"Hahaha!"

Because of Ye Wei's "It's Time to Review the Film Critics", Liz laughed repeatedly, it's a pity that she couldn't participate, this is a historic moment! Watching Pugh, Hornett and other people who scolded him before are staging the appearance of the book, I feel so cool, and I am proud of my good friends.

Wouldn't it be embarrassing to really want to see their expressions? What else? The Most Discerning Film Critics Award? It is judged by the lowest critic rating on the film critics' average rating, and it is the most difficult thing for a film to get good reviews from them.

The winners did not surprise the media, and Joe Morgenston of the Wall Street Journal, known as "the worst film critic in the United States", is 11% lower than his peers, and the 74-year-old man has experienced the vicissitudes of the film critic world, and is one of the few old seniors in existence.

[We just know that Joe has also won the Pulitzer Prize!] The third place after Roger Albert and Stephen Hunter, just last year, congratulations. Joe wasn't exempted from us, because we had discovered another secret about him. Joe was the most grumpy old man neighbor, and if he had two mouths, he would spend the whole day scolding each other. He gives too many bad reviews of the recognized classics, and it's okay to say that "Kill Bill" "abuses the actors and the audience", but he is also the only positive critic on Metacritic for "Police Dog Chase Order" (70 points), "I'm happy for its funny", etc... Owen scored a 0 "with a strange feeling of humiliation." It's actually a really good commercial" Police Dog Chase Order! It will make the most ardent critics vomit and the most discerning critics applaud!" 】

The runner-up is Anthony Lane of The New Yorker, who has not yet rated SS, so naturally there is a lack of topic, and people's eyes have been firmly attracted to the third runner-up, Lou Ramnick, chief film critic of the New York Post! The most discerning award is won by the New York Gang, the style of the East Coast, but the feud between Ramnick and VIY is the focus.

[My friend Lou is very kind and kind, and this Lou is the one who used to fight for seats with other critics at film festivals, and has always felt that Joe has been wronged a lot. Perhaps New York film critics are particularly fond of dog movies, with Lew praising "102 Dalmatians" with a score of 40 above average of 75, "It's the kind of film that goes above and beyond the reviews." But what about "The Clown Killer," which is the only positive one in the world (75 points), "First of all, this black comedy has a male rape scene, which seems to be much softer than the one in "Riptide Four." "Whatever you think, I just have a good piece of advice, don't go to the movies on a date. 】

Ye Wei laughed at Ramnik's comments, but that was Ramnick's comments, who could blame them.

The most picky is followed by the most neutral, and the ones with the lowest difference between peers and those on the leaderboard. The winner was J.R. Jones of the Chicago Reader, the runner-up was Stephanie Zaclark of Salon, and the third place was Mike LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle. The difference between them is less than 1%, and basically every rating is a comprehensive opinion of the mainstream film critics.

[Jones's score of 59 is almost the same as the average score of a sampled film, you could call him the "Switzerland of film critics", and if you had to choose one of the 50 critics to evaluate a film, he would be the most stable and credible one.] He is like a sweater knitted by his mother, not loose or fussy, not fancy nor ugly, practical. He is also like Henry Fonda in "Twelve Angry Men", when everyone is arguing, you might as well listen to what he has to say. 】

There is no way to make fun of these neutral film critics in the article, and then the Roger Albert review was announced, and the results are very amazing!

Albert is 11.5% higher than his peers, ranking fourth among the foolish film critics. The article tries to make an analysis, which is related to Albert's style, he likes to give high marks to good movies, and super low scores for bad movies far less than others, and some bad movies in the film critics he thinks are good movies.

[Oh my God, Roger, why are you here? This has ruined all of our work, Roger is one of the best film critics in the world. The data shows that Roger is not the meanest mouth, on the contrary, he is generous and very assertive...... (Owen: His opinion is opinion, my opinion is to be stupid, boy, you make it clear to me!) Okay, okay, our review is really just for reference, the data can say something, but not all. Every movie and every review has to be evaluated specifically to know whether it's good or bad. You know what's something that science can't do? yes, women and movies. 】

Ahh But think about it, for example, SS is now about the same freshness as "102 Dalmatian", so if Albert hits SS high, he and Ramnick are doing the same thing in terms of data, but they are actually different.

There are too many news topics! The media are excited enough, it is the first time that a filmmaker has bombarded the film critics in this way, Ye Wei also released a statistical data file in the appendix of the article, anyone who wants to know more about it can download it for free, and if he dares to do this in his capacity, he will not fake.

Movie fans are so happy, VIY said that it is novel and humorous, even if this thing is just for reference, but it absolutely plays a trick on the film critics! I wonder what J.R. Jones and other most neutral film critics have to say?

Ye Wei didn't seem to mention it in order to avoid suspicion, but soon some fans sorted out and spread the attitude of these award-winning film critics, Ryan and Zaclark have not yet commented, and Mike Lassalle gave a bad B- review......

Some critics seem to have made up their minds to ignore SS or re-evaluate the situation after seeing the situation, and are reluctant to participate, but in fact, fans know that it is due to SS's sensitive religious tone. And the four dumbest, most mediocre, most critical and most neutral champions, Graeberman played A, Richard Corliss has not yet commented, and Morgenston and Jones have both given positive reviews!

"It's hard not to like it. —3/4, Joe Morgenston

"Because of director Ye Wei's mature play, the courage of the truthfulness of the story, and the impeccable dialogue, this believable, painful and optimistic film will remain in the memory forever. —3.5/4, J.R. Jones

can make the champions all messed up, such an SS must be a movie that is supported by the audience and controversial by film critics, depending on the degree of controversy.

......

Monday the 16th arrived as scheduled, and new developments brought this war of words into a white heat, which was reported by the global entertainment media.

SS continued their strong performance on the first day to win the weekend's North American box office. A spokesperson for Metacritic said that he had already cooperated with Ye Wei's team one step earlier, and the website would improve the data statistics system of these critics, such as "Average-review-score", the comparison with the average score of peers, and like the grouping of reviews, how many of all reviews are higher than their peers, how much is the same, how much is lower, so that their style and latest ranking can be found at any time.

Roger Albert in his recuperation published SS's film review in the Chicago Sun-Times and his official film review website, giving a thumbs up to the ratings: ★★★★

Albert has participated in countless war of words, and this time he is determined to support SS, a perfect score of four stars, and his feelings are revealed between the lines.

["Soul Surfer" is based on the true story of Bethany Hamilton, a 16-year-old girl who was attacked by a shark three years ago and lost almost her entire left arm. A month later, she returned to surfboarding, and now she has won the championship and has just become a professional surfer. All of these are remarkable facts.

It's a movie with no problems, even though it has a deceptively simple setting.

Bethany (Emma Roberts) has a family of professional surfers and a big, friendly dog who has good friends, a talent for surfing, and lives right next to the beach. She was a devout Christian and received great support from her spiritual leaders, a never-say-die optimist with a strong competitive spirit. The girl lives almost in a dream.

But there's more to the film. Can a 13-year-old girl continue to smile if she loses an arm? No, she can pretend to be fine. Producer, screenwriter, and director Ye Wei presents the audience with the whole Bethany, the dark night of the soul, the moments of sadness and anger, the temptation of nihilism, the lure of despair, and the destruction of a hateful heart.

Ye Wei's storytelling strategy does not control Bethany from realizing the pain, and the film makes her face the tragedy of her story again and again, seducing her like a demon to doubt her religious beliefs, feeling that everything is terrible, that she can't accomplish something inspiring, that she is a tragedy.

Based on this strategy, Soul Surfer has a lot of particularly convincing scenes and lines. After the story, Bethany wakes up in the hospital and asks her teenage mentor why God did this to her. She put on a useless prosthesis and refused to use it again, angrily saying that she didn't get anything. She roared at her family and best friends who had always supported her. She confided in her dog.

There are many more, but the moment that touched me the most was when Bethany woke up in the middle of the night from a nightmare crying and begging God to appear to her and give her a reason to hold on to her courage and faith. This is a rare moment of such power in the history of cinema, which vividly expresses the melancholy, doubt, and humility in the face of fate of the collapsed optimists. For me, who was battling cancer, I understood the darkness in it, and from there I couldn't stop my tears.

Bethany had every reason to give up, and she and her family gave up for a while, but she eventually continued to be tenacious. Even if the film is a little perfunctory about her recovery process, nothing has disappeared, and it is really all in it, which makes me unreservedly applaud her faith and spirit, grieve for her pain, and give her full trust in her determination to identify with her as a great athlete, this 13-year-old girl.

The film never indulged in grief, it had a lot of details that made me laugh, especially the Bethany family's "Creation of Adam" remade T-shirt, I don't know how you feel, but I really clap my hands and laugh. This detail also makes it so real for the family members who hide their depression with optimism, you can feel their mood in real terms, how they support each other, how they turn their sadness into warmth and love, it's incredible.

Ye Wei's handling of details is actually very thoughtful, he knows what the film has to tell the audience, such as Bethany's medical information, what are the risks to the wound from returning to the sea after a month, and in the doctor's advice to her and her parents, we can understand that her recovery is a difficult and complicated process. The film expresses this process quickly through montage, which may feel like something is missing for some viewers, but if you pay attention to the details of the scene, it is not easy. In a few scenes, Bethany even had noticeable insomnia and dark circles under her eyes, and that was the moment when her soul struggled.

Emma Roberts is a likable and convincing heroine, and compared to the other 13-year-old girl she played in her other film this year, "The Mermaid," she seems to have been cast by Ye Wei some kind of fantasy magic. Colin Firth and Helen Hunt, who play Bethany's parents, both have excellent performances, and while it is true that the script doesn't give them much choice other than supporting their daughter, they seize every opportunity to show their intricacies and explode in an argument.

Oh, how could I have forgotten that Mentor Sarah (Melissa McCarthy), amazing acting, amazing character, she is a very effective buffer for this film. Bethany's best friend Alana (Shailene Woodley) plays a faithful role, and another young actress, Theresa Menor, is also impressive, with her surfer role not having many scenes, Bethany's rival is not the kind of vicious blonde, and there is not a villain in this movie.

"Soul Surfer" told me that Ye Wei maintained his level, and that this 18-year-old film genius was a young and frivolous problem character, but he was really good at making movies.

Is this a rewarding and inspirational film? There is no doubt that it is, not only. 】

......

Also on this morning, with the release of a new day of "Los Angeles Times" and the update of the official website, "The Death of a Film Critic", which had been hyped by Ye Wei all weekend, finally came out.

If Albert's entry into the war is exciting, the excellent film reviews he wrote are not. Ye Wei's long article was completely unexpected, this is not a typical VIY statement, let alone his laughter and scolding on social networking sites, how can there be any jokes?

Many people who read the newspapers and the web suddenly woke up to the fact that those jokes were bait! because it was not easy at all, and they didn't know who it was for......

But some people were shocked.

[The Death of Film Critics - Ye Wei, 2006-10-16.]

To talk about the death of film criticism, there are four areas that have to be clarified first, the filmmaker's world, the academic world, the film critic world, and the audience world. How to order the four and what kind of interaction they play is a matter that has been debated endlessly. The core question is how they view the movie, and how they watch the movie.

The audience is the best place to introduce. Cinema is definitely one of the most artistic creations without an artistic shelf, and for most other works of art, people tacitly agree that viewers and critics need a certain amount of knowledge in the field of art, if you want to appreciate a Van Gogh painting, you must have an understanding of oil painting, and if you want to comment on a Chopin piano piece, you must also have a foundation in music theory. It is also necessary to understand aesthetics and to have historiography, just as when you read a Tolstoy novel.

But when it comes to the field of film, the tacit understanding seems that you don't need any knowledge to watch, understand, and comment on any movie.

This is naturally because film has been sold as a mass commodity since its inception, and it has been a commodity for longer than a work of art. Later, Hollywood turned this commodity into a bestseller, and most of the time it was just trying to please the audience. As a result, when you walk into an art gallery with respect, you walk into the cinema and think, "I can have fun watching these movies today, and they'd better be." ”

Cinema is not just a commodity, cinema is also an art, whether it is a popular art or whatever. I'm not sure if it's always been this way or if it's only been the case today, and most viewers have forgotten or even disdained that.

Back in the 1960s-1970s, the audience was not what it is now, and it was probably the best and most influential period of American film critics. It all started in 1955 with the death of the famous film critic James Agee and the publication in 1958 of his film criticism essays, the first film review anthology in American history, which meant that film critics were officially given the title of intellectuals, and what they wrote was taken seriously. Then, the heroes came into being.

In those days, Pauline Kyle, the critic of The New Yorker, could elevate a movie as great with a single review. Many new Hollywood movies have become sensational in the United States before they are released because of her passionate and sharp cry, or they have gone from being unattended overnight to being full.

But don't get me wrong, Pauline Kyle was one of those who really pushed film criticism to the masses, and her idea was that "I fear that one day cinema will no longer be the only art that everyone can freely enjoy and have an opinion on, and I fear that it will become something like music and fine art, something that is only allowed to be studied and appreciated by the academic community." ”

Roger Ebert is also worried about this, and he is also worried that the popularization of film art will make art films lose their status and living space, because the public is most enthusiastic about the part that they can understand. That's why he strongly recommends classic art films and "forgotten films" on "Chicago Sunpole" and film review TV shows.

Andrew Salis is an important figure in the other school, and you may have heard of the "authorship theory" - the film is the work of the director. It originated from the French director François Truffaut. It was Saris, who took the lead in spreading the theory of authorship in the United States, using the theory of authorship to write film reviews, discovering obscure new directors, and rehabilitating old directors who were neglected. At that time, the French New Wave movement also began, followed by the New Hollywood movement, and the director's prestige status rose to an unprecedented height.

Salis and Kyle are lifelong enemies, and their polemics from the '60s onwards have cemented a faction in American film critics.

Kyle disagrees with authorship and other theories of Saris, such as the idea of creating a new system of film criticism, the Pantheon (a hierarchical hierarchy of directors). She argues that authorship exalts directors at the expense of producers, screenwriters, and actors, and that in its aesthetic way, it treats some trash (trash is one of Kyle's favorite words used in film criticism) as art, which is anti-intellectual and anti-art, like some kind of cult ritual.

And Salis is dismissive of the clichés in film reviews in the mainstream print media. The "list of decisive comments" satirized by another film critic of the same period, Ezra Goodman, illustrates the situation:

"People say that a lot of times critics are more clichéd than the movies they're reviewing, and sample reviews are: 'Absolutely hot, shocking, exciting, extravagant and exciting, luxurious, captivating imagination, forward, great drama, absolute screen art, very good performance, exciting tension, huge moving, spectacular ending, incompetent director, unusually clumsy, jaw dropping, adrenaline-pumping, puzzling, hellish, very good, Resonant, intoxicating, dark, incredible, intense self, degree of perfection, amazing, amazing. It sounds like we're making a fuss all the time. ”

Salis thinks these critics are not passionate and afraid to take risks, saying that "the lack of critical theory makes American film critics moody, and every movie is good or bad only because it is happy or unhappy." He proposed that film critics must love films, breathe in the art of film, and should have something to say, and should combine theory, history and the scheduling of the film itself to explain why a film is a good movie or a bad movie.

In response to Kyle's arguments, Salis admits that the original story of the film is usually not conceived by the director, but the director's job is mainly to translate the script text into images in his own style, and because film critics convert images into words, traditional film critics pay little attention to the pure aesthetics of the film, and only retell the content of the film. And his author's film criticism must put the form in a higher position than the content, which can help fans truly understand the director's style.

There are many people who are dissatisfied with Salis, such as Dwight MacDonald, an elite intellectual and cultural critic in New York, who is most dissatisfied with Salis's refining of films belonging to popular culture, such as using some critical terms in the field of high art to write film reviews, and confusing the boundaries between avant-garde art and mainstream art.

His criticism has forced critics to switch sides. -- What is the art of cinema?

Compared to MacDonald's group of people who despise movies, Kyle and Saris really belong to the same camp that loves movies and has a strong connection with the audience. But Kyle is the kind of foul-tongued lone ranger who scolds everyone, criticizing critics who despise and put too much emphasis on popular culture, and at the same time criticizing Hollywood and avant-garde filmmakers, saying that "if you reject Hollywood, you are hypocritical, and if you reject avant-garde films, you are sick in the brain." Salis also doesn't think he has anything to do with Kyle, slamming her for not wanting to elevate the film to the mainstream art level, but because of her old-fashioned conservative ideas.

Both of them and their camp members believe that their own set is art, a correct attitude towards film, and the future of film criticism.

You can also see that there was a glorious era of controversy in the world of film critics, and they influenced how people view and watch movies today.

But in the eyes of most academics in academia, they are idiots. Film theorist David Bordwell once said: "In the '70s, when I started grad school, I was surprised to find that my newfound friends were scornful of the reviews I had written for the Film Review and other outlets, and the academics were very uninterested in the fans." And even film critics with an academic background can be hostile to academia. ”

In summary, scholars believe that film critics are fanatical outsiders who make money by reviewing film manuscripts and hurriedly make conclusions about a film with some characteristic vocabulary. One is academic film criticism, and the other is news media film criticism, which disagree and have no prospects for bridging.

Baldwell acknowledged that much of the rift between the two was blamed on academics, and affirmed some public skepticism:

The academic community that promotes "grand-theory" rejects both the popularization of cinema and the theory of authorship, disdains popular films, distances from filmmaking, does not care about the workings of Hollywood, and even Steven Spielberg neglects it. Academics place more emphasis on dull works made of difficult theories and obscure terms, which is in line with the way of examining and studying films one by one, shot by shot. He also revealed that there are a group of scholars, including himself, who admire and benefit greatly from talented, film-loving film critics, and vice versa.

Bordwell was a man with many good wishes, such as "mid-level research" rather than grand theories, a way of studying films that is neither in the loft of academia nor in the ground newspaper of film criticism, where "emotional appreciation and rational analysis can complement each other", "combined with critical analysis and academic interpretation with theoretical reflection", and the two groups respect each other and work together.

Unfortunately, Bordwell's study of the middle level has not yet been elaborated in detail, and it is difficult to solve the problem of the essential opposition between scholars and film critics: what should be the first thing to say when writing a film review? As he puts it, a typical media film critic answers questions like: "What are the distinctive features of this film, and how do these characteristics strengthen our understanding of its value?" while a typical academic film critic answers something like: "How do I apply and analyze my theoretical framework to what aspect of this film?"

The academic community does not pay attention to the evaluation of films, and many grand theorists believe that all forms of art are a means to achieve social control, and that films embody consciousness-form. For example, a viewer who watches an old-school Western has actually accepted the assumptions of racism in Westerns. And a director who can somehow escape, confront, and finally defeat consciousness-form is a good director.

Having said all this, you can be considered to know the rivalry between academia and film critics. But before I talk about anything else, I would like to talk about another film critic, Susan Sontag, who is known as the "conscience of the American public." This great female writer was also involved in that critical debate in the '60s, and yes, was also scolded by Pauline Kyle.

At that time, Sontag was making a name for himself in intellectual circles with two seminal essays, "Against Interpretation" and "A Culture and New Sensibility." Her idea is that Western culture's obsession with interpreting works of art forces critics to find meaning in them, suppressing the sensory experience and diminishing the pleasure of feeling art. He also believes that the old-school cultural authority has become a stumbling block to society's appreciation of popular culture, and that prejudice should be discarded and the humanities and arts should be redefined outside of tradition.

In Against Interpretation, she argues for a greater focus on form on the question of which criticism and which art criticism is preferable, in order to eliminate the arrogance of interpretation caused by an overemphasis on content. She also affirmed the value of accurate and meticulous academic papers. But "the important thing now is to get back to our senses." We have to learn to see more, hear more, feel more. That is, the viewer should understand the content of the work of art, the appearance of things, and see the real self and the feelings of the soul. Reviews are meant to tell why, not what it is.

Kyle strongly disagrees with "Against Interpretation" and doesn't like Sontag, who gives some "junk movie" respect. She slammed Sontag's film reviews as "non-discriminatory and unassertive" and "if everything works, nothing happens, nothing works." If the "Critical Avant-Garde Cultural Circle" were to reject the criteria for criticism, to accept that everyone was an artist, to treat anti-commercial works as art, and to let Sontag continue to do what she was doing, the end of criticism would have come. ”

Pauline Kyle, who wants films to sit firmly in the position of popular culture, has a style that contempts theory, subjectivity, viciousness, content, and the performance of the creators (the style of film criticism in today's mainstream media).

To promote the authorship theory and improve the artistic status of films, everyone is a film critic, every filmmaker is an artist, respect everyone, but to give them a good hierarchy of talent Andrew Salis, film criticism style emphasis on form, esoteric and difficult to understand.

Susan Sontag, who opposes simplistic interpretation, wants everyone to see the hearts of the people, and democratizes art criticism, with a neutral style, a focus on form, and a clear perception.

Who do you support?

Soon after that controversy, nothing good happened, all the bad things came.

Maybe everything will be like this, from low to high, from boom to bust. Since the 80s, film critics have been flooded, most of whom do not understand filmmaking, academic theory, artistic aesthetics, rationality, emotion, poisonous tongue, or lyricism...... Nothing to understand. As long as you can figure out whether you like or dislike a certain movie after watching it, and you have a list of cliché reviews, and you happen to be going to post it, you're a film critic.

It should be said that everyone has the right to like and hate a work, regardless of subjectivity and objectivity, any film critic will also be affected by preferences. But at the time, it had never reached such a grim level before, so from then on, film critics gradually lost their influence, and by the end of the 80s, people began to say that "film critics are dead".

At the same time, American cinema is soaring on the road to popular entertainment, and the art space is getting smaller and smaller for all the big names in the industry. It seems that Pauline Kyle has unfortunately said that the superficial pop culture is overwhelming, and the art culture that should be independent and self-loving is degrading again, and finally rotting into a mess.

In 1996, Sontag published "The Decline of Cinema" in The New York Times, in which she said she noticed a regression in the quality of the audience more than the quality of the film itself: "It may not be the film that is coming to an end, but Cinephilia, a kind of love that is born out of the film." ”

I couldn't agree more. Hollywood spends all of its time, and the independent film industry spends most of its time making movies for audiences, and those who can't make money have only a dead end, as Francis Coppola said: "When I left school, I never had the freedom to make movies again." I thought that Sontag could have saved a "maybe", and the appearance of the screen was a general portrayal of the audience's needs.

This kind of love is still available to many filmmakers, but many audiences are gone, and many film critics are gone, and in the matter of writing film reviews, it is not enough to have love, because love can produce many other emotions, including hate.

You like a bad movie, you hate a good movie, in that case, how do you go about commenting?

Film critics are different from the average audience. This is one of the consensus of the critics, and the conflict is between the standard and the way the film review is written. Media film criticism is a bridge between a film and the audience, and the film critics announce how this bridge is, and before this point is completely changed, the film critic should have a higher level than the average audience.

Going back to the previous question, I don't know who you support, but I think they all have their own merits and disadvantages, and I very much agree with Bordwell's statement that film reviews should be able to "describe the plot, reproduce the scene, and evaluate and appreciate it".

In my opinion, an ideal film critic should love movies, but no longer be fanatical. He watched the movie and remembered that he was himself, all those emotions and lives, but he also had another pair of eyes and another heart - the eyes and hearts of film critics. This allows him to approach everything on screen from both subjectivity and objectivity.

The film reviews he wrote later will have a broad and delicate aesthetic taste, will not mention too many theories, the attention to form has been transformed into spiritual perception, through the clever use of language to reproduce the effect of the film, and convey the content of the film and analyze the characteristics of the film, when necessary, he can say advanced theories with simple truths, up and down, and know the overall situation and details of the film in his heart.

I'm trying here to write an example film review paragraph from Peter Jackson's 2005 version of King Kong:

"There are times in life when it feels like you've entered a new world, a place where exciting dreams come about, and it's like you've been looking for something you've been looking for. The beauty you crave is within reach, just around the corner. However, when you turn your head and look at your feet, you are still in a situation where you will never recover, and you will be crushed to pieces. When King Kong climbed to the top of the Empire State Building, what did it see, and what was it thinking?"

I'm not saying how well written this paragraph is, it's just that I can't remember how long it's been since I've read a film review paragraph in the media that tried to do so.

You could argue that most daily and weekly film critics don't fall into this faction, and their tight deadlines and word limits are holding them back. This is all true, and the other fact is that the level of film criticism has been declining, and Goodman's satire more than 40 years ago is becoming more and more reinvigorated.

Some people will say, "No, it's much better now," because if a film critic says something insulting, or crosses the line against political correctness, or engages in personal grudges or corruption, his reputation will be ruined, and no one will want to read his writings anymore. Ironically, the progress of the times has become a constraint for film critics, and these considerations actually hurt critics to make the most unbiased comments on films. When it's easy to be controversial, rather than risk losing their careers, a large number of film critics usually choose to use cliché comments to make a statement.

Whatever the reason, those critics have reverted to the path of clichés, and gradually made the same amount of money they paid when there was no controversy. Sometimes they keep their distance from the audience to show that they are professionals, and sometimes they are currying favor with the audience to maintain and boost the popularity of the column. They became indiscriminate, and Pauline Kyle was mischievously remarked, and many films disguised as works of art were blown out, and many good commercial films were trampled on for nothing.

As for the online film critics, most of them have not clearly distinguished a question, is this their own taste or standard?

The lines between print and the internet are blurring so much that you can sort of lump them together as a group of people. Film critics who are willing to think are already a rare species, and film criticism has been reduced to the display of personal tastes under various constraints, and finally collected into the display of public tastes. Movies are divided into good or bad in this way, which may mean that whether in the field of business or art, films are marketized, standardized, homogeneous, and mediocre.

The internet has stirred up the world of film critics, and some people say it's a revolution, but in fact, some cases existed before the internet. -- Film critics are everyone's second career, and everyone who watches a movie has their own opinion: "Oh my God, they made it amazing." "Oh my God, why did they make such a bad movie?"

People have the right to do that, but I think it's ridiculous that people think of this as "Criticism/Comment", no, it's just talk.

What is Movie-Talk? It's like you talk about everything else in everyday life, you go to a restaurant and you have a meal, and when you're happy, you tell your friends, "There's a great restaurant there, you guys go try it." When you're not happy eating, you might just complain and say, "What the hell." Or tell your friends, "There's a terrible restaurant there, don't go there, it's disgusting." "This is the original, the present, and the future. Before the audience left the cinema after watching the movie, they used mobile phones and other wireless communication devices to log on to social networking sites and send out a sentence or two, which defined a movie.

There is no difference between a bad online film critic and a bad movie critic who started to flood in the 80s, and if anything, it is that the reviews are shorter. In the same way, a good online film critic is a good film critic. But the sad reality is that the network produces very few good film critics, and at the same time produces a large number of bad film critics who only know, are willing, and only care about "talking", and then the network twists their power together. This creates a very frightening situation, and you can see that you can go to any film review website or social networking site and you can see that bad movie critics are everywhere, and they are taking over the public eye with their talk and influencing the fate of the movie.

What's even more terrifying is that there is no elimination mechanism, or it doesn't work. The film critics who write reviews in publications are at least above a good base, and they have a credit history, and when their credit is bad enough, they are eliminated and forgotten. And the Internet provides an endless and infinite amount of bad new blood, and there will be a phenomenon of bad money driving out good money, bad movie critics become the mainstream, fans have come to an end, and some are impetuous and violent towards movies.

The Internet has given people the illusion that everyone thinks they know everything, that authority is collapsing, anti-intellectualism is roaring, and people no longer trust film reviews other than their own judgments, and that they no longer need film reviews. This shift is not just happening in how for film reviews, but almost everything.

Some people may ask, "Brother Wei, which side are you on, don't you want to criticize the film critics?" "Haven't you seen it? Now this is the film critics! You, everyone, is a film critic, no matter whether a person thinks about a movie, studies it, or loves movies, all of them are film critics, or to be more precise, film critics.

The end of the review has arrived!

Napoleon once said, "What is history? is nothing but a lie." This can be applied to film reviews today and in the future: What is a film review?

In fact, at the beginning of the wave of online reviews, there were many good hopes, and Bodwell was one of them, who believed that the Internet could help professionals like him to enlighten audiences to understand the art of film. Years later, it turned out that it was just wishful thinking. In the beginning, most of the netizens vying to be online film critics were fans of the film and had respect for the film and movie reviews, but they were all drowned out soon.

I'm not sure where the world of film critics is headed in this era. I don't know if this is a re-enactment of the 80s, the times gave me the illusion that the film critics will continue to live and find its way out in the future. After all, the Internet has indeed created a lot of good things, more ordinary viewers can become movie fans, and movie fans can get access to more film review articles and academic articles. If you think about it optimistically, there will always be some heroes who come into being.

But I'm pessimistic, although I hope it will get better and better.

There is a Buddhist saying that "if you do not seek to be without demons, and if you do not seek to be without demons", Sontag understood it as: "One of the most beautiful ideas in Buddhism is that if you are actually at a certain moment in your life where you are not suffering from suffering, then you have an obligation to discover some tribulation and allow yourself to come into contact with it." ”

Today's film critics are the most miserable moments for the demons and monsters to run rampant, it is a matter of life or death, and I hope that the good film critics will not be afraid of change, so that I will be "incredible, exciting tension, adrenaline-pumping, jaw-dropping, spectacular ending, perfection." ”

Finally, I would like to tell the readers of the column that this is the last article of this column.

From the first issue of "The Death of Film" on April 5, 2004 to the 133rd issue of "The Death of Film Critics" on October 16, 2006, it ended beautifully, didn't it? As you know, I've been making movies for three years since I was 15 years old, and I've been doing "very good performances", and before "Soul Surfer" I was always praised by various critics, and if anyone told me that "something was wrong with the critics", I would probably just shrug my shoulders and "incomprehensible".

But recently, since "Carrie the Witch", the film critics have given me a huge critical impact, and I have seen more about movies, film critics, film critics, and myself.

I've been slamming a lot of bad critics these days, but this has made me a bad critic, or I've always been. In short, when I tasted my work being unreasonably criticized by them, I felt the anger of detachment, which also means that my attitude towards film criticism has changed, and the part of the filmmaker instantly occupies a greater position in my mind, and I began to agree with the argument that there is not even a single bad movie in the world, no matter good or bad, I will give full marks to all movies made with heart, and I know the honor behind them.

But that's not a film review, and I'm only going to get more and more like this, I can't really look at some unsatisfactory bad movies objectively, and I can't write my ideal movie review. It's a multiple-choice question, to be a critic of a movie, or to be a filmmaker? I didn't hesitate to make a choice.

Since I can't write a movie review, if I only write some mood logs and industry experiences, it would be better to follow the times and put them on social networking sites, and occasionally post articles in print media.

So that's it, the "VIY Says" column is officially closed.

It's 2006-10-16, and film critics are not dead, they are being choked by the throat by the Internet, and they are on the verge of dying, and soon, in the 2010s, film critics will die, die in traditional media, die on the Internet, and maybe this time they will really die.

Goodbye, James Age, Goodbye, Pauline Kyle, Goodbye, Roger Albert, Goodbye, Andrew Salis, Goodbye, Ezra Goodman, Goodbye, Susan Sontag, Goodbye, David Podwell, Goodbye, Fan Heroes, Goodbye, Movie Review.

Hello, the movie talks. 】