On movie critics & reviews

[Donatella]

I finally watched the Roger Ebert doc LIFE ITSELF. It gets real and pulls no punches covering his tumultuous relationship with Gene Siskel, his alcohlism, and his final days of his life dealing with his debilitating cancer. It also showcases all the many joys of his life and everyone from critics to top directors talk about their realtionships with Ebert. I can't recommend this doc enough.

That sounds interesting! I adored him. Even when I disagreed with his reviews, I loved how much he just ADORED cinema and I had such respect for the balls he had sometimes. Finding out he co-wrote one of my favorite Russ Meyer movies didn't hurt either. I miss that dude. I will definitely have to check out this doc.

 

I've seen sum doc on Film Critics, in general. I've always wondered if he was a critic who's reviews could be bought. I think my impression was, yes. Now I wanna know if any famous film critics have been busted sucking ass.

What would you consider "sucking ass?" It would be easy (but probably unfair) for me to say that about people I regularly disagree with. There are some stuffy joyless critics who can't seem to find the fun or humor in anything anymore. Or the ones who just seem burnt out. But yeah, I'm curious what people think would constitute a shitty critic.

[The NZA]

donny & hakus: pardon the split, i just thought we were starting to bleed over into a larger conversation that i don't know that we have a thread for quite yet, and this felt like a fine starting point!

 

donny & i were recently talking about how aggregate review score sites work (rottentomates, metacritic etc) and how exactly one gauges a review without a letter/# to indicate overall score, thought it'd be cool to have a place for that as well. carry on!

[Iambaytor]

But yeah, I'm curious what people think would constitute a shitty critic.

 

[Dag]

I mostly read reviews through AV Club these days. Lissette and I settle on a TV show and watch for about an hour every night. This makes it so that we are really picky about what we watch.

 

I used to watch a lot of movies before I got married. I watched a lot less once I got married, but now I watch maybe 3 adult movies a year and a fair number of children's films.

 

I really loved Roger Ebert. I would read his reviews before seeing films. I occasionally will read a NY Times review, but it's not the same.

[Mr. Hakujin]

donny & hakus: pardon the split, i just thought we were starting to bleed over into a larger conversation that i don't know that we have a thread for quite yet, and this felt like a fine starting point!...

People be split crazy up in herr this week.

 

There was a thread Byator and I went back and forth in quite a bit back in my early days on Hondo's. I think it might've been a thread devoted solely to Roger Ebert...

 

*searches*

Found one Nza started called Movie Critics

[The NZA]

ah, good find! you guys think it's related enough to merge these 2 threads, or nah?

[Mr. Hakujin]

I almost merged 'em myself, but I figured I'd let you do the honors since you technically started both threads and maybe there was a difference I wasn't seeing.

[Little Nemo McFly]

What would you consider "sucking ass?"

 

LOL - like, kissing ass. Kissing a movie's ass. A bought review.

 

I don't see critics, at all, in terms of 'good' or 'bad'. It's a person expressing personal opinion and personal taste...I guess, the only criteria I'd have for being 'good' - is being able to articulate. The only reason I read or listen to a critic's opinion, is perspective. I enjoy hearing people's different takes and interpretations. 'Art' (I quote art - 'cuz a lot of modern movies have questionable 'artistic' choices - LOL) is subjective. I haven't bumped into a critic who I agree w/ 100% of the time, nor do I expect to. (shrugs) We're all different.

 

I wanna watch that doc, LIFE ITSELF - 'cuz I've always found the 'review culture' fascinating. I've always questioned the level of exaltation people place a person's take on a film. I recently learned that Sony planting fake reviews was a known practice - I'm curious how deep that goes. Instead of 'Ebert gives it 3 1/2 stars!' - now people cite RT or whatever as proof of quality. They even slapped a 'Certified Fresh' sticker on the cover of my Civil War bluray! Won't be surprised if the Ghostbusters reboot gets a sticker...'cuz it's a good movie. RT sez so.

[Little Nemo McFly]

The business of fake reviews.

 

 

 

My point is, before the internet - people looked to a thumbs up or a thumbs down for that 'seal of approval'. Ads would be slapped w/...whatever number of stars or that thumbs up...big critic names...that could make or break a movie. (Unfortunately, I might add.)

 

Since the explosion of the internet, everyone is a critic now. I think that's cool - an outlet for passion is always healthy. Everyone has an opinion and everyone wants to be heard. On the same note, I think the status quo had been shook up. People (on both sides) make big business on 'revered opinions'. I've always been fascinated w/ how that 'seal of approval' (in whatever form) is so important. People need to be told whether 'it's good' or not...companies need that 'good score'.

 

In this era, numbers and opinion validity can evidently be very manipulated. RT and Metacritic or whatever, to me, is as questionable as polling Amazon reviews. It's ultimately business...big stakes at having numbers to quote.

 

 

GHOSTBUSTERS (2016)

 

5.5 imdb 73% RT 60% Metacritic

 

 

JURASSIC WORLD

 

7.0 imdb 72% RT 59% Metacritic

 

 

BvS

 

6.8 imdb 27% RT 44% Metacritic

 

 

PROMETHEUS

 

7.0 imdb 73% RT 65% Metacritic

 

 

 

The fact that Sony had been busted - tells me, even big companies are not above what's going on w/ fake reviews for other products. I've done research and have yet to find any 'big-deal' film critic being busted for 'doing a movie a favor' or 'sucking it's ass'. LOL - god, that sounds crude...after using that term like, 3 times already. LOL

[Donatella]

I appreciate your insight, Nemo! This is interesting stuff.

[Dag]

Nice analysis, Nemo. +1 good sir.

[Iambaytor]

The business of fake reviews.

 

 

 

My point is, before the internet - people looked to a thumbs up or a thumbs down for that 'seal of approval'. Ads would be slapped w/...whatever number of stars or that thumbs up...big critic names...that could make or break a movie. (Unfortunately, I might add.)

 

Since the explosion of the internet, everyone is a critic now. I think that's cool - an outlet for passion is always healthy. Everyone has an opinion and everyone wants to be heard. On the same note, I think the status quo had been shook up. People (on both sides) make big business on 'revered opinions'. I've always been fascinated w/ how that 'seal of approval' (in whatever form) is so important. People need to be told whether 'it's good' or not...companies need that 'good score'.

 

In this era, numbers and opinion validity can evidently be very manipulated. RT and Metacritic or whatever, to me, is as questionable as polling Amazon reviews. It's ultimately business...big stakes at having numbers to quote.

 

 

GHOSTBUSTERS (2016)

 

5.5 imdb 73% RT 60% Metacritic

 

 

JURASSIC WORLD

 

7.0 imdb 72% RT 59% Metacritic

 

 

BvS

 

6.8 imdb 27% RT 44% Metacritic

 

 

PROMETHEUS

 

7.0 imdb 73% RT 65% Metacritic

 

 

 

The fact that Sony had been busted - tells me, even big companies are not above what's going on w/ fake reviews for other products. I've done research and have yet to find any 'big-deal' film critic being busted for 'doing a movie a favor' or 'sucking it's ass'. LOL - god, that sounds crude...after using that term like, 3 times already. LOL

 

I don't view these things as ominous because I feel about Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, and Metacritic how Ron Swanson feels about government. Nothing delights me more than just watching the whole thing burn to cinders. I stopped checking those sites after getting burned for the fourth or fifth time. I don't do scores on reviews any longer unless it's editorially mandated, it's a reviewer's job to inform not to judge. I tell you what I liked about it, I tell you what I didn't like, if I hated the movie I'll still pay it a few compliments on what it did right, if I loved the movie I'll mention all the problems I saw regardless of my love. It's you, the reader's job to parse this information and make your own decision not to juts go "Ryan Covey gave it two stars, guess I don't need to think about that movie anymore!" I despise that ideology and the sort of crony reviewers (that's professional asshole Devin Faraci in that picture above, by the way, I could write a book on the loathing I have for that man) who don't present reviews so much as tell people what to watch. So I'm glad fake reviews are pissing in the well water, maybe people will go figure out a source for themselves.

[Da Cap'n 2099]

Now I know his name is Ryan Covey. Time to find him and wear his skin like a suit...

[Iambaytor]

I've already pre-fattened myself so you'll just need lotion and a well.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Iambaytor

[Da Cap'n 2099]

Would you fuck me? I'd fuck me.

 

 

I'm so sorry, everyone.

 

[Keth]

No you aren't

[The NZA]

i mean, on a different scale, obviously games fall into this too - last gen, when metacritic basically became for gaming what RT is for movies, there were clear consequences: when patterns for high-scoring games were noticed like tacked-on multiplayer, you saw that trend rise. a more direct example would be times developers literally saw their bonuses held hostage by review scores.

 

while i hate seeing a lot of this & absolutely get baytor's point (if i wrote thoughtful reviews like he did, i'd hate to hear most folks just scrolling down like "IS IT GOOD OR NOT BRUH") but the reason aggregate reviews sites exist is most people just want a ballpark at a glance...in gaming, i really think the publisher friendly 7-10 scale is way worse than anything, as is consumers abiding it & treating anything below said 7 as hot garbage. i really think it helps to lean in with your expectations relative to the genre.

 

for instance: a horror film above 40-50% is prolly not bad, since those tend to review low. a marvel film around that score is likely disappointing (but still watchable for me if i really dig the franchise), but a DC movie of any kind around there would clearly be a step up of some kind.

 

by nature, these things are gonna be gamed - but i don't see aggregate review sites going anywhere, so i wish we'd just kinda use them better.

[Iambaytor]

Aggregate reviews are worthless. The only way to use them is to look at the lowest scores and decide if the reviewers are just whining about nonsense.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Iambaytor

[The NZA]

hah! see that's useful though, when looking at a movie or a game i tend to look for patterns in the lowest scores - if it's a comic film, are they saying the plot is kinda dumb? that the effects could've been better, etc? because that i can endure, again if it's a franchise i think is cool. now, a horror film where all the green marks are saying they were never really scared, just bored? that shit might put it lower down in the queue.

[The NZA]

 

i think i found my favorite movie reviewer 

 

 

[The NZA]

 

just so good