Film critics in 2024: I can't even

Madmick

Zugzwang
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
61,738
Reaction score
26,016
Oh, it's bad. I promise you, it's bad. Come and see.

CinemaBlend: 32 Popular Movies From The 2000s That Have Not Stood The Test Of Time
Some highlights:
Whoever the dumbass is that wrote this said:

Monsters Inc. (2001)​

Many people will probably fight me on this, as Monsters Inc. is a Disney/Pixar movie plenty of people probably still hold dear. That’s childhood nostalgia talking, friends. While Billy Crystal and John Goodman are still a team for the ages, this installment feels rooted in that earlier era of Pixar where they were fixated on “secret worlds.” Once Finding Nemo came along to change everything, this formula just didn’t hold up.

Wedding Crashers (2005)​

Comedy is a hard genre to age gracefully, and a film like Wedding Crashers is a prime example of why. Though it did provide one of Will Ferrell’s most quotable moments, a lot of the humor in this Vince Vaughn/Owen Wilson vehicle might not work with present-day viewers. This ride is neither built for speed, nor comfort.

Scary Movie (2000)​

Spoof movies are a sub-genre that’s one of the hardest to make into a hit that can stand the test of time. Though Scary Movie certainly felt like a huge hit in its early days, the diminishing returns of sequels and the era-specific nature of the jokes doomed it in the long run. Also, the wave of infamous copycats like Date Movie only sank this ship even further.

Meet The Parents (2000)​

DreamWorks struck while the iron was hot when they made a trilogy around 2000’s Meet the Parents. But even taken on its own, the Ben Stiller/Robert De Niro rom-com shows its age in a lot of ways. Most notably, the fact that what once felt fresh about this chain of romantic mishaps has become old hat.

Anger Management (2003)​

Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson: together at last! That seemed to be the major selling point for 2003’s Anger Management, and at the time it seemed to work. Jump ahead to our present day and more people might think you’re talking about the Charlie Sheen FX sitcom when you mention its name.

300 (2007)​

Not everything Zack Snyder touches turns to gold. And while his adaptation of 300 was a big deal back in the day, it pales in comparison to his other films. That’s partially because of the legacy that author Frank Miller’s creation has accrued over time, and also due to Snyder topping himself with Watchmen and Zack Snyder’s Justice League. On the plus side, Snyder’s original 300 sequel pitch, Blood and Ashes, is sitting there, just waiting for its creator to make it happen.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)​

Biopics are always a flashpoint of controversy, as adaptation efforts on a movie like director Ron Howard’s A Beautiful Mind have inspired the phrase “historical drama” to be used in pictures of this ilk. The Russell Crowe starring picture that depicts mathematician John Nash’s struggles with schizophrenia was not only a box office hit, but also 2002’s Best Picture winner at the Oscars.

Juno (2007)​

In its release window, Juno was a lightning rod of both controversy and applause, as Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody’s collaboration was an almost instant pop culture hit. That fate is also what led to this picture’s downfall, as the Elliot Page/Michael Cera dramedy’s hipster dialogue is, honest to blog, severely dated.

And for some reason this dipshit felt the need to include films like The Pacifier, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Bringing Down the House, and The Santa Clause 2 on a list of films that haven't "stood the test of time". LMFAO, implying that there was a time these films were highly regarded.

Wedding Crashers and Meet the Parents? Really? This is the hill this bottom feeder chooses to die on? 300? I wish Gerald Butler was standing in front of him so he could do us all a favor, and This is Sparta the floating turd.
 
Not really what I'd call a critic so much as "content creator", probably came out with that article in under an hour, wouldnt be supprised if some kind AI was used to make it or parts of it.
Well, you'd be wrong. He's counted on RottenTomatoes and Metacritic when writing reviews for this publication.
 
Film critics in 2024 are mostly ideologically locked apparatchiks, or just people that don't understand cinema that much, and aren't even that smart.
there's also some good film critics out there, but they're drowning in a sea of mediocrity.
 
Well, you'd be wrong. He's counted on RottenTomatoes and Metacritic when writing reviews for this publication.
Looking there he's reviewed one film in the last 6 months but he's put out literally hundreds of other articles on that website, absolutely churning them out with multiple ones per day.

Content creator who sometimes does film reviews.
 
Last edited:
Looking there he's reviewed one film in the last 6 months but he's put out literally hundreds of other articles on that website, absolutely churning them out with multiple ones per day.

Content creator who sometimes does film reviews.
Look, you're wrong.

He's counted as a film critic by the most influential corporate outfits distributing & tallying film criticism that are by that virtue the gatekeepers to the term as it could most practically be attributed, professionally speaking. He had 9 film reviews counted on RT in 2023 alone, and hundreds counted historically on their site.

Your attempt to exert your personal, arbitrary semantics is meaningless. I don't care what other hats you want to put on his head. He's a film critic. Full stop.
 
I don't neccessarily agree with what he said but I can see how he came to the conclusions he did. At least in regards to the films on the list I've actually seen.

I def know what hes talking about with Pixar. I love the Pixar storys but the animation and "feel"(basically everything except the scripts) they went with in the beginning has always unsettled me even when i was a child. And people don't really talk about that. They just give the early pixar films blanket praise.
 
Film criticism has been dead for a long time. I miss guys like Donald Richie and even Siskel & Ebert.
 
You don't really need critics for things now there are sites where you can rate stuff yourself and it'll generate recommendations for you based on what people with similar taste to you like.
 
Film critics now don't care about content. They care about boxes checked. You absolutley cannot take any critics analysis seriously anymore .
 
Look, you're wrong.

He's counted as a film critic by the most influential corporate outfits distributing & tallying film criticism that are by that virtue the gatekeepers to the term as it could most practically be attributed, professionally speaking. He had 9 film reviews counted on RT in 2023 alone, and hundreds counted historically on their site.

Your attempt to exert your personal, arbitrary semantics is meaningless. I don't care what other hats you want to put on his head. He's a film critic. Full stop.
I think its just commenting on what he really does work wise, he writes the odd film review but seems to spend 99% of his time either posting industry gossip or doing these kinds of lists.

I mean the article you actually started this thread about is clearly exactly what I said, the kind of ultra low effort list content which clogs up the net and depends on a few people like yourself to get outraged about spreading it further for hits.
 
I think its just commenting on what he really does work wise, he writes the odd film review but seems to spend 99% of his time either posting industry gossip or doing these kinds of lists.

I mean the article you actually started this thread about is clearly exactly what I said, the kind of ultra low effort list content which clogs up the net and depends on a few people like yourself to get outraged about spreading it further for hits.
Look, can you get with the program and be mad about this film critic having bad opinions? You're really dragging this thread down.
 
Most of those films were awful when they were released.
Maybe he's just seen enough film now to realize it?

He's wrong about Monsters, Inc. being childhood nostalgia, though. I was in my mid-20's when it released, and I still think it's pretty solid for a kids picture.
 
Don't engage with this content, you are only helping them drive up the clicks.
 
Back
Top