I started my own magazine with drawings, commentary, news, film reviews and drawings.
There's a really geeky YouTube channel which I love. It's a guy called Oliver Harper. He makes documentaries about films. He's a real movie buff - there's loads of trivia and detail.
When I worked with Bill Nighy on 'Wrath of the Titans,' he said to me, 'There's one thing you can promise me, and that's never, ever, ever read your reviews.'
Critical opinion on my films has always been salvaged by what I would call subsequent critical opinion.
I'm so excited about 'Identity Thief'. It's such a good comedy, and I'm excited for people to go out and see it!
I'm a film buff and I was keen to find out about the response to Daniel Craig's 007. 'Empire' and 'Hot Dog' had great reviews, and finally he's been accepted as the new Bond. So many millions go into that franchise that if you make a mistake, it's awful.
Somebody's upset with every movie.
I haven't read a review of one of my films for the best part of 10 years.
Once, I went to the premiere of a film, and the producer asked me if I liked it. I said it's crap. But I don't say that anymore. Now I say I have to think about it. If you ever hear me say that, you know the answer!
I'm told we movie critics praise movies that are long and boring.
I love magazines and film critics, so I eat it up. I'm not one of those people who says 'I never read anything.' I generally read all of it.
Anytime I make a movie, I really have absolutely no idea how it's going to go over. I've had the whole range of different kinds of reactions.
A lot of times, mainstream critics are much tougher on small, independent movies because they can be.
With feature films, it's a one-time judgment once your film is premiered. Reviews, box office, and then you move on to the next project. With TV, you are being rated and judged weekly for an eight-month stretch.
I have not given much credence to reviews of my films. Sometimes they're wrong, but it didn't matter to me.
My rule of thumb is, what Siskel and Ebert like, I don't, and vice versa.
They're called 'angels' because they're in heaven until the reviews come out.
I have learned from my experiences in this industry that there is absolutely no way to control people's opinions on your performance in your movie. You go out there, promote your film and hope people like the work you did.
That's the thing with independent cinema: They all get good reviews, and they don't make money. Some of them are good. Some are great. And some are terrible.
I'm one of those directors who read reviews, even if they're bad, because I started as a film critic as a cinema student. I indulge in the art of criticism in general.
I learned a lot about critics, not to really take them too seriously about movies.
With the advent of this kind of TMZ culture, it sadly seems to have infiltrated the vanguard of film commentary. I see these reviews sometimes where I think, well, you have a right to say whatever you want about my work, and I will listen whether it's good or bad and see if there's something that I might work with, but personal issues don't have a place in film commentary.
As a producer, the most important call you can get is on Saturday morning, when the Friday-night grosses come in. As a director, you want your film to be successful. But your outlook is a bit different. You become very conscious of the reviews.
The critics mostly review the budgets when they go to see a big-budget movie. They are out to get a big-budget movie. On the other hand, if they review a picture that is done as a graduate thesis by some college film student for $25,000, it is almost sure to be admired and respected.
Really bad reviews can hurt pretty much any movie. They say that some films are review-proof, but I think that's probably big high-concept movies, comedies, and so on. But, on the whole, if a film gets dreadful reviews, it will affect its business.
