On film reviews

[CyBeR]

I was reading this article on the newly released Cloud Atlas production...and couldn't help but think that this man writes so bombastically, with such grand statements and such a vile hate for the film...that I simply cannot take him seriously.
On the opposite spectrum of this, there was this video review, with very high praise, and again a very bombastic and enthusiastic praise for the film.

And... it got me thinking of why I'm even bothering anymore. Whoever reviews films usually is either pretentious or too enthusiastic, attacking or loving details that sometimes, as a normal viewer, you wouldn't even notice. In recent years I've even stopped looking at imdb ratings for films, and the Metacritic score is usually something for me to go, see, and shrug off as I've already made up my mind about seeing one film or another from the material that came before the release.

I guess what's happening is that I'm tired of "professional opinions" on films, games, books or anything else. At least with games it's pretty easy to find a good review, as the mechanics of a game are pretty clean cut to analyze. But films? Impossible.
Every time I read critic reviews or watch critic - and armchair critic - reviews I can't help but wonder why do they even bother. Everyone cares for so many little tidbits and so many random little details, that when I read some critic proclaiming high and mighty how some actor's performance was the worst of his entire film career, I just laugh. Like the critics attacking Christian Bale's performance in Rescue Dawn for being too withdrawn and lacking intensity...all the while the actor was trying to respect the personality of the man his character was based upon.

I'm getting long winded so I'll cut to the point.
Who else is just tired of "informed opinions"? And who here has stopped giving a hoot about critic reviews completely?

 

[Toby Frost]

I think a lot of the problem comes from the need for amateur and not-well-known professionals to have a distinct voice - ie a gimmick. The easiest gimmick is to be really angry (and, if you've ever seen a Michael Bay film, you'll know that's not too hard). As has been said about a certain blog which I'm not going to mention, it's much easier to get publicity by carrying on like a screaming neurotic instead of a proper reviewer.

Except maybe not. To be good at being angry and dismissive takes skill, and even then it's a "special effect". Mark Kermode gets angry because he is genuinely making a point, likewise those rare occasions when Ebert really goes on the attack. But they are pretty good critics, since they give reasons and do actually care about what they're watching.

As regards pretention, there are some films that require analysis that seems pretentious - I'd defy anyone to review a foreign film like, say, Holy Motors without sounding pretentious, because it doesn't immediately make sense, but could do (it doesn't help that a lot of arty films are pretentious, even the good ones). Also, I see details in films I love - Alien or Raiders of the Lost Ark - but only because I've seen them more than once. (If you want to know about the symbolism of horses in Heavenly Creatures, I'm your man). That doesn't mean that I disagree with you on this, though.

There are some critics out there doing a good and reliable job - as critics first and entertainers second - but they can be hard to find. A friend of mine works for the Telegraph and his reviews are pretty sane, even when I don't agree with him. I suspect it's often a matter of finding ones who seem to be talking sensibly, and not sensationally, and remembering who they are.

 

[Foxbat]

Ultimately, they are only opinions and it's important to keep that in mind. There are some very good reviewers out there but, also, there are those that are out to make a name for themselves and, often, their reviews reflect this.

My personal opinion of a movie is often clouded by the particular mood I'm in at the time and, sometimes, it takes more than one viewing to really give a film a chance. Conversly I often find that the very fact that I'm prepared to sit down and watch a movie more than once says more about it than words. Bums on seats as they say...

 

[Oct125]

I take most film reviews with a grain of salt. However, I still like to read them to get some idea of what the film is about. This is especially true of older, more obscure films.

 

[J-Sun]

Another aspect is the jaded palate. The average reviewer is abnormal compared to the average viewer. Many see everything and it all starts to blur together and distinctions are lost and so everything seems trite to them and all they have to focus on are the minute details and they favor novelty over most anything else. The average viewer sees a few films and they're each distinct events, the novelty is easier to find and so not so highly sought after, etc., etc.

This is one way in which amateur reviews are more useful - sure, many try to act like "professional critics" and so seem sort of pretentious themselves, but the point is that it's filmgoers (or book readers or whatever) reviewing for fellow filmgoers. Why so many people think they're entitled to earn a living watching movies, I don't know. It's a peculiar occupation.

On the flipside, some reviewers aren't entitled to earn such a living but do earn their pay by bringing unique insights or deep familiarity for films while still keeping their enthusiasm and remaining in touch with the "normal" filmgoer. Just keep an eye out for those that strike you that way (or whatever's useful to you) and ignore (or minimize the effects of) the rest.

I agree with Oct125, though - probably the most useful aspect is the general description rather than the studio blurb or single adjective pulled from the review.

 

[MontyCircus]

I use www.RottenTomatoes.com before I see any movie at the theatre, or watch one on tv. Critic reviews are all you have to go on when a movie comes out, well that and the trailers...and I for one would rather trust critics. For older movies the audience review score on RottenTomatoes is also useful. Sometimes the rating is wildly different between critics and regular folk which is insightful as well.

I try to watch as many of the Oscar-nominated films as I can, even though I tend not to like a fair amount of them. I also watch all of the highly-rated blockbusters. I figure if I'm going to spend a couple of hours on something, it might as well be the best damn movie I can find. I tend to meticulously research movies (and books for that matter) before I make a commitment. I set a high bar for them and I'm a pretty tough critic, to my own detriment I think, but it doesn't seem to be something I can control.