(intro music)
Hello, I'm the Nostalgia Critic.
I remember it, so you don't have to.
As most of you know, when you become a critic, you drink this magic juice that
immediately makes you smarter than everyone else.
Once this liquid is consumed, you suddenly become a member of the Critic League.
Meaning your opinion matters ninety percent more than that of the common riffraff.
Your senses are hightened, your brain becomes bigger,
and you miraculously know what's best for everyone in the world.
This is the promise of the Tree of Life.
We celebrate a day of peace~ (singing)
(wrong buzzer sound)
Alright, as many of you probably figured out, that's not how things work.
Odd for me to say, I know, but the idea of critics is kind of a strange one.
It's so often that we compare our thoughts to the critics,
and probably more than once you've disagreed with them.
You either liked something they hated, or hated something they liked.
This usually forces people to fall into one of two categories.
Someone that says, "Screw the critics! They don't speak for the people and are a bunch of stuck up egg heads."
Or the people that say, "Screw the masses! They wouldn't know art if the Mona Lisa kicked them in the balls."
But what you might be surprised at is films that are considered classics today,
were not only seen as such by critics when they first came out.
Did you know "Psycho", "The Shining", and "Fight Club" all got negative reviews when they first premiered?
These are movies people watch all the time.
They're practically considered masterworks! Yet, very few critics liked them when they came to theaters.
With that said, did you also know that
"Signs", "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", & "Phantom Menace" all got positive reviews when they first came out?
Good lord, how can you trust anyone with these kinds of mindsets?
Part of what people forget though is that
critics are just people,
and like anyone they can be emotionally swayed.
Hell, that's what movies are supposed to do, emotionally sway you.
But how can audiences and critics differ so much?
Well, there's a few things to keep in mind:
One is, as a viewer, you can choose which movies you want to see.
So if something looks bad, you can easily skip over it.
Critics usually can't.
They have to sit through a shit ton of movies, including the bad ones,
and usually have to see ten times the amount
that normal people see.
Seeing so many, so often can easily have an effect on how you view them.
You notice more clichés, you pick up more of where the story is going to go mostly because you've seen it done,
over and over and over.
"Let her go!" (repeating)
Movies can get away with a lot of repeating though because they want to impress the mass majority,
not the critics.
So films can use the same tropes several times because it will take a mass audience
longer to catch onto it and get bored by it because... well, they don't see movies as much as critics do.
"I should have killed you when I had the chance" (repeating)
With that said, because critics see movies so much, they might be able to pick up on certain techniques
that are impressive to them but... not the usual movie goer.
"Birdman" was a hit with critics for different reasons than it might be with audiences.
The film is set up to look like one continuous shot,
which many audiences wouldn't catch onto.
A critic might be marveling at all the effort that had to into making it look like one shot with no edits,
Where the everyday viewer might just notice that things look and flow a little different that usual,
even if they don't know why.
In both cases, it worked to the films advantage,
as it was so strange and dream-like for both audiences, and critics, both loved it.
In some respects,
that's true for "The Phantom Menace" as well.
It's a bad film, especially when compared to it's predecessors. But critics liked it when it first came out
because they thought the technology and visuals were breathtaking.
And at the time, they kind of were.
Now, we can see the computers are overused, but back then we never saw a film that just surrounded itself in
so much of that technology, at least not to this extent.
And all given the same things the critics has to see over and over, yeah, this would be a little refreshing.
But many people were upset that they couldn't connect with the story or characters.
At least, they eventually said that.
Many people were so sucked in by the hype that for a long time they convinced themselves that they liked it,
Even though, later, they come around admitting that they really don't.
Critics can be the same way.
Audiences forget that because critics are people, they as well can be emotional,
and they can get sucked into the hype-train as well.
So, the idea that critics are always going to be right, doesn't make the most logical sense.
But wait a minute, isn't that one of the reasons we have critics? To see past all the emotion and focus
on the stuff that's gonna be timeless?
Yes and no.
Movies are all about giving you an emotional experience,
and that's gonna be different for everybody,
especially over time.
Films like "Forrest Gump", "American Beauty" and "Saving Private Ryan" were seen as heart felt powerhouses.
But nowadays, they might be seen as corny, clichéd and even kind of inappropriate.
Each film though, touched on something that was relevant at the time.
It made a connection with the mass public in a way people's emotions wanted to experience them then.
This includes critics mindset at that time period as well.
But there are films that everyone can agree, just aren't for critics.
Movies like "Ace Ventura", "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" were all panned by critics.
But it's pretty obvious they weren't made to be liked by them.
"Ace Ventura" worked on an immature level that spoke to the inner silliness of most kids.
"Ninja Turtles" was great for fans of the cartoon but was just too damn ridiculous to grab someone
looking to be challenged.
And "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas", by design, is meant to not be liked and keep you in a raunchy
and uncomfortable place.
These films hit their specific audiences perfectly where any other rational human being with
little context would see them as insane ravings.
If anything, we'd be more concerned if critics DID like these movies.
But that makes it even stranger/kind of enjoyable when they like something you wouldn't think they would like.
Did you know that "Beavis and Butt-head do America" actually got good reviews?
In fact it came out the same weekend as a drama called "Ghosts of Mississippi",
With gigantic actors involved. But critics said it was melodramatic and trying too hard to be an Oscar grab.
Meaning that the movie usually loved by critics was being beaten out by the one usually despised by critics.
It was so weird to see this dramatic true story about race being beaten out by "Beavis & Butt-head Do America"!
"I was taken with their adolescent awkwardness, vibrato, and vulnerability therefore, a modest recommendation
of 'Beavis and Butt-Head' do America for me."
"I recommend it too, I enjoyed it a lot."
But that's not the only one, films like "There's Something About Mary", "The Mask" and even the most obvious
commercial with "The Lego Movie", all got good reviews. These are films many would guess critics
wouldn't like for being too lowbrow, but something extended beyond the normal
boring rubble and connected with their inner immaturity. They were just too
charming and, in their own way, too smart to turn down.
But even I, as a critic, have to acknowledge that there's a lot of enjoyable films with bad reviews
that I just don't understand.
Why was "Hook" hated by critics? I can understand it having problems and not fully enjoying it,
but this movie was slammed.
Comedies like UHF seemed harmless enough, but the critics railroaded it like nobody's business!
Weird Al even asked if he ran over all the critics' dogs, he couldn't believe the harshness.
They can even seem inconsistent, like critics really enjoyed the first "Rush Hour" film but hated the sequels
cause they said Chris Tucker was too loud and talked too much.
Did you see the first film?!
And don't get me wrong, I can totally understand not liking these movies, but claiming the others are doing
something that the first one wasn't, when it so clearly was?
This is just confusing.
And then there's ones you'd swear they're picking on just because they feel they're supposed to as critics.
I know tons of people that watch the "Hotel Transylvania" movies every Halloween.
But because it's an Adam Sandler comedy with immature humor, it's almost like they feel obligated
that they have to give it a negative review,
Even if it's totally fine.
A slapstick starring a little kid? Well, gotta hate that on arrival!
Oh! It's a Christmas classic now? Well, uhm... you were all brainwashed!
Rightfully so, nobody controls your opinions but yourself, but if that's the case,
why do we even have critics?
Do they even have a purpose? Couldn't we just get rid of them all?
Not so fast, destructive hand of God. I have a point.
Critics in many respects are not only supposed to cover an event,
I mean, they are journalists and films can be events,
But they're supposed to offer a point of view that you've never considered before.
Would you get angry at someone for writing a philosophy on life even it's different from yours?
It's not just something you're supposed to blindly agree with,
but it's something that's supposed to give you a piece of mind.
Movies are essentially art-a reflection of life in unique and entertaining ways.
A critic is supposed to help you explore it in a way that maybe you haven't before.
Someone can watch "Animal Farm" and like it fine, just seeing it as a story about a bunch of animals that rise
up against the human owners.
But when you're told the whole story is symbolic of Russian Communism and the rise of Stalin,
You can suddenly experience it from a completely different level and enjoy it in a whole new way.
Critics are also not just one big entity. It's like saying the Internet is one person.
Hell, if it was, it'd be one emotionally drunk asshole.
It's a lot of people with a lot of opinions and while many of them do follow certain patterns for the reasons
I listed earlier, everybody is different.
It's all subjective so nobody can really be wrong.
If you like "Ace Ventura", go ahead and like it.
If you hate "Saving Private Ryan", go ahead and hate it.
The important thing is how well you share and communicate.
That's what makes you a stronger human being.
And that's what a good critic should do: Teach you how to communicate better,
not agree, but convey.
There's been plenty of times I disagree with critics, audiences, or both.
I sure don't understand why everybody likes the live-action Jungle Book,
But I also really enjoyed the movie Ender's Game, despite that being hated by everybody.
My thoughts are gonna be different from your thoughts and chances are it's gonna happen a lot.
But that's good.
Share your thoughts, compare them.
Don't let anyone say there's a right way or wrong way to enjoy something,
because there is no right way or wrong way.
This is one of the reasons film has lasted for so long because it speaks to everybody differently.
It's not science, it's not mathematics,
it always has been what you allow it to be.
So figure out what speaks to you, why it speaks to you, and best of all,
how you can share it with others who might have a similar or completely different experience.
I'm the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it, so you don't have to.
Hey everybody, next week is a review of the comic book classic, Blade. But you can see it now under
Vessel's ad-free early access. Just $3 a month to see tons of people's videos early as well as a bunch of other
extra features. Check it out and get the early scoop.
(outro music)
Hello, Doug Walker here doing the charity shout-out. I think a lot of you know this charity,
but if you don't, you're about to see some very awesome people.
This is the World Wildlife Fund. For fifty years, they've been protecting the future of nature.
Being the world's leading conservation organization, they work in a hundred countries and are supported
by 1.2 million members in the United States, and close to 5 million globally.
Their unique way of working combines global reach with a foundation in science,
involving action at every level from local to global and ensures the delivery of innovative solutions
that meet the needs both people and nature. From forests, to oceans, to wildlife, to food, to fresh water, to climate.
There isn't anything they don't try to protect.
Take a look at their site or their YouTube channel and see all you can do to keep their cause strong.