Posted by PhroG at 1cust59.tnt39.chi5.da.uu.net on September 02, 2001 at 16:41:54:
In Reply to: The Two Worlds of Reviewers posted by TheClerkCalledFreeway 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.