I guess. Personally, I think a critic should try to be honest in explaining why a film affected them the way in which it did. Admittedly, I’d be slightly suspicious of a critic who always had a target audience in mind for their reviews, even though that type of critic is certainly prevalent now, most insufferably in…

I’m sure most critics are going to see the film in the most convenient or expedient way for them. I’m just saying that it clearly makes a difference for most people. If that’s not your experience, then it’s not yours.

Yes, I honestly do think that viewing films--some more than others--in a communal setting would make a critical difference. Even in your example, it would seem to make a critical difference, albeit in the negative direction.

Fair enough, but there are advance screenings for audiences. Like the one I saw it with last weekend.

B-

Not sure how having time to comment in the middle of a workday is “well enough” but maybe I’m just not doing well enough to understand.

*Private equity.

Critics need to start watching comedies with an actual audience. Way too easy to sit in a screening room with five other underemployed people trying to make their liberal arts degrees matter by writing “yes, not enough class politics in this R-rated sex comedy. Thumbs down.”

I guess we have some commenters left over from pre-exodus Deadspin. Which sexual assault video that A.J. Daulerio put up was your favorite?

How did you get wealthy? Do you get paid per comment here?

Joe Rogan, for better or worse, had a track record of giant success in this field, that he brought to Spotify. Harry and Meghan got a lot of money based on no track record, and got nothing in return.

More or less the age of his wife when he met her.

Didn’t she claim to get raped?

Fair enough.

“lack of inclusion”

If you make your username a play on the name of one of this site’s writers, shouldn’ you be better than said writer?

A lot of people in this thread seem to agree with you. Can’t help but wonder where they were when the special was actually out, because forums like this were pretty uniform in their praise for it.

Not always. And it doesn’t have to be. He’s referring to the attitude of certain people to treat criticism as a checklist rather than any real analysis. Was the person who created this a bad person? Was the person who created this the right identity? Did the person who created this have the correct politics? And so on.

This is why Jack Nicholson is my favorite of the 70s class of leading men (him, De Niro, Pacino, Hoffman, etc.). To the end I never felt like he was phoning it in. No one would say that The Bucket List is a masterpiece, but he gives a genuinely committed, nuanced performance.

You’re not the only one. The headline on the tab: