds, I realized that he was using "gestalt" as a pseudo-intellectual stand-in word for "plot".

I wanted to punch the guy twice. First, for using the word "gestalt" in casual conversation in the first place. Second, because he used it wrong.

I think most celebrity film critics (Rotten Tomatoes' "cream of the crop") are d-bags like this guy who was behind me.

Whatever Kevin Smith's motivations might be as to whether he's just acting out because his feelings are hurt, I would applaud if he really invited 500 random movie fans to a free private screening to critique his next film.

Mar 25, 2010#8

Seraphyn

He's both right and wrong imo. Obviously, most of the movie going public aren't all that (self)educated about cinematography, audiography etc etc. And will base their opinion solely on subjective standards. Which is good if you happen to have the exact same taste as that one guy, but not of much use else. However, some movie critics seem to just slam anything, specific filmmakers or are just plain old douchebags.
In reality I'd take the word of friends over some random critic for the simple reason that I know our tastes and where they differ, so it's easier to estimate if I'd like the movie he/she is talking about.

So I'd say, go for it. It can't really hurt your chances on positive reviews anyway.

Mar 25, 2010#9

Cajungal

He sounds a little bitter about something that happens to every kind of creator. Critics are both important and unimportant--important because it's good to have people (professional or not) reminding us that some things are good and some things are crap, technically. You can enjoy something crappy, but it'll still be crap (Here I cite my "Twilight is the Taco Bell of literature" comment.) They're unimportant because people are going to enjoy what they want to enjoy, regardless of what they say. And they should.

It's a fine idea, nothing wrong with giving his fans that opportunity. But he doesn't need to be such a weenie about it.

Mar 25, 2010#10

Oddbot

The only critic whose opinion I'll ever even take into consideration is Roger Ebert. Even if you don't agree with a review of his, it's always well-written and insightful, and worth one's time to read. And I do find myself agreeing with him more times than not.

Also, Cop Out looked like a terrible movie.

Mar 25, 2010#11

Philosopher B.

Agree with CJ 100%.

That article said:
"Writing a nasty review for 'Cop Out' is akin to bullying a retarded kid. All you've done is make fun of something that wasn't doing you any harm and wanted only to give some cats some fun laughs."

That kinda sounds like the argument 'You can't shit on Madagascar, it's for kids'. Even dumb comedies can be made well for what they are.

Mar 25, 2010#12

Hailey Knight

Eh, he gets mad every time someone doesn't like one of his movies.

Mar 25, 2010#13

SpecialKO

Oddbot said:
The only critic whose opinion I'll ever even take into consideration is Roger Ebert. Even if you don't agree with a review of his, it's always well-written and insightful, and worth one's time to read. And I do find myself agreeing with him more times than not.

Agreed. Ebert is one critic I will always consider. He understands that not all movies are intended to be judged by the same criteria, and that movies need to entertain regardless of what emotions or ideas they're trying to set up.

Therefore, when he says that Cop Out isn't really funny, I'm going to go with his recommendation, and see District 13: Ultimatum to get my parkour fix.

Mar 25, 2010#14

Silver Jelly

TeKeo said:
The film finishes and one guy behind me sighs and says that he was bored because he had "seen this kind of gestalt before". Listening for a few more seconds, I realized that he was using "gestalt" as a pseudo-intellectual stand-in word for "plot".

Mar 25, 2010#15

SpecialKO

Silver Jelly;360957][QUOTE=TeKeo said:
The film finishes and one guy behind me sighs and says that he was bored because he had "seen this kind of gestalt before". Listening for a few more seconds, I realized that he was using "gestalt" as a pseudo-intellectual stand-in word for "plot".

Lol... even I, having the really tenous grasp I have on the meaning of that word, would never dream of using "gestalt" to talk about the PLOT of a movie. The setting, the internal/genre rules, whatever... But the plot??[/QUOTE]

If he had been talking about the entire holistic structure of the film, that would have been okay, if still pretentious as hell. But no, he was talking about the plot.

Mar 25, 2010#16

sixpackshaker

I just wish some one of Smith's talents would quit making so many shitty movies. Then he would not have to worry about what the critics say.

Mar 25, 2010#17

ElJuski

I mean, the idea of a critic is that you find one that you align yourself with, and they're your taste test so you DON'T spend the money.

So yeah, if Kevin Smith wanted to make me be the judge, I would for sure do it for him for free. That's a great idea.

However, I won't deny that GOOD film critics have a deep love and understanding of film. And I look to them for that as well.

Mar 25, 2010#18

AshburnerX

Oddbot said:
The only critic whose opinion I'll ever even take into consideration is Roger Ebert. Even if you don't agree with a review of his, it's always well-written and insightful, and worth one's time to read. And I do find myself agreeing with him more times than not.

Mar 25, 2010#19

Hailey Knight

Ebert doesn't like Godzilla movies...

Mar 25, 2010#20

SpecialKO

AshburnerX said:
I'd trust Roger for movies, but that's about it.

Well, he is a movie critic.

Mar 25, 2010#21

Chazwozel

Shegokigo said:
Average, fine. There will still be better reviews in that pool of 500 than the uppity idiot "Oscar Only" type Critics that are employed professionally.

I like rotten tomatoes for the very reason that it's regular slobs instead of movie critic snobs. Although, I must say, I often agree with Roger Ebert. The dude has given plenty of "popcorn" flicks good reviews.

---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

escushion said:
Ebert doesn't like Godzilla movies...

Yup, and nor do I! They suck ass.

Kevin Smith does get really butthurt pretty easily.

Mar 25, 2010#22

Hailey Knight

:humph:

Mar 25, 2010#23

Oddbot

AshburnerX;360976][QUOTE=Oddbot said:
The only critic whose opinion I'll ever even take into consideration is Roger Ebert. Even if you don't agree with a review of his, it's always well-written and insightful, and worth one's time to read. And I do find myself agreeing with him more times than not.

Unless he's talking about Games, because then you can just ignore him. According to him, The Games industry will never match the Movie industry in quality -because- of it's interactivity and borrowing of Movie tactics, while ignoring the fact that everything Movies use was borrowed from books. It's really a bad case of of "Complaining about Games you don't play". I'd trust Roger for movies, but that's about it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, he's old, probably never touched a game in his life, I just let it go. Doesn't really bother me. Games are just something that really most people of his generation just don't "get." Plus he's a movie critic, think about it, I'm guessing basically all of his experiences of anything having to do with video games comes from movies based on games rather than games themselves. :puke:

Mar 25, 2010#24

Null

You know, Kevin Smith is reminding me more and more of Scott Kurtz. And by that, I mean they both respond really negatively to criticism, even (and especially) when it's justified, and often try and make the case that their critics are wrong. They were both once the hot young, new talent in their field that was going to revolutionize things, but now they're just another part of it. Worse, they're both coasting a bit on their reputation. It's to the point where they're being passed by people they may once have "mentored" and are not handling it very well.

Mar 25, 2010#25

Bowielee

The fact that people take Kevin Smith's "rants" seriously show that they obviously don't follow him at all. He says the same sort of stuff anyone who makes creative stuff would say to criticism, he just happens to be famous.

Mar 25, 2010#26

Null

I don't think that's the case, Lee. Lots of directors have had movies slammed - in fact, pretty much every top director has had a movie slammed at one point or another. Most of them don't react like this, calling the whole "system is bullshit" crying. The mature ones say, "Yeah, that one was really disappointing" or "Well, I was trying to go in a different direction and it obviously didn't work." They don't say "Well, your criticisms are invalid because this isn't supposed to be serious, so NYAH!"

Mar 26, 2010#27

ThatNickGuy

Wait a minute, hold on, hold the phone.

A Kevin Smith movie is getting bad reviews?

STOP THE PRESSES!

Seriously, Smith's movies - and I say this as a fan of them - pander to a particular audience. And that audience is mostly made up of stoners who get high and laugh. They're lowbrow writing with a lot dick, fart and geek jokes with some occasionally clever and even heartwarming bits. But they're not, in any way shape or form, good movies. Entertaining? Sure. Smart? Hell no. And the worst part is, I KNOW that Kevin Smith is a pretty good writer. He can create really good stories and characters. But it's like he just doesn't want to get away from the kind of things he already does. He basically panders to that same audience.

To be honest, my favourite work of Kevin Smith's is his Evening With Kevin Smith stuff.

Mar 26, 2010#28

Frankie Williamson

He didn't write Cop Out. I don't know why he'd take any criticism of it too seriously.

Mar 26, 2010#29

The Lovely Boehner

I like Kevin Smith, and like most smodcasts, but he is WAY off the mark. But that's okay. I'll keep reading intelligent writers/bloggers/reviewers, and y'all can just go nuts reading any random Netflix and Twitter review and we'll both be happy.

Mar 26, 2010#30

Frankie Williamson

Agreed there. If his way was the way it is, then Transformers 2 and Avatar would have been neck and neck for every award.

Mar 29, 2010#31

Joe Johnson

"You know, Kevin Smith is reminding me more and more of Scott Kurtz. "

Man, that's exactly what I was thinking. The problem is that wining about stuff like this usually has the exact opposite effect as intended.

Mar 29, 2010#32

ElJuski

Usual AV Club Interesting Blog push: http://www.avclub.com/articles/that-kevin-smith-thing,39529/

Mar 29, 2010#33

Alex B.

I tend to not read film reviews, because they are nearly always completely useless. Most of the ones I've seen tend to be something like this:

- Snarky pun title
- Mock filmmaker or actors
- Partial summary
- Broad, unsupported statements
- Arbitrary numeric/letter/star grade

What do people get from this? I just don't get it I guess. Watch a trailer, look at who's in it and who's making it, and you can usually get a pretty good sense of whether it's going to be good.

Film analysis which assumes the audience has seen the film I'm all for. But film reviews for people who haven't seen the movie are pointless and too easy to do badly.

Mar 29, 2010#34

Gryfter

Frankie said:
He didn't write Cop Out. I don't know why he'd take any criticism of it too seriously.

He did direct it, so that might have something to do with it.

Mar 29, 2010#35

sixpackshaker

Gryfter;362508][QUOTE=Frankie said:
He didn't write Cop Out. I don't know why he'd take any criticism of it too seriously.

He did direct it, so that might have something to do with it.[/QUOTE]

And the director is normally considered more important to the quality of a movie than the writer is.

Mar 29, 2010#36

ElJuski

Alex B. said:
I tend to not read film reviews, because they are nearly always completely useless. Most of the ones I've seen tend to be something like this:

- Snarky pun title
- Mock filmmaker or actors
- Partial summary
- Broad, unsupported statements
- Arbitrary numeric/letter/star grade

What do people get from this? I just don't get it I guess. Watch a trailer, look at who's in it and who's making it, and you can usually get a pretty good sense of whether it's going to be good.

Film analysis which assumes the audience has seen the film I'm all for. But film reviews for people who haven't seen the movie are pointless and too easy to do badly.

What film reviews are you basing this on?

Mar 29, 2010#37

Shannow

ElJuski said:
I mean, the idea of a critic is that you find one that you align yourself with, and they're your taste test so you DON'T spend the money.

So yeah, if Kevin Smith wanted to make me be the judge, I would for sure do it for him for free. That's a great idea.

However, I won't deny that GOOD film critics have a deep love and understanding of film. And I look to them for that as well.

This.

The Lovely Boner said:
I like Kevin Smith, and like most smodcasts, but he is WAY off the mark. But that's okay. I'll keep reading intelligent writers/bloggers/reviewers, and y'all can just go nuts reading any random Netflix and Twitter review and we'll both be happy.

And definitely this.

Joe Johnson said:
"You know, Kevin Smith is reminding me more and more of Scott Kurtz. "

Man, that's exactly what I was thinking. The problem is that wining about stuff like this usually has the exact opposite effect as intended.

Also, both are fat. :rimshot:

Mar 30, 2010#38

Kovac

I like Kevin Smith but frankly in this case I think he needs to harden the f*$k up

Obligatory youtube video about how it's done -

Mar 30, 2010#39

Disconnected

All critic's are wrong

Mar 30, 2010#40

ElJuski

they are right on one thing--proper spelling and punctuation!

Mar 30, 2010#41

sixpackshaker

Maybe Kevin Smith is becoming the next Kevin Costner. Like how in the 80s Costner could do no wrong, then in the 90s he could not do a damn thing right. It was like how the critics that made him wanted to tear him down, because they could.

Mar 30, 2010#42

ElJuski

Again I ponder, why do people think critics are lusting for these things, versus commenting on the state of things? Not that I have the testing equipment, but I'd bet a dollar more regular, untrained "non-critics" are the ones that hold bigger celebrity grudges than trained, academically minded critics do.

Mar 30, 2010#43

Cajungal

^That. To me, someone who cares about his/her standing in the professional community, and about being completely honest/impartial, would be able to put past offenses aside if an actor/director had put out something really good. A casual blogger who does reviews might refuse to even see a movie involving someone who has let them down in the past.

Mar 30, 2010#44

ElJuski

People often forget that, for the most part, these people have made film beyond a hobby and a passion and turned it into an academic pursuit. Of course, there are still shitty critics out there...but you can easily cipher them out. The common man is going to be way more emotionally attached. They don't have a professional and / or academic obligation.

Mar 30, 2010#45

Cajungal

I know I don't. I've actually probably missed out on a lot for holding grudges against certain people in the film industry.

Mar 30, 2010#46

sixpackshaker

Yes, give Uwe Boll another chance.

Mar 30, 2010#47

Bowielee

My whole point about Kevin Smith and this reaction is that he talks to his fans like some buddies who came over for a beer. It's that conversational tone that the press grabs on and tries to turn it into some sort of "Kevin Smith is trying to change reviewing as we know it."

He's blowing off steam. If you want to interpret that as "butthurt" then, rock on with your bad self.

Apr 1, 2010#48

Disconnected

ElJuski said:
they are right on one thing--proper spelling and punctuation!

seriously?

P.S. you didn't capitalize 'they' at the start of your sentence. i love you juski

Apr 1, 2010#49

Jay

Critics liked Mystic River.

That will be all.

Apr 2, 2010#50

ElJuski

Bowielee said:
My whole point about Kevin Smith and this reaction is that he talks to his fans like some buddies who came over for a beer. It's that conversational tone that the press grabs on and tries to turn it into some sort of "Kevin Smith is trying to change reviewing as we know it."

He's blowing off steam. If you want to interpret that as "butthurt" then, rock on with your bad self.

The difference being is that he's not at that tone at all, and yes, he is making a bigger deal with it than he is. You can pretend that Kevin Smith has the power of a regular drunk guy....but that ain't true.

And oh shit. I forgot the capital T.

Apr 2, 2010#51

The Lovely Boehner

SeriousJay said:
Critics liked Mystic River.

That will be all.

yeah, and they trashed Transformers 2, what is your point

Apr 6, 2010#52

Steven Soderburgin

Kevin Smith doesn't take criticism well at all. It seems like he takes criticism of his films personally, when he really shouldn't. He seems to fundamentally misunderstand what it is that critics do, and seems to think that they were picking on his movie because it wasn't aspiring to be high art, which is bullshit. If the movie was actually funny, I'm sure it would've gotten far better reviews. See The Hangover, Knocked Up, etc. I could continue to rant and rave about Kevin Smith being a big stupid baby but I'll stop.

Forums