A heartwarming Super review

[It_Is_Ayna_You_Flips]

No, I don't mind critics at all. Literary critics and music critics usually have some good insight; it's with cinema that I tend to notice superficial analysis.

Obviously, there are exceptions and I'm speaking from anecdote.

Sorry. I came off as flippant.

I don't actually disagree with you. I suppose part of the reason is that there's much more money to be made in film reviews than in criticism of other medias. Also, and I have no idea why this is, I've noticed music and literary critics tend to give a work a chance to breath before they tear into it. They'll allow a new author two or three novels before they make up their minds about them/their style. Films criticism on the other hand tends much more towards make or break.

[ABED]

As a rule, YouTube reviewers are awful. If someone isn't a professional critic, chances are their reviews are mostly not worthwhile

Film critics are usually awful and have nothing interesting to say, as well.

That's not true at all. There are some terrible ones that seem more preoccupied with getting themselves over than talking about the films, but more often than not, pros have a deep well of knowledge about films and film history so they can provide the reader with lots to think about, not just the film itself but where it might sit in the current landscape, the filmmakers' body of work, etc. Your comment comes off as someone who hasn't read much legitimate film criticism. In fact, I would say you're needlessly cynical. Many of these critics are filmmakers themselves, so I find it bizarre that anyone would think they have nothing worthwhile.

[Doctor.]

As a rule, YouTube reviewers are awful. If someone isn't a professional critic, chances are their reviews are mostly not worthwhile

Film critics are usually awful and have nothing interesting to say, as well.

That's not true at all. There are some terrible ones that seem more preoccupied with getting themselves over than talking about the films, but more often than not, pros have a deep well of knowledge about films and film history so they can provide the reader with lots to think about, not just the film itself but where it might sit in the current landscape, the filmmakers' body of work, etc. Your comment comes off as someone who hasn't read much legitimate film criticism. In fact, I would say you're needlessly cynical. Many of these critics are filmmakers themselves, so I find it bizarre that anyone would think they have nothing worthwhile.

While it's true there aren't any critics that I follow religiously, I do check the review section of Rotten Tomatoes (the so-called "professional critics") every time a movie comes out, and I used to read Roger Ebert when I was younger. They talk about the cast, give a minor synopsis of the film and then give the verdict. That's all they do. Very rarely do they talk about cinema history, mention the technical aspects of the cinematography, or analyze the themes, motifs and symbols. Discussing how the film can serve as a half-assed analogy for the contemporary American political climate is the furthest some will go.

I don't know, maybe it's because I come from a background of literary criticism, so I'm expecting something more, but it's all very superficial. I'll take the opinions of actual filmmakers more seriously, but again, usually they don't say anything I haven't thought of on my own.

[Dbzfan94]

A B+ is way too high a grade for Super. A B+ is what I'd give the 22nd Budokau Arc and that's one of my favorite arcs.

The Tournament of Power was better than that Tournament though and any Tournament in OG Dragon Ball.

100% disagree. The ToP was all spectacle with no real substance.

[ABED]

Film critics are usually awful and have nothing interesting to say, as well.

That's not true at all. There are some terrible ones that seem more preoccupied with getting themselves over than talking about the films, but more often than not, pros have a deep well of knowledge about films and film history so they can provide the reader with lots to think about, not just the film itself but where it might sit in the current landscape, the filmmakers' body of work, etc. Your comment comes off as someone who hasn't read much legitimate film criticism. In fact, I would say you're needlessly cynical. Many of these critics are filmmakers themselves, so I find it bizarre that anyone would think they have nothing worthwhile.

While it's true there aren't any critics that I follow religiously, I do check the review section of Rotten Tomatoes (the so-called "professional critics") every time a movie comes out, and I used to read Roger Ebert when I was younger. They talk about the cast, give a minor synopsis of the film and then give the verdict. That's all they do. Very rarely do they talk about cinema history, mention the technical aspects of the cinematography, or analyze the themes, motifs and symbols. Discussing how the film can serve as a half-assed analogy for the contemporary American political climate is the furthest some will go.

I don't know, maybe it's because I come from a background of literary criticism, so I'm expecting something more, but it's all very superficial. I'll take the opinions of actual filmmakers more seriously, but again, usually they don't say anything I haven't thought of on my own.

You are just flat out wrong. Yes, if all you read are the reviews of the weekly releases, then sure, you won't get much of what I'm talking about but you don't have to go far to find them discuss films, film history, etc. I know you might take offense to me saying this, but I call bullshit on your claim about them not talking about the technical aspects, themes, symbols, or motifs. I have ZERO clue what you're reading. You do realize that a film critic's job is not just reviewing the latest blockbuster coming out that weekend, don't you? You don't have to go far to find worthwhile film criticism that's just as good as literary criticism. No wonder you aren't finding it, you're looking on RT. You have to go beyond that. Most of them have published books about cinema.

[Doctor.]

I said I read Roger Ebert. And I also like Zizek, forgot to mention him, but film criticism isn't his main subject.
I'm aware reviews and actual criticism aren't the same thing, that's not the point. The point is that even in reviews, literary critics don't just talk about the plot, the author, and how the book made them feel, for a few paragraphs.

[ABED]

I said I read Roger Ebert. And I also like Zizek, forgot to mention him, but film criticism isn't his main subject.
I'm aware reviews and actual criticism aren't the same thing, that's not the point. The point is that even in reviews, literary critics don't just talk about the plot, the author, and how the book made them feel, for a few paragraphs.

So do you think film critics don't do actual criticism? That literary critics are somehow superior? Reviewing films is only PART of a film critics' job. You are sorely misinformed, which is ironic given that several tiimes you've brought up having a background in literary criticism. And last point, it's not surprising that film reviews are often less comprehensive than literary criticism given how different most people consume films and books. You can find a bunch of great articles by Film Critic Hulk by doing a simple google search.

[Doctor.]

I'm not sure how you're misconstruing everything I said.

I didn't say that they didn't do actual criticism. I said that even in reviews, literary critics go far deeper than the film critics I've read - I'm speaking of reviews, because this is what the thread is about. Secondly, it is likely I am misinformed, film criticism isn't my area, I said I was speaking from anecdote. Thirdly, I didn't bring my background up "several times," I mentioned it once.

Also, I could argue that since literature is a more profound medium than cinema has ever been, that it would be reflected in the critics themselves (most of the greats are writers as well), but that opens up a completely different can of worms.