Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9634297" data-attributes="member: 18">Oh I watched The Middle, but I had forgotten it was called that! It was appropriately named.On the other hand I have never even heard of American Housewife!You've clearly not met younger-to-mid-gen Millennial middle class white men. They pretty much all have it the way around you prefer, and most of them have never even seen Aliens! Nolanites especially worship Alien and are almost guaranteed to have never seen Aliens and in many cases have never even seen Terminator, let alone Terminator 2. A a bonus a lot of them think Prometheus is a heartbreaking work out of staggering genius, which tends to undermine their other cinematic opinions somewhat. Thanks to the sheer number of them and how loud they are, Alien is, right now, if anything, wildly overrated. 20 years ago you'd have been right though.The Phantom Menace has precisely one thing going for it. < starts humming Duel of the Fates >Unfortunately that one scene is pretty much definitely better than all of AotC (I would have slapped myself for this opinion 25 years ago, note) and nothing in RotJ compares to it, though, overall RotJ is a lot easier to rewatch than the intense agony of Child Anakin scene and the wonderment how they got away with the worse-than-an-80s movie racism of Watto.I would agree with this except BotW single-handledly got my sister (who is in her late 30s) into videogames when the last time she played them was on the Gameboy when she was a teen. That's some kind of magic. She's got dozens of hours in the game, maybe over a hundred. Since then she's played a number of games, particularly open-world explore-y ones though.You're factually wrong to generically suggest critics aren't experts.The issue that I think is confusing you here is that film critics in newspapers, on TV shows, and on YouTube are a complete mix of experts and non-experts and there's no particular guidance as to who is which. A lot of critics understand a huge amount about film-making, in real depth, and with real context, and additionally have seen thousands of movies with a critical eye, and understand things about them that other people don't necessarily notice, as well as understanding critical theory. Those people are experts, and you calling them not is just bad manners and frankly a little ignorant. But countless others are just some guy with an opinion, which may be informed by very little indeed. For example, there was a popular critic who I think was on YouTube who just wouldn't watch movies from before 1980s, and generally offered the most shallow CinemaSins-type criticisms and praise possible, who was really popular a few years ago (I assume he Milkshake Duck'd himself as I haven't heard of him in a while). Unfortunately this even applies to a certain proportion of critics who work for actual media outlets.The problem is even larger with videogames of course, but not as bad as it was say, 10 years ago there.If you have the NYT on subscription they generally have archival reviews (sometime they are available without subscription, it's kind of random), it's one of the few things I respect them for. I think the WaPo and a few others might too but they don't show up in searches easily.For Dances with Wolves here are three major examples you could find on Google (it's harder with a lot of movies):[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dances-with-wolves-1990[/URL]Roger Ebert thinks its great![URL unfurl="true"]https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/packages/html/movies/bestpictures/wolves-re.html?scp=5&sq=Peg&st=cse[/URL]Vincent Canby (for the NYT) thinks it's okay but not great.[URL unfurl="true"]https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/movies/dances-with-wolves-1990-review-by-pauline-kael/[/URL]Pauline Kael (for the New Yorker) thinks it's kind of crap.Look how well-written and thought-through those reviews are. Actual pieces of actual journalism. Of course that was because people actually got paid and being a film critic for a newspaper then required more than calling yourself one.For Goodfellas[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/goodfellas-1990[/URL]Roger Ebert thinks its great![URL unfurl="true"]https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1990/09/24/goodfellas-review-pauline-kael[/URL]Pauline Kael thinks it's good - literally says it's not great but seems to have a positive opinion.I couldn't easily find any other actual 1990 ones.</blockquote>

Verification