Noah Berlatsky certainly has interesting, insightful, and worthwhile takes on films, books, politics, and any number of other topics. But I don't believe his writing should "save you" from seeing a movie made by a director you're interested in. Unless perhaps you've found his opinions always match yours 100% of the time.
In my opinion (whatever *that* may be worth), a movie critic has two valuable functions. One is piquing your interest in a film you had either never heard of, or had no previous interstellar in seeing. Their enthusiasm, insight, and the quality of their writing in expressing those things, makes you think "Wow, now I want to check this out!" The second is in giving you a new appreciation or point of view for something you have already seen. Where you think, "OK, that's a take I hadn't considered, but they make a convincing argument," to thepoint where you are moved to watch it again with new eyes. But don't let someone else dissuade you from seeing something you intend to. Watch it and make up your own mind! You may find something worthwhile in it.
Eh. People read reviews in part to decide whether to bother to see something. Watching a movie generally costs money and takes time; there are many other movies and things to do. I think it’s fine to read about a film and then decide not to see it!
Could be interesting, in a bleak way, to do a comparison of trite depictions of artists and their process. I'm thinking of the movies Life Lessons and Girl With a Pearl Earring and the play Red, but I'm sure there are numerous other examples. (I've been told I simply saw a bad production of Red, but I'm skeptical.)
I'm a Soderbergh fan and was curious about this film even though it sure looked iffy. Thanks for saving me from watching it!
Noah Berlatsky certainly has interesting, insightful, and worthwhile takes on films, books, politics, and any number of other topics. But I don't believe his writing should "save you" from seeing a movie made by a director you're interested in. Unless perhaps you've found his opinions always match yours 100% of the time.
In my opinion (whatever *that* may be worth), a movie critic has two valuable functions. One is piquing your interest in a film you had either never heard of, or had no previous interstellar in seeing. Their enthusiasm, insight, and the quality of their writing in expressing those things, makes you think "Wow, now I want to check this out!" The second is in giving you a new appreciation or point of view for something you have already seen. Where you think, "OK, that's a take I hadn't considered, but they make a convincing argument," to thepoint where you are moved to watch it again with new eyes. But don't let someone else dissuade you from seeing something you intend to. Watch it and make up your own mind! You may find something worthwhile in it.
Eh. People read reviews in part to decide whether to bother to see something. Watching a movie generally costs money and takes time; there are many other movies and things to do. I think it’s fine to read about a film and then decide not to see it!
Could be interesting, in a bleak way, to do a comparison of trite depictions of artists and their process. I'm thinking of the movies Life Lessons and Girl With a Pearl Earring and the play Red, but I'm sure there are numerous other examples. (I've been told I simply saw a bad production of Red, but I'm skeptical.)