Simply put, he says the movie isn't very good. He doesn't describe himself much, but says most the problems lie with the director (who did Seven Years in Tibet as well as many others)... Looking so foward to this film, I am pissed... Then, I just HAVE to read this comment...

"Apart from a lazy, uninspired score by James Horner, tech credits are genuinely impressive."

F*%K!!! There goes my day (and perhaps week) =(

And what the heck is a "Professional Film Critic"?

Still, while I do listen to critics, and take into account what they say (they know stuff, people...don't write them off so quickly), I don't place the majority on a high enough pedestal to persuade me to see a film I don't want to see, or dissuade me from seeing one I have the desire to.

Simply put, personal preference plays a large part in film watching. Many films can be techinically well made, but don't appeal to a particular critic because of subject matter or taste. Thus, a low grade. Contrastly, another person might find it technically well made and incredibly interesting, thus a high grade.

Not to slight anyone, but I personally don't know of any film music reviewers who have studied music extensively.
But they appreciate the hell out of it, and I think that also counts for a lot.

Of course, everything about art forms is highly subjective anyway.

After awhile, as movie often do, critics all start to sound the same, they fall into their own cliches. I do not doubt their knowledge for the field, but after awhile you know they will hate films like Armageddon, Independence Day, and practically every other film that the movie masses flock to, while they will always loft onto pedestals films no one has ever heard of. I would like to hear more critics say, "You know the movie breaks no new ground, is ridden with cliches and plotholes...but its still fun none-the-less."

As Captain Howdy pointed out above, they have seen many movies and are able to view a movie with a certain amount of objectivity. Further, they can articulate why they liked or disliked a film other than saying: “It just wasn’t my thing.” They are viewing as a piece of art. They ask questions like:

Does it break new ground?

Does the director pioneer some new technique?

Is this a new take on an old tale, or is it cliché ridden?

Is the story cohesive?

Does it have an “idiot” plot? (In other words, if the characters on the screen were as smart as the audience would they resolve the conflict in about 15 minutes.)

Did the actors distinguish themselves or did they just cop a pay check?

Is there any meaning here other than enriching a studio?

Is the film cynically manipulative? (ala Armageddon)

Was I surprised? (I can really understand this one. I have seen literally a couple of thousand flicks and a film with the capacity to make me say “Whoa. Didn’t see that coming” is extremely rare.)

Did the director accomplish his goals?

I use critics to help me decide when I am unsure about a picture. If it is on the bubble, a good or bad review can be very helpful.

I think one of the reasons that critics get so much disdain is that everyone who sees a film thinks they have the capacity to do the seem job. I would submit that you are mistaken about what is involved in the process. Critics generally see 6-7 hundred movies a year and they see some pretty awful stuff. They also see the same plot made over and over again. After a while, they don’t see any reason to give the latest “lone wronged man against the system” or the latest “relentless creepy killer stalks teens out for a good time” a good review unless it transcends its material in some way.

Just because you disagree with a critic’s conclusion, doesn’t mean that it is wrong. Critic’s lambasted Deep Rising. They were absolutely right. From a critical stand point it is a train wreck. I still like it, but it is deeply flawed as a film. Same story with The Mummy.

Don't worry Jason.

--Brian
Writer & Film/Video Editor

Once in forty years we in Berlin have the chance to see something before you...

...so we did yesterday. But we didn´t forget you boys. Check this out:
http://www.geocities.com/tomsami/_enemyatthegates.htm

Meantime, the music itself: So so. yeah, yeah, the theme is reused. Unfortunately, the stunning beauty and breathtaking awe of the theme in the track "Heritage Of The Wolf" from Balto are gone here. (In fact, never have I heard a more emotional Horner piece than that. It is as good as he can get, so good that you don't even care that the theme is reused.)
So, the theme in Enemy At The Gates is just a (much) less interesting rehash.
Even the russian choral isn't very interesting.
Well, I'll reserve judgement until I hear the whole score in the film, but IMO, if Horner can't write the theme as well as he did in "Heritage Of The Wolf," he shouldn't use it.

Direct out of Willow, what the **** is he doing?

I compose my own music, but I don't use the same music over and over again...

--Brian
Writer & Film/Video Editor

NP: Enemy at the Gates Clips

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crono/Kyp:
Well, I like it! It really reminds me of "List" though.

---

Lord, I'm listening to the other two tracks now... Something has seriously got to be wrong with Mr. Horner. There is simply NO WAY you use that f*cking cue from Willow in SO MANY GOD FORSAKEN SCORES!!! I just have to wonder if he can even create an original note anymore! It's enjoyable, yes... But equally pathetic.

If 90% of critics agree a movie is bad, then I go see it.
But if 90% agree a movie is great, then I just miss it.

Yet ANOTHER very bad review... I think it's fairly safe to assume this film may bomb. You just don't get this many purely negative reviews in a row before release.