Comments on: Why Newspaper Critics are Apologizing for ‘State of Play’

By: Mick LaSalle

Mick LaSalle — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:41:11 +0000

But I gave good reviews to WATCHMEN and OBSERVE AND REPORT and I still went easy on STATE OF PLAY. Also, you assume that critics sit around thinking about other critics. I usually have no idea what other critics have to say. Once I've written a review, I'm thinking about what I have to do next week. The public might read ten reviews in a row — because someone in the public, who hasn't seen the movie, might be trying to decide whether to go or not. But a critic has already seen the movie and written the review, and by Friday, it's pretty much old news.
I like this site, by the way. You get intelligent comments on this site.

By: Mick LaSalle

Mick LaSalle — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:41:00 +0000

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:51:08 +0000

I liked his toilet with a mustache better. But, good point, sir.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:51:00 +0000

I liked his toilet with a mustache better. But, good point, sir.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:42:08 +0000

No, no Intense Debate….it died for a while.

But just to clear up – Rotten Tomatoes is an interesting animal. I'm even confused by how it's structured, but it's basically that 1) Everyone can write reviews (but they don't matter for the meter) 2) Some critics have access to publicly post their reviews which get more of an audience (but still don't matter for the meter) 3) Another select group of critics get their reviews to count toward the meter and 4) An even smaller group comprises the Top Critics.

The critics that count toward the meter are a mixed bag of online and print. I don't know the numbers, but there are a lot of print critics.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:42:00 +0000

No, no Intense Debate….it died for a while.

The critics that count toward the meter are a mixed bag of online and print. I don't know the numbers, but there are a lot of print critics.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:39:30 +0000

Mick – you make a really good point (and back it up with a solid analogy) although my only hitch in completely agreeing is that the genre itself usually relies heavily on the ending. Would a bad ending have completely ruined it? Maybe yes for some, maybe no for others.

It's good to have another answer to the question, although the trend does seem to be pretty heavy among print critics. Though, I did find an online blogger who made concession after concession for the film before giving it a praiseworthy grade – so it's clearly not totally contained to the ink and paper world.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:39:00 +0000

By: El Patro

El Patro — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:32:19 +0000

Looks to me like newspaper critics gave the movie good reviews to spread the word about the industry being in danger.

By: El Patro

El Patro — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:32:00 +0000

Looks to me like newspaper critics gave the movie good reviews to spread the word about the industry being in danger.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:45:42 +0000

So it looks like some of the comments that were made while Intense Debate was down aren't apppearing on the site page (at least for me). Which sucks, because there were some really great comments – I'm working to get them back up.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 15:45:00 +0000

By: Murph

Murph — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:09:33 +0000

This film was pretty shit compared to that awesome mini-series.

By: Murph

Murph — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:09:00 +0000

This film was pretty shit compared to that awesome mini-series.

By: BethanyP

BethanyP — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:53:40 +0000

great article, cole.

By: BethanyP

BethanyP — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:53:00 +0000

great article, cole.

By: emad

emad — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:14:33 +0000

you are biased, that’s all. what is about all this “lets divide print and web” thing? you are talking like it’s about one of the biggest scandal in journalism history!
” i didn’t like a movie but a print critic liked it, so it’s because of the subtext that he/ she liked the movie”
you know what? it works on another level too, i would say that you disliked the move because of the subtext! you know why? because the grade that yo gave (D) is the lowest grade that i have seen, period!
and there is a lot more articles in FSR about print media dying than other blogs or papers!
sure, internet is the winning side, but i think it doesn’t have the integrity of print critcism, by the way they have done so many for cinema, what has internet ever done?

By: emad

emad — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:14:00 +0000

By: hollywoodland

hollywoodland — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:06:19 +0000

This version cannot compare with the BBC’s brilliant State of Play miniseries, on which version was
based.

Besides, who wants to see a bloated Crowe?

By: hollywoodland

hollywoodland — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:06:00 +0000

This version cannot compare with the BBC’s brilliant State of Play miniseries, on which version was
based.

Besides, who wants to see a bloated Crowe?