Shouldn't that be against the rules? Or is it another version of a review? I have my own opinion but I would like to hear others...
2006-07-20 05:01:46 · 11 answers · asked by gentlesnowflake 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
no!
that's their job. they should be tied down and forced to take it, even if it sucks! man, would I like to have THAT job!
I can't just walk out on my work whenever I feel like it!
2006-07-20 07:56:04 · answer #1 · answered by Zippy 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My first instinct is to assert sure yet then if i imagine about it. To be a critic you should no longer only see alot of serious videos yet also terrrrrible ones. See my best problem is i'm getting overly enthusiastic about issues. when I see a movie i love im telling human beings its epic n accurate ten lol yet after some weeks its no longer even close. So i imagine i doesn't be too good except it became for a weblog or some thing. no longer some thing significant. Im the king of overrating issues before each and everything. I do it always Bq- Ebert n Roeper are okay. Roeper is straightforward he isn't any longer all artsy on us he gave sin city n american psycho both 2 thumbs up. i love him. i do not believe each and everything he says yet when I see 2 thumbs up I have a tendency to analyze out the movie.
2016-12-02 00:04:30 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he's going to publish a review of a film, he should stay for the duration. Movies can start out fantastic or poorly, and end the same way. I would think a critic would want to watch the entire film, especially if he thought of walking out on it; that way he'd have even more ammunition to lampoon it.
2006-07-20 06:47:11 · answer #3 · answered by Mike S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can you give a full critique of a half seen film? You can say "The movie was so bad I wished I could have walked out on it". Besides that, the agency that critic works for is paying for this critic to see the whole movie. They don't get refunds for partially seen movies.
2006-07-20 05:06:40 · answer #4 · answered by FaerieWhings 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. Like Kevin Smith said, it's his job... I mean, if all I had to do was watch movies and report how I felt about them .. I woulda sat through GLitter and Gigli over and over if I was getting the money the critics are getting!
2006-07-20 05:05:01 · answer #5 · answered by Hollyhocks 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, becuase they can't critique a film properly or with the right perspective if they don't watch from begining to end. If they walk out they shouldn't be allowed to comment on it, right? What's your take?
2006-07-20 05:05:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, It is what he gets paid for. There are going to be movies you love and movies you hate it is just part of the job. (Not that a one of them is doing very well at it I think I've only agreed with one review all year.)
2006-07-20 05:13:33 · answer #7 · answered by JENNLUPE 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as long as he doesn't review the movie! If he walked out because it was bad, all he can say is "It was so bad, I walked out!" Other than that, short of an emergency... THat's rude.
2006-07-20 05:04:57 · answer #8 · answered by ♥Saffire♥ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES, it's still a free nation, and why should anyone be required to set through a crappy movie?
2006-07-20 05:05:56 · answer #9 · answered by Pobept 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't think so, but really who cares?
2006-07-20 05:07:36 · answer #10 · answered by Tierra 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋