Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Movies the Critics Got Wrong" video.

  1. I think they meant to say "Don't let these scores fool you. Not all of the 'fresh'-rated movies were initially acclaimed by critics"
    10
  2. CatMaster90001 Alright, that's fair
    9
  3. Much of the reason "A Clockwork Orange" and "Scarface" got trashed was because critics back then thought extreme violence and immoral content equal bad movie (stupid moralism)
    7
  4. T2and3 Oh look, another one who doesn't understand aesthetics and that not all movies are about story and message
    6
  5. loda lega You really need to watch "The Godfather"; he is calm, but he still has a complexity and an incredibly natural authority in his character
    6
  6. CatMaster90001 Birdman is a great movie if you focus on free associations and the way the movie is directed; not every movie (or theatre play) is all about story and message
    5
  7. Actually, they never got anything right or wrong. Movie criticism is not science
    5
  8. Tamila Do you honestly believe I will take you seriously when you use subjective and imprecice statements like "Mindless, overrated, boring, crap"? You also obviously do not know much about aesthetics and free associations
    3
  9. Nah, IMDB reviews are written by people who don't know what aesthetic judgement means and instead write solely based on personal preferences
    2
  10. loda lega​ I'm actually Norwegian, but it seems like most audiences in USA today stick to modern movies like Lord of the Rings and Marvel movies, while people who study film or those who don't like fantasy movies and comic book movies (or those who are looking for story and character development) prefer the classics. I often come across commentators on film-related Watchmojo videos who say things like "Who cares about those ancient relic movies?", "Citizen Kane and The Godfather are so boring", or "Star Wars, The Dark Knight, and Lord of the Rings are the best movies of all time" In my opinion, movies in the 21st century excel at science fiction, fantasy, and superhero movies, but movies from the 20th century have the best drama films, comedy films, crime films, and war films. I think it's a matter of what genre you prefer
    2
  11. +TahlingaTalents1023 And the audience is any better?
    2
  12. CatMaster90001​ Rotten Tomatoes gave it high praise, but it was also nominated for a Razzie for worst sequel/rip-off and is consistently criticized by Watchmojo So apparently, the critics praised it, but it has still met lots of criticism
    1
  13. CatMaster90001​ It depends on the movie. At the end of the day however, I'm only listening to what Roger Ebert thinks. Yes, he has passed way (R.I.P), but then I'm basing my criticism on my thoughts, and I'm trying to look for the same things as Mr. Ebert
    1
  14. CatMaster90001​​ Well, here is a comparison between him and the general audience: General audience: completely subjective and only talking about how THEY experience the movie and with little arguments and analysis of the movie's elements Roger Ebert: neutral, no-nonsense written language, analyzing the elements of the movie, discussing how a scene or element should be handled, analyzing based on the topic and theme, and comparing the movie to other movies where certain elements and plot elements have worked Why should I listen to people who are completely subjective and lack argumentation?
    1
  15. CatMaster90001​ I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but my point is that I'm always trying to be analytic and objective when I'm doing reviews. You can also sum up the process with this: - If the RT rating is positive/negative, my initial response is the same - I watch the movie, and if my response is different than RT, I check what Ebert says - If I believe in Ebert, I'm trying to reconsider. If I don't agree, I'm analyzing on my own I have not seen "Frozen" yet, but I'm certainly not hoping on the bandwagon
    1
  16. +lyndon bekhuis It's meant to show how the average response has been
    1
  17. +sky satrya (foolhardie) Nah, IMDB is terrible; all the reviews are based on personal preferences instead of aesthetics judgements and are completely informal, and several of the users generalize movies instead of looking at the criterias for each type of movie
    1
  18. The ones you see now are retrospective reviews
    1
  19. +Daniel Castaneda Somebody needs to learn more about aesthetics and post-modern movies
    1
  20. The title is misleading; movie criticism is not science, so critics and audiences can never be right nor wrong
    1
  21. +Gani Ibraimi You really thought the score meant how good the movie is? Not to be rude or anything, but it should be quite obvious that it means how much percentage of the critics who gave it a positive review (and that doesn't mean that the review was highly positive). It also depends on who the critics are and how many of them there are
    1
  22. Because modern movies haven't got many retrospective reviews yet
    1
  23. They were initially panned or received mixed reviews, but in retrospective reviews (for example at Rotten Tomatoes), they have received much warmer response
    1
  24. No, it was acclaimed even during pre-screenings
    1
  25. +Adam92326 Ever heard about aesthetics?
    1
  26. loda lega if you think Al Pacino is a great actor, why did you say that he acts the same way in all movies and is only good at screaming? And btw, the reason Marlon Brando is so acclaimed is because he brought a gripping and influential realism to film acting, and opened the doors to new ways of interpreting a scene. Not to mention that he was probably one of the few actors at the time who managed to make each character unique; most movie stars at the time like Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable looked like they played themselves in every movie
    1
  27. loda lega Daniel Day-Lewis, Robert de Niro, and Jim Carrey are also among my favorite Hollywood actors. I also think Jim Carrey is quite underrated, and that he is actually a great dramatic actor as well, but no-one seems to know that. However, Brando will always be my favorite and inspiration I know well what Method Acting is, and I know that Marlon Brando kind of introduced it to mainstream moviegoers, and it's possible that Dilip Kumar was one of the first to use it and is one of the greatest method actors in Bollywood, but I think it's quite uncertain who really started using it. Lee Strasberg developed it from the mid 20's to the early 30's, but it's also a further of development of emotional and sense memory which Stanislavski introduced, but later abandoned. And actors like Spencer Tracy and James Stewart, although not considered to be method actors, nevertheless had some of the naturalism and versatility you find in method actors. Elia Kazan also taught students method acting at Actors Studio before Strasberg took over, and Strasberg introduced method acting to his colleagues at Group Theatre before Actors Studio was established. Anyway, all this is just a small digression since you mentioned Method Acting
    1
  28. loda lega yes, I don't understand how he is still alive
    1
  29. +PeKena LarVa Well said
    1
  30. better than IMDB anyway
    1
  31. Where did you read that? Under "reception" on Wikipedia, virtually everything is positive
    1
  32. "Upon its release, "Apocalypse Now" received near-universal critical acclaim"
    1
  33. "Saw" is too recent
    1