With the new Hunger Games movie Catching Fire coming out this week, I thought it would be interesting to see what the official movie critics had to say about it. See, when I think of art, I picture a painting; I tend to be very narrow minded like that. But what I've come to realize is that art is in everything, even movies. Now, I am a big Hunger Games fan, so to think that movies nowadays are considered "art", is pretty exciting.
New York Daily News says, "The good news is it comes very close, and does it without sacrificing its soul. Despite its sense of been-here-slayed-that, director Francis Lawrence expertly delivers thrills, ideas and spectacle." As of now, there haven't been many negative reviews reported on Metacritic, but then again the movie is not open to the public right now. My point is that it hasn't even been released to the whole world yet, so how can we base our judgments off of a few paid movie critics. I would like to place emphasis on the word "paid." Are these opinions biased? Who's to say they aren't? So then how can we base opinions off of someone else when we don't know them personally. I have a hard time with sites like this, because of the fact that I don't know if I can trust these people. What makes them a reliable critic when they may have been obligated to say good or bad things?
This is especially key when it comes to deciding to see a movie. I personally don't like to follow what critics say, because I like to form my own opinions first. I believe that everyone is entitled to that privilege, with the exception that they don't shove it down other people's throats. I have noticed that when serious critics get heated, this becomes an issue. Many people get so passionate about their points that innocent listeners or readers can often be scared into believing the review is accurate. So in a way, we have to use the review as a form of advice, not just a complete opinion.