lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,785
Member is Online
|
Post by lidar2 on Dec 30, 2019 9:13:52 GMT
I see reviews as indicative only. Like others I have enjoyed things that were panned and disliked things that reviewers raved about. I tend to rely on reviews more if I am trying to choose a movie/boxset for my wife.
|
|
|
Post by tuigirl on Dec 30, 2019 9:27:09 GMT
Another example of bad early reviews was The Orville. First few episodes, it had bad professional ratings on Metacritic, however audience seemed to like it. Well, I heard about the series and just knew I would enjoy it. And I still love it. And now even professional reviewers agree that it really has started to stand on its own feet and they do some great sci-fi. In this case, I did not listen to the reviews and was cited to check it out anyways. Very different to Discovery, where the reviews and friends opinions have turned me away completely and I still have not seen a single episode.
|
|
|
Post by polly on Dec 30, 2019 20:47:37 GMT
Firstly, to answer the actual question, yes, I do think it has value to break from critical orthodoxy and forge your own path. You might find an overlooked (or flawed) gem. Or something so bad it's hilarious. Or a future classic yet to be vindicated by the masses. It's especially important if you yourself plan to critique entertainment because you need to know what a true 1/10 actually looks like versus something that's just a subpar 4/10. There's a whole world of media out there below 80% on Metacritic, so be brave and explore!
I find critics are kind of like insects - not particularly smart and aren't to be trusted. There are certain genres the critical establishment seems to have an aversion to, such as horror. Unless it's a horror-themed publication, expect no mercy. Furthermore, critics working for larger outlets often depend on good relations with the movie studios to retain the level of access they come to enjoy. I don't think actual bribes or orders are commonplace, but it is a certain kind of pressure I do not trust. Your mileage may vary with this, I am distrustful of large institutions by nature.
Rotten Tomatoes I also dislike, but for another reason entirely - their binary good/bad system. That is a terrible way to quantify opinions. "Best thing I've ever seen" and "I liked it well enough" are lumped together as positive. "Utter garbage" and "Below average" are lumped together as negative. Those are not the same things. And there's a whole spectrum in between. I would much prefer an aggregate with an expanded 5, 10, or even percentage based scale, with ratings from real people, if I must use one.
Personally, I choose films (and shows, and games, and...) based on knowing my own tastes and what looks interesting, as well as word of mouth from friends. I do check out certain YouTube or online reviews after I've watched, just to see what other people thought, but not beforehand. Once I know I'm interested, I avoid all other reviews and promotion like the plague.
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Jan 1, 2020 14:39:07 GMT
Hello again.
I think reviews are interesting to hear someone's view about a piece of work. I prefer those reviews that are constructive and explain why that person thinks the work is flawed or excellent.
However, I often find that I like films/tv/music that critics don't and find the love of critical darlings leaves me mystified.
One of my favourite genres is the sitcom or comedy drama. I have been mystified by the critical acclaim for several recent sitcoms. I can appreciate the writing and the performances but they just don't appeal to me.
Having said that, it is all purely subjective and any piece of culture needs to be looked at as, whether or not you get something out of it. Sometimes, lots of people agree, sometimes you're the only one who enjoyed Delta and the Bannermen.
I do find reviews point me to shows I wouldn't have spotted otherwise. I only found out about The Good Place when E4 started promoting their broadcasts of the show. I didn't even realise it was on Netflix!
|
|
|
Post by mrperson on Jan 3, 2020 0:10:41 GMT
I tend to go with the recommendations of friends with good taste more than anything else.
I'm pretty picky when it comes to movies. Lots of explosions and/or hot actresses is not a reason for me to go. Scratch that, I haven't been to a movie theater for any reason since college and have no intention. I much prefer watching a movie in my living room. I don't mind the wait.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 7:33:46 GMT
From the perspective of a writer... *vigorously nods* Not all of it, mind, but sometimes it's a good idea to drop in on a programme or film and see if the assessment is true. If it is, good opportunity to see what did/didn't work. To take a random example: the majority of Space: 1999's second season... didn't quite work, in my opinion. My highly relativistic opinion. They traded Gothic/cosmic horror and existentialism for a Trek-alike. However, there's a lot of good buried under the layer of kitsch. The shapeshifter, Maya, was a strong addition to the team, the pacing of the episodes had improved greatly and there was a genuine sense of community and warmth among the Alphans that the previous season hadn't quite cultivated. It sadly hits the poorer edge of the scales, but there's the essence of something wonderful there that's worth viewing. Ideas that can be cultivated and go on to inform others elsewhere. Sound and solid criticism should acknowledge that opinion is relative, I believe. What appeals to one person, may not necessarily appeal to another, but a good "bad review" should tell you what works (or nearly works) about something as well as the bad. That nice paradox of constructive deconstruction. There's also a time factor involved. The Orville, as mentioned by tuigirl, is one superb example. A show that started well, doing what I can only describe as retrowave sci-fi, before hitting a two-parter that I think rivals "The Best of Both Worlds" (from The Next Generation) for stakes. I surprised myself at just how invested I was in this crew. It had happened almost invisibly. My view is let the critique inform, but not influence your viewing, if that makes any sense. Media is much more enjoyable when you can get into that headspace of: "Yeah, I can see the faults, but the virtues have me hooked." I really enjoy that.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Jan 3, 2020 13:28:38 GMT
From the perspective of a writer... *vigorously nods* Not all of it, mind, but sometimes it's a good idea to drop in on a programme or film and see if the assessment is true. If it is, good opportunity to see what did/didn't work. To take a random example: the majority of Space: 1999's second season... didn't quite work, in my opinion. My highly relativistic opinion. They traded Gothic/cosmic horror and existentialism for a Trek-alike. However, there's a lot of good buried under the layer of kitsch. The shapeshifter, Maya, was a strong addition to the team, the pacing of the episodes had improved greatly and there was a genuine sense of community and warmth among the Alphans that the previous season hadn't quite cultivated. It sadly hits the poorer edge of the scales, but there's the essence of something wonderful there that's worth viewing. Ideas that can be cultivated and go on to inform others elsewhere. Sound and solid criticism should acknowledge that opinion is relative, I believe. What appeals to one person, may not necessarily appeal to another, but a good "bad review" should tell you what works (or nearly works) about something as well as the bad. That nice paradox of constructive deconstruction. There's also a time factor involved. The Orville, as mentioned by tuigirl , is one superb example. A show that started well, doing what I can only describe as retrowave sci-fi, before hitting a two-parter that I think rivals "The Best of Both Worlds" (from The Next Generation) for stakes. I surprised myself at just how invested I was in this crew. It had happened almost invisibly. My view is let the critique inform, but not influence your viewing, if that makes any sense. Media is much more enjoyable when you can get into that headspace of: "Yeah, I can see the faults, but the virtues have me hooked." I really enjoy that. And things like that make me think of Andromeda and Sliders. Shows that sadly went in the opposite direction. Started off strong and then because of changes behind the scenes kind of went down hill, but still had great moments in those bad years. Speaking of SPACE:1999 Season 2, i'd love t see what BF could do with some of those stories
|
|
|
Post by Hieronymus on Jan 3, 2020 23:46:58 GMT
It can depend on the reviewer and the skill with which they write.
Sometimes, the late Roger Ebert would give a movie a bad review (thumbs down), but would explain his reasoning well, and elucidate the movie (without spoiling it) such that I could often tell whether it was a movie that I would like, despite the fact the he didn't. A really good reviewer does more than simply express their own feelings, but clearly defines the reasons and limitations of their own review, while also touching on the core of the movie itself, independent of whether or not they liked it. There are very few movie reviewers out there who are that skilled, as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jan 4, 2020 1:01:12 GMT
Furthermore, critics working for larger outlets often depend on good relations with the movie studios to retain the level of access they come to enjoy. I don't think actual bribes or orders are commonplace, but it is a certain kind of pressure I do not trust. Your mileage may vary with this, I am distrustful of large institutions by nature. I see this around online discussion and I don't buy it - it's carried over from games journalism, which does not work like movie journalism. Screenings don't work like review game copies - a studio or production company cannot force critics to give them positive reviews in return for access. If they did, well, how do Transformers or Cars 2 or Twilight or other panned blockbusters work out? I also briefly worked as a critic for a website, and got invited to some screeners for critical duds like Purge Election Year and Cure for Wellness - didn't make us exchange positive reviews for access.
|
|
|
Post by notawerewolf99 on Jan 4, 2020 19:47:50 GMT
I always go in cold, I prefer my own take. That being said, I'm a big fan of 'So bad, it's good'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2020 20:06:47 GMT
Some of my favourite films have received bad reviews. Best to go in blind, I say.
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Jan 5, 2020 9:58:38 GMT
Never listen to reviews, despite it's awful reviews i quite enjoyed Gemini Man.
|
|