Comments on: CineSnob’s Worst Films of 2009

By: Panther

Panther — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:12:39 +0000

Chris O: This is because film critics have a higher standard of what a movie should be. This the main draw for some of us. Yes, the bread and butter for a critic is when mainstream audiences tune in because they’re excited about an upcoming movie and simply want to hear/read everything they can about it. But the good critic’s real audience (and they know this), the ones who pay attention regularly, are not the ones who giggle at snot jokes, explosions, or a flash of tits and ass.

I like movies. But I don’t like movies that insult my intelligence. I can accept a little stupidity if it’s engaging otherwise, but only a little. (I do exclude from this the films in which the point is stupidity as long as it’s novel and clever stupidity – “Airplane!”, for instance.) A good critic understands this and can save me the trouble of wasting ten bucks and a couple of hours. Another good thing is that they can point out the lesser known movies that I might actually enjoy.

I didn’t need to read any reviews to know that “Avatar” would be stupid, for instance, and I found out I was right when a friend dragged me to it. The majority of people, obviously distracted by shiny things, think it’s wonderful. I kept flipping off the screen when my friend wasn’t looking. Now, this movie is making a lot of people rich or richer, but it’s just crap for the masses like a McDonald’s cheeseburger.

Now, I don’t agree with everything a critic will say. Ebert has matched my tastes the most ever since I was a kid, but even with him, I’ll pay attention to why he pans a movie because whatever it is might interest me. At the same time, I’ll listen carefully when he raves about a movie (though I’m usually in agreement with him on those) to hear if anything makes me roll my eyes. That’s deal breaker for me right there.

I enjoy this site and this critic’s reviews. To be honest, I’m a bigger snob than him because I find him to be entirely too generous sometimes. But I do not doubt his tastes or intelligence.

The studios will tell you you’ll love something. And for most people, that’s good enough for them. If they bomb anyway, it’ll be for reasons like: a character wasn’t cool enough, or an actress wasn’t sexy enough, or someone didn’t get hurt enough (usually the protagonist or the antagonist), or the ending was a downer, or the special effects weren’t special enough. If the studios hit all those buttons, they’re gold. But it’s not enough for some of us.

So anyway, maybe reading what the critics say isn’t for you. No problem. The studios make trailers and teasers that will help you decide. If you want to be more sure of it, wait to see how many millions the movie makes in the first week and judge based on that. Just don’t bitch that critics are out of touch when they are the most in touch of all.

By: Chase

Chase — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:46:50 +0000

So weird you put LAND OF THE LOST as #1 – I saw it not once, but TWICE in theaters! I really liked it but I guess we can’t agree on everything. I mean, MISTER LONELY was one of my favorites of last year

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:33:44 +0000

My girlfriend made me go see the Ugly Truth with her in the theaters. I thought it was horrible.
As the plot unfolded, I predicted at least 75% of the plot before it happened. My girlfriend was really annoyed

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:24:45 +0000

How can something surprise you if it’s the same old tired plot?

By: mares

mares — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:52:18 +0000

i thot fast and furious was ok, i saw it by force and it surprised me, even though its the same old tired plot

By: Roy Huron

Roy Huron — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:42:39 +0000

I have to agree with all the movies you have chosen to be the worst movies of 2009. I will say that 2012 shouldn’t be the worst because i think HALLOWEEN 2 WAS the worst movie of 2009 follow by land of the lost.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 18:11:19 +0000

Dang and I wanted to see like half of these movies you mentioned.

By: Chris O

Chris O — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:14:38 +0000

I agree the top 10 on the list were pretty bad but the “Other horrendous movies of 2009″ movies listed; they were high grossing movies in 2009. Why is it that critics seem to be more out of touch on what audiences want than ever before? It becomes more apparent with each passing year: When it comes to the box office returns for Hollywood movies, critics just don’t matter much.
What is it exactly that one has to look for in order for the audience to see what a critic sees? One goes into a movie with open expectations and either they enjoy it or they don’t. The audience doesn’t have time to analyis the plot or pay close attention to how well an actor plays the role. They go into a movie to get away from their lives even if it is just for 2 hours. Especially now in a time of economic crisis; one goes to get away why should they pay close attention to detail?
Is it that critics haven’t adapted to their times or that they have too high of expectations to enjoy a movie?
In this instance, who should get rewarded? The producers and directors who seem to connect with the audiences and make high grossing movies or the movies that seem to please the critics but not the mass audiences?