when/do you read movie reviews?

→ in
Tools    





I read movie reviews in The New York Times & The New Yorker. If either of them says a film is dreadful, I will not watch that film.
It's cool that you do that, but can I ask why? Is it that you trust those newspapers opinions carte blanche? Or trust the individual reviewers opinions by their reputation?



Crumbsroom has a really good point...yet i totally prefer to refrain from calling folks idiots as it only gives me this very short sense of satifaction. Plus, mirrors exist.



At worst, film reviewers make money off recycled hot air. Or, at best

I'd be more hesitant to call individual critics idiots. But as for the culture of movie criticism, I'm pretty okay with insulting it as harshly as I can. I'll stare it right in the eyes and say foul things to it.


Ultimately, I know most people don't care, but I think critics are desperately important to help push how we talk about the arts. I imagine if a different profession was this uniformly lame, people would be more understanding of my harsh words. For example, if the world was filled with an overwhelming surplus of unqualified professional plumbers, and we were all slowly drowning in toilet overflow due to their incompetence, I imagine there would be a lot of open hostility towards plumbers. I think of the situation with critics similarly. Except the damage they do is less visible.


Oh, and Rex Reed is definitely an idiot. I make an exception for name calling with that turd. He's like the patron saint of all modern movie criticism and I loathe him right down to his dna.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Oh, and Rex Reed is definitely an idiot. I make an exception for name calling with that turd. He's like the patron saint of all modern movie criticism and I loathe him right down to his dna.
But he's such a great actor.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I fell out of the habit of reading reviews for new releases, in large part because I largely lost interest in new releases over the last year and a half. To the extent that I still do, I gravitate towards a handful of critics whose tastes I have a good gauge of and do a pretty good job articulating a movie's qualities. I never had much use for looking at reviews on the aggregate as my relationship to the critic is a big part of what I take away from their reviews. It also helps a great deal if they happen to be a good writer. I go back to Ebert pretty consistently, not because I expect any new insights, but because I really enjoy his prose. I think Crumbsroom is a bit harsh, but I don't think the majority of the internet criticism I've seen is anywhere near as enjoyable to read.



A large part of my recommendations come from Letterboxd or posting on forums, where I've seen enough of a user's opinions to be able to get a sense of their tastes and pull from their opinions accordingly. I also follow a handful of podcasts, but again, my sense of the podcasters' sensibilities and how they articulate their opinions is more important than whether or not they like something.



I fell out of the habit of reading reviews for new releases, in large part because I largely lost interest in new releases over the last year and a half. To the extent that I still do, I gravitate towards a handful of critics whose tastes I have a good gauge of and do a pretty good job articulating a movie's qualities. I never had much use for looking at reviews on the aggregate as my relationship to the critic is a big part of what I take away from their reviews. It also helps a great deal if they happen to be a good writer. I go back to Ebert pretty consistently, not because I expect any new insights, but because I really enjoy his prose. I think Crumbsroom is a bit harsh, but I don't think the majority of the internet criticism I've seen is anywhere near as enjoyable to read.



A large part of my recommendations come from Letterboxd or posting on forums, where I've seen enough of a user's opinions to be able to get a sense of their tastes and pull from their opinions accordingly. I also follow a handful of podcasts, but again, my sense of the podcasters' sensibilities and how they articulate their opinions is more important than whether or not they like something.

Over the last year and a half, what did a new release even mean?
Granted, even before that, since all the movies I usually cared about were generally considered independent or foreign language, they didn't have a uniform release date, so they'd often hit my city months to a year after they went through the festival circuit or hit other major cities.


Otherwise, it sounds like I'm in a similar boat as you for the critics. Even for the simple aspect of, "should I watch this," it seems weird not heavily weighting critics whose opinions you have a sense of. Otherwise it becomes a little like getting recommendations from strangers who have no idea what you like. (Except maybe in reverse?)


Though in terms of online reviews, I mostly use letterboxd as a personal journal to keep track of what I've seen. I'll scribble down some thoughts, but mostly too curt for another human being to really get a sense of anything about the movie. Sometimes strangers like these reviews. Apart from the ones that seem like bots, I can't help but wonder if the like was really just either they liked they fact that I watched a movie or they're trying to flatter other people into following them. (The latter seems mystifying to me since I'm not using the platform as a social network).


I think I must just mentally block out other online reviews enough that I don't really know exactly the source of Crumbs' ire. Granted, I've also long resigned myself that culturally overall, I do not fit into this world.



Though in terms of online reviews, I mostly use letterboxd as a personal journal to keep track of what I've seen. I'll scribble down some thoughts, but mostly too curt for another human being to really get a sense of anything about the movie. Sometimes strangers like these reviews. Apart from the ones that seem like bots, I can't help but wonder if the like was really just either they liked they fact that I watched a movie or they're trying to flatter other people into following them. (The latter seems mystifying to me since I'm not using the platform as a social network).
I only really started using Letterboxd as more than a log last year, even though I'd been chipping away on my blog in the recesses of the internet for a few years before then. (My Letterboxd reviews alternate between off-the-cuff reactions and write-ups I put actual effort into, which are the ones I also post on my blog and started putting on here.) I can't speak for others, but I usually click like if a) I like what they've written or b) their review has helped put a film on my radar. It does help that I have a pretty good network in that respect, in that a lot of the people I follow put effort into their reviews (and sometimes even comment on each others'), but it did take me a while to get a good one - when I first started, a lot of the users I followed I eventually unfollowed because of their overly precious, insight-deficient hot takes. I do see some people adding followers en masse, but what they're getting out of that baffles me (I say this without denying I do get a small amount of glee when somebody hits like on my reviews).



The trick is not minding
I don’t read reviews. Once upon a time, back in the late 90’s early aughts, I did. But I quickly grew disenchanted with them. I don’t read many reviews here either. Mostly to avoid possible spoilers. Sometimes…..for other reasons.



I don't really know exactly the source of Crumbs' ire.

WHY THE IRE, CRUMB?

1) Evidence of cultural death

2) Mischaracterizes art as something that is supposed to come to the audience and sniff their butt. Seems to be unaware the audience has legs, can approach art themselves. And (hopefully) be bitten.

3) I'd like to believe art is a generator of thoughts, emotions and ideas. But according to the current critical group think that is movie reviews, nope.

4) Movie reviews should be instructional. In an ideal world, they offer us unique ways to look at film. Nudge us towards different criteria of what is worthy or beautiful. Or they can point us towards how we can keep stuffing our face with more of the same.

5) Where is the joy? If most modern movie critics take more then ten minutes to scribble out their lukewarm takes, I'll eat my shoe. Just like Werner Herzog. Then these same critics who put me in such a predicament can rave over the fierce originality of my film 'crumbsroom eats his shoe'.

6)There are clearly better people for the job. Every time I read some underthought, boiler plate criticisms, I think of how they are keeping other more talented people from making a meagre, hand to mouth living. Probably half of the people currently reading my stupid list would be more worthy. Unless my writing, as I sometimes suspect, causes brain tumours and I have instead just doomed you all.



The only positive of all of this mediocrity in film criticism is how it has allowed a giant chasm to open up, and that possibly, one day, someone will be clever enough to fill it with something at least somewhat better. I often fantasize about doing such a thing, assemble a rag tag team of Dirtiest Dozen that have ever Dozened, but then I realize that means I would have to socialize with humans, and I'm pretty sure I only want to hire cats. And I don't have nearly enough tuna.


#catconundrum



A system of cells interlinked
If the world was filled with an overwhelming surplus of unqualified professional plumbers, and we were all slowly drowning in toilet overflow due to their incompetence, I imagine there would be a lot of open hostility towards plumbers. I think of the situation with critics similarly. Except the damage they do is less visible.
Possible sig. Totally agree.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



CringeFest's Avatar
Duplicate Account (locked)
WHY THE IRE, CRUMB?

1) Evidence of cultural death

2) Mischaracterizes art as something that is supposed to come to the audience and sniff their butt. Seems to be unaware the audience has legs, can approach art themselves. And (hopefully) be bitten.

3) I'd like to believe art is a generator of thoughts, emotions and ideas. But according to the current critical group think that is movie reviews, nope.

4) Movie reviews should be instructional. In an ideal world, they offer us unique ways to look at film. Nudge us towards different criteria of what is worthy or beautiful. Or they can point us towards how we can keep stuffing our face with more of the same.

5) Where is the joy? If most modern movie critics take more then ten minutes to scribble out their lukewarm takes, I'll eat my shoe. Just like Werner Herzog. Then these same critics who put me in such a predicament can rave over the fierce originality of my film 'crumbsroom eats his shoe'.

6)There are clearly better people for the job. Every time I read some underthought, boiler plate criticisms, I think of how they are keeping other more talented people from making a meagre, hand to mouth living. Probably half of the people currently reading my stupid list would be more worthy. Unless my writing, as I sometimes suspect, causes brain tumours and I have instead just doomed you all.



The only positive of all of this mediocrity in film criticism is how it has allowed a giant chasm to open up, and that possibly, one day, someone will be clever enough to fill it with something at least somewhat better. I often fantasize about doing such a thing, assemble a rag tag team of Dirtiest Dozen that have ever Dozened, but then I realize that means I would have to socialize with humans, and I'm pretty sure I only want to hire cats. And I don't have nearly enough tuna.


#catconundrum

I really relate to number 2 on the list, with both books and movies, the ones that make the most money tend to be ones that dont encourage their audience to question their assumptions or dont present new ideas. Hero movies will always be a thing (theyre not my favorite but sometimes theyre good as wel), and self help books are mormally garbage. Having read and written books, i can tell the way you get rich is you tell them what they want to hear.


You have much more developed ideas of "good art" than i do, which is a fairly positive thing, even if it comes off as arrogant or snobby. But yeah, there is a huge problem in todays world of people getting rich off lf mediocre products. A lot of it has to do with automation, which makes people stupider and less realistic. I find that when i use the internet a lot i just become both stupider and a troll.



You have much more developed ideas of "good art" than i do, which is a fairly positive thing, even if it comes off as arrogant or snobby.

Being that I am a bonafide mental reject, you have no idea the kind of talent it takes to keep up the appearances of arrogance and snobbery.



I'll keep putting up the brave fight though. It is worth the effort.



CringeFest's Avatar
Duplicate Account (locked)
Being that I am a bonafide mental reject, you have no idea the kind of talent it takes to keep up the appearances of arrogance and snobbery.



I'll keep putting up the brave fight though. It is worth the effort.

maybe i do, the whole reason i'm here is because i'm a somewhat hateful anarchist who almost can't stand talking about politics with people on the internet.