Posted by TheClerkCalledFreeway at h24-79-53-90.cg.shawcable.net on September 02, 2001 at 16:38:33:
Okay, now we all know that the critical acclaim for Jay & Silent Bob has been a tad mixed. We all know it's a fun movie, but has little or no artistic or social value. It's just fun dick jokes.
In the world of reviewers, most fall into two categories asking two key questions. The "Fun" reviewers ask "Was it a fun movie-going experience?" Fun movies, (like any Kevin Smith movie, teen sex comedy or action flick) score high because they have jokes and shit blowing up.
On the other hand, some reviewers are artist savants, and rate movies on their artistic merit. So, movies like Memento, O, Cider House Rules...well, arthouse flicks score high here.
Personally, I rate movies on three scales:
Fun: Was I entertained?
(example: Rush Hour 2 was what I call entertaining crap.)
Impact: Was I stunned at some points?
(example: the end of the Virgin Suicides or the first half-hour of Saving Private Ryan)
Artsy-Fartsy: Did it look cool?
(example: Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back looked cool, same with Traffic)
Intangibles: Minor stuff (Favorite Directors, etc)
So, I rated Jay & Silent Bob 8 outta 10 because it was entertaining and looked cool, plus Kevin Smith is a rockin' guy. It lost 2 because, well, it wasn't exactly "Oscar" material, but then again, it didn't need to be.
I rated Lara Croft: Tomb Raider 6 outta 10 because it was fun, but flat.
And finally, Saving Private Ryan got the big 10 because it had shit blowing up, stunning moments, it looked cool, and Tom Hanks shouting at people rocks.
Ebert seems to venture into both sides, usually siding with the art-factor, though. Roeper likes fun, though.