What sort of film critic are you?

What sort of film critic are you?

Which film critics are the bottom?

this

I never critique film. I just watch it and move on with my life. I have no strong opinions of views on anything because I don't know that much to begin with.

Richard Brody, Camille Paglia

At this level, the line between critic and academic is blurred

I am all of them combined

>soundtrack
you outed yourself pleb. good film never uses music.

>people with credentials that support my opinion

This is actually pretty accurate, which is going against the original intention of the meme.

Absolute pleb right there
Patrician films use noise over inaudible dialogue

Fucking plebe best movies are operas

Congratulations, you just outed yourself as having a single digit IQ

haneke plz go

I don't poke holes I just enjoy the ride

I judge a film solely on how cute the actresses are

How do I critique a film? I have to admit that I am never able to really say anything much besides something general like "I liked the visuals, soundtrack", "It was exciting, funny"

Does this require multiple viewings and a good knowledge of film making techniques and history?

don't worry, you are like 99% of Sup Forums

a fucking retard

Aesthetic and Emotion>Everything else

>Does this require multiple viewings and a good knowledge of film making techniques and history?

Yes. Go to a library or used book store and find a good textbook on the art of cinema.

Also, stop reading critics or watching youtube review shows because most of them are useless. Older ones like Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris are much more insightful and worth your time. Pic related is also very fun to read and is more interesting than it looks.

Watch more movies and have a knowledge of film as a medium. And a sense of aesthetics, particularly painting and photography along with movies.

soundtrack is a literal fucking movie maker for me

bait

Also, read more literature, philosophy and history. Literature will help you appreciate good plots, characters, handling of themes, and overall improve your sense of aesthetics. Philosophy will hone your critical thinking skills and give you questions to ponder which a work of art demands or suggests. History will give you some context of what is going on in the world during certain stories.

...

I usually put visuals above everything else.

I tend to put the script before music though, unless the music just really stands out to me for some reason.

Visuals, Themes, Emotion and Dialogue/Acting

editing should be the most mentally stimulating

switch script with soundtrack and it's perfect.

According to this, the Star Wars prequels are better than the original trilogy.

Correct.

Topkek

How? The visuals are bland and uninspired.
The only good music is the Duel of the Fates and any time the Imperial March gets used as a motif in Sith's soundtrack.

Two good musical elements across three movies doesn't pull it up from being shit, no matter how much more the music matters than anything else, even if you were to believe such a thing.

Morality is a spook

Aye baby whos that woman?

somewhere between 3 and 4, but closer to 4. I think acting should be up there with visuals and soundtrack. Bad acting ruins otherwise good mvies. politics and morality fags are unironically worse than plothole and plausibility fags.

Camille Paglia

She's a "feminist," but SJWs hate her so she's pretty cool.

FIXED:
Script > Visuals > Acting > Themes > Soundtrack

OP if you want a music video, watch a music video.

Why do they hate her?
*Reddit senses tingling*

I don't think that visuals and acting are equal. It really depends on the movie, but for example, in the Revenant Leo's acting didn't ruin it that much cause he was silent for like 2 hours

I assume it's because she must hate le religion of peace

Script is only important for fags who just watch movies once. The real litmus tests for truly great movies is rewatchability factor, and this is where soundtrack and visuals come in. Many good movies have great scripts that make you feel wowed, but when you rewatch, you realize that's all the movie has. Nolan movies are the perfect example of this; they are usually very exiting on first watch but once you know the script they are boring as shit on second watch.

Great movies have good scripts, but also have the visuals, soundtrack and general feeling that makes them enjoyable several times. True kino have great scripts on first watch but also have the visuals and soundtrack to make them endlessly rewatchable. Oldboy is a good entry level example of this.

The ascended will also require philosophical, deep themes in their kino, but this is above the regular Sup Forums pleb's understanding.

Because she hates third wave feminism

The last.

Blade runner.

...

Nailed it

Acting has the potential to ruin a good movie, but wont in itself bring a good movie into the great category.

Mediocre acting can be really jarring and ruin a movie, while mediocre visuals are more forgiveable. On the other hand, great acting can not ascend a good movie into great factor. Moonlight is a good, recent example. The acting is great, but soundtrack, visuals and general style of the movie is average, so its not enought to make it a great movie. Another recent example, La La Land, probably has worse acting, but is far more rewatchable and a much better movie because the visuals are so much higher level.

very accurate

TFA shouldn't even have a brain though

faithfulness to source material
I'm going to see a fucking movie of _______, not anybody elses vision of what ________ is. Nobody gives a shit what director or writer wants to see and their interpretation, people just goddamn want to see a book they like transferred to film
fuck

Mis-en-scene
Editing
Themes

Just watch any one of her interviews on youtube. She's pretty quick to get into some ideas unpopular with SJWs.

>visuals
What movie looks like this, besides Raw Deal?

first two should be swapped desu

You got the meme wrong. It's supposed to be the opposite of the truth in order to upset people, so plausibility should be at the bottom and visuals should be at the top.

This is wrong too. It should be plausible for the first 3 or 4, but the last one should be the subversion in order to upset people. Your method is too obvious.

Put number 3 at empty brain tier

>Script > Visuals > Acting > Themes > Soundtrack

This is the absolute worst ranking, absolute mouth breathing tier

>but soundtrack, visuals and general style of the movie is average

Another mouthbreather, the visuals elevate the film thematically, the soundtrack is thrilling, tense, not only it does its job, it's top notch all around. They are not average whatsoever unless you've only watched the classics and nothing else ever.

>hating deaf and blind people
the fuck is wrong with you?

'Themes' is not a separate category. Themes are things evoked by the script, acting, visuals, and soundtrack

What did you think of Hugo? I think using your criteria it would be GOAT, but the acting, script and story sucked 2bqh.

Spotted the guy on his first day browsing forchin

Themes and ideas.

A film that's a 10 in everything on your list is still a mediocre movie if it isn't centered around ideas.

...

...

You sound just like an sjw crying there isn't enough colored people.

If you dont like it make your own bitch. Can't wait to tell you how terrible your adaptation is.

See the two different versions of the shining and tell me the OG artist/writer is always right

I didn't say that. I also didn't say movies can't be good if they're not faithful.
I said people WANT to see the thing they're a fan of transferred to film. Do you know how rare it is, for a movie to be better than the book? There's a few examples, but not enough to say that it's a good practice.
If you don't want to adapt the book, why the fuck are you using the book as a basis?

>SW prequels
>good visuals

>.t baby fanboy nerd

Emotional stimuli

All except first one

swap memes with shitposting and I'm in

...

>no nootkaposting

>manbaby thoughts

B2R pls

kek

Die Hard maybe? I guess it's "80's-90's American high-end business interior"

Put Armond in the middle and then Paglia above him.
Brody at the bottom.

>sheevposting that low
>implying anyone knows what pestposting and taxposting even is

I like Armond but he's too political to be considered a truly patrician film critic

...

k
i
n
o

this normie brain reddit/twitter meme is the worst thing to hit this website in a while

For you

I think soundtrack is a really important part of a movie. Part of what made LotR a masterpiece was the amazing score.

Looks like shit

Shouldn't most of those things be taken into account in every film review (with plausibility/accuracy and politics coming up if the film and/or the marketing go out of their way to address or advertise those subjects, and faithfulness being included as a metric if it's an adaptation of another work)?

They should all be taken into account, but in the right order

I like the way you think

Politics should be at the bottom. Judging a movie for what it says than how it says it is extra chromosome tier.

It was good at first, when it had some nuance and subtlety. Now it's literally
>Good thing is dumb
>Bad thing is smart

Just came here so you guys would have a template that all face the same way.

Thanks pal

FIXED
Script = Visuals = Acting = Themes = Soundtrack

>Richard Brody is a knight

>no wheatposting

A combination of the bottom two, it's theoretically possible to have an absolutely astounding movie without a soundtrack though.

Likewise, a good director, cinematographer, and editor, given a screenplay suited for the task could make a great movie without any traditionally talented actors.

Tabooposting is actually my favourite meme atm. That goes out to you aspiring memers, keep it up lads

>Moonlight has good visuals and a thrilling soundtrack

LMAO, calling other people mouthbreathers while carrying this opinion.

>step 1: watch movies that aren't shallow garbage
>step 2: don't be a fucking moron
>step 3 (optional): watch (good) director's, editors, and cinematographer interviews and read academic film critiques. This is needed to "properly" critique film, but will empower you with the "proper" terminology needed to discuss techniques and stylistic choices used in films. Again, this isn't strictly necessary, but it will make conversing with fellow patricians much easier.

Visuals are pleb tier. Just look at any BvS apologist thread.

I judge movies by character and subtext.

BvS visuals are pleb tier, which is why BvS apologist threads are pleb tier.