Reviews and Ratings Discussion

Yeah, I need to do more of that. But the thing is, at the same time I do think there are objectively bad films, as I said above, there is something that just never works, be it because it’s a cliche or just because the human mind doesn’t find it believable, so I do feel it’s fine to point that out as if that were objectively true.

I mean, yes, it’s inductive reasoning, but there’s only so many ‘I think’s and ‘In my view’s that you can fit in a review, and I agree with you that they are unnecessary. I like reviews, always read them (though recently stopped doing so before I check a film out as it affects my perception if the reviews are bad), but I much prefer them to be neutral, and focussed on the technicalities and specifics, rather than Ebert-style personal disses. They remind me of Eminem, for God’s sake, and that’s not the reviewer’s job! They exist as gatekeepers of sorts and that’s how amateurs, or anyone who reads reviews, should treat them, I would argue. They explain what films are all about and, in this light, why this or that film does or doesn’t work. Sure, they can be controversial and you may disagree with them, but they do know better than everybody else in most cases, in my view, because that’s their job, and they should treat it as such and never parade their grudges or politics.

I am sure that Ebert was one of the most knowledgeable film experts of his time and I am no fan of Vincent Gallo (except Buffalo ‘66), but I’m equally sure Ebert knew full well that calling The Brown Bunny the worst film in the history of the Cannes would affect the entire Cannes’ perception of it.

If he had simply calmly said, ‘This, this and this fails to work because this is unconvincing and this is not grounded enough and this is grotesque’, the whole drama with hexing each other with cancer could have been avoided. I was thinking about that recently. One of the most bizarre and disturbing stories out there when it comes to film trivia.

I am always the first to admit nothing and no one is objective, but if you as a reviewer start giving in to trends and saying, ‘Well, I hate this film because it’s disrespectful to women’ (thinking of a specific case but can’t place it) then you’re not doing your job! In fact, a much worse and more extreme example of that is a) people who wrote reviews explaining why they wouldn’t go see Tenet as doing so would be against public health guidelines (I mean, you are implicitly negatively judging a piece of art you can’t even be arsed to see!) and b) critics who similarly said they wouldn’t go see Joker because it promotes violence and is misogynistic, And neither should you, because it must be a **** film if it promotes violence!

Imagine if lawyers began to routinely decline working with clients because, Oh, he’s corrupt, I don’t like that!

What this world really needs is for Beavis and Butthead to do for movies what they did for music videos. No long-winded dissertations on the various characters, plot devices, and possible directorial motives. Just a quick "What's this crap?" followed by a minute of laughing at how bad a movie is.

You mean like this?:

No, I don't want to sit through a whole movie. B&B don't subject us to the whole video, unless it kicks ass.



I know my post might seem a bit too dismissive of how to properly critique and rate a movie, but I know how movie nerds are because I know how music nerds are. Ask some musician who knows everything there is to know about music, and if you take their advice, you'll be stuck at a jazz concert listening to boring slow modern jazz, or maybe even a Frank Zappa cover band, with about a hundred bored people in attendance. Personally, I'd rather help my wife shop for a handbag.



I think the common guy knows what most people like, and that's what it takes to be a good movie critic.

I've reviewed over a 1000 movies here at MoFo...What you don't do is write a long, wordy synopsis of the movie. Nobody cares, as they've either seen the movie and don't need a blow by blow recounting of it...or they are going to see it and don't want to know what the entire story is.

I just focus on whatever strikes me about the movie that I'm reviewing and shoot from the hip based on my personal reaction. I mean if you don't want my personal reaction why would anyone be reading my reviews??? Not that they read them anyway

What it takes to be a good critic is to say something unexpected. I already know what the common guy has to say about things even before reading. That's what makes their opinion common. It doesn't need any attention brought to it considering most people are already thinking it.

Art is subjective and unquantifiable. A good critic can articulate their own perspective on the film in an engaging and enlightening way.

I personally only value critical opinion that seems to have deep knowledge of the art form both in terms of technique but also history.

Most people's tastes are undeveloped because people lack exposure to art and beauty. You have to deliberately seek the beauty in art. Films that move you, that give you Katharsis, lift your spirit. It's fine to hate Tarkovsky but most people who hate Tarkovsky are just not tuned in and do not prefer Angelopoulos or Bresson instead, but are ignorant of art cinema in general. If you are experienced in a field, then talking to an inexperienced person is pretty much like talking to a wall. They do not have years of film watching, and you do. This is something you cannot jump over in a matter of seconds. Sure, they might find a new favorite in Tarkovsky and then continue their journey, but you are still years ahead of them. In the end, the more experience you get in a field, the more eclectic your taste becomes, and seeing how you can find greatness in so many places, it's so weird to see people who fail to find it almost anywhere except for places where it surely is not. The more experience you get in a field, the lonelier you are.

The taking walks & watching films comparison works because it also works if you swap taking walks with pretty much anything else. There are billions of people living a unique experience each 24 hour period, and it's pretty obvious there are no two identical persons in the entire world. But it's still possible to find like-minded people who share your interests and passions, and even though two people may experience walking or watching a given film in a completely different way, they may both love it all the same. Finding other people with a similar taste is kind of like reciprocated love. Assuming two people really love each other, there is no doubt the way they experience love is at least slightly different, but in the end, they both love each other, so the little differences in how and why are not that important.

The job of a (true) film critic (because 90% of them are less knowledgeable about cinema than me or you) is not just to tell the Sunday movie watchers what to watch. That can be done by any other Sunday movie watcher. A film critic, very much like a serious cinephile, approaches a film in a different way than your average watcher or even a film buff. They would use their knowledge in the field of cinema to understand more (either intellectually or by gut reaction). Analyzing a film from a historic and social standpoint is not too uncommon. But in the end, a film critic is a viewer like any of us and every one of us may be called a critic. We're not all very experienced, though. I always find recommendations from my like-minded film aficionado friends much more valuable than any of the praised critics. And that's the point of the two preceding paragraphs. Find a bunch of people who have similar tastes and steal recommendations from them. Seriously, just freakin' copycat them and watch all their highest-rated films you haven't seen yet. This is the best way to find new favorites.

Reviews are fine but I don't read them very often. A high rating from a film friend who has a similar taste is enough of a recommendation to me. Now, ratings next to reviews are fine but it's always good if the rater explains their rating system beforehand. If they use a highly negative rating system, then their 3/5 will be a very high rating but not many people understand three out of five as a very high.

Reminds me of my list: Common complaints people make about films they didn't like.

This works both ways. Not as common and usually exaggerated by the leftist part of Letterboxd but films are often downrated for their contents that do not fit some agenda. More often than not, some sexual stuff gets downrated because it's violent, etc. Makes it harder to find good films because people tend to overrate 'safe' flicks while hating on subversive movies that often have some interesting metaphors or meanings, or simply put are much better. It usually takes a long time before people start appreciating subversive stuff. But sometimes popularity makes the film fare worse. A very washed-out example by now, but Salo became a freakin' scat meme whereas it's a very elaborate treatise on tyranny and Pasolini's daring invitation to play with the viewer.

Being a good writer is one thing. It's a whole lotta different thing to have a good taste.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

I guess you probably don't value my opinions on film that much, then...

Indeed, that is very well put.

That’s a fair point and I did neglect that side of things in my original reply. I have seen the majority of the subversive films that are talked about. You’re right that they get downgraded for their sheer extreme content, but I still feel there’s a qualitative difference between Salo and Slaughterhouse Vomit Dolls or August Underground, which any reasonable human being can discern by doing a bit of research. As you said yourself, Salo is above all a profound political statement. Quite a few extreme films are merely controversial to be controversial and to me, it’s fair enough if it’s recognised as such and they are not rated as high. But with political correctness, films get rated substantially higher for exactly the same - a lack of much substance save for the progressive aspect. What I was trying to say to crumbs is films like Carol may be fine films, but 94% kind of fine? Really?

There is definitely a certain sad irony to the fact that Salo and Slaughterhouse Vomit Dolls can end up with the same rating, but films like Salo tend to grow in esteem as time goes by. I would agree with you (and as per my reply to crumbs), I think you can usually tell quite easily when something is downgraded for being extreme or rated high for being politically correct. So these are best taken with a grain of salt.

I guess I would add, now that Salo has been mentioned, that ratings do tend to settle once some time passes, and as there are still plenty of critically panned films from the ‘60s and ‘70s that haven’t improved their ratings, it could be argued that the once that were annihilated at the time of release and then were rated higher did originally get downgraded for their extremist content. Salo has already climbed to 70s which is, by most critical metrics, ‘high’, ‘fresh’, etc.

The difference that I see is I feel you’d be hard pressed to find 5 ‘politically correct’ films with the ‘right’ agenda that got rated really low in the last decade (at the moment I can’t think of many ‘progressive’ films that were rated low except for Charlie’s Angels where the premise itself is just too ridiculous). Some feminist films that are genuinely abysmal do get low ratings, but not a single LGBT-film that I can think of (they must exist, but the vast majority are critically lauded and I simply don’t believe they are all great). So whilst extreme cinema got to improve its ratings, progressive films remain largely immune to criticism (of the negative kind). But that may well be because enough time hasn’t passed.

Only just got to reply to this, sorry. That was a much better summary of what I meant than my own post, so thanks for that!

You are exactly right re: what I meant, although I would add that it’s one thing to go out and say, ‘I like The Deal ((2003), a pretty good, little known TV movie gem, in case anyone’s interested) because it obviously , I feel the same about Blair and that’s why I like this film.’ But that’s different from assuming the above perception of Blair is a given. There’s a hidden assumption that you’re right which can’t be countered simply by saying reviews are all subjective.

Why not just admit you’re pro-Blair and that affects your reading? It’s honest, I’ve done this myself - I didn’t, in the end, like The Hunt (2020) and thought it was a massive waste of potential, but I applauded its attempt, though unsuccessful, to give the Republican POV a voice and not depict them as homicidal maniacs any more than the liberals/Democrats. I will always be the first to admit that this is the only thing I liked and respected about The Hunt, an otherwise mediocre film.

But the majority of reviews and critical consensus on RT and elsewhere just go and say outright, ‘This film is good because it gives underrepresented group X a voice’ and then do not qualify the statement at all, e.g. to say, ‘I, John Smith, think this is a positive development and that’s why I mean the above as a compliment’.

No, it is assumed that everyone shares this political viewpoint and that everyone agrees that it’s good for underrepresented group X to be depicted in, say, an overly positive light. I usually disagree and this kind of review definitely doesn’t include people like me in its assumption that this is a ‘positive development’.

Examples of the above: See You Yesterday (2018) took a concept used word-to-word in an older time-travel series called Being Erica, whereby , added a social justice element in that the See You Yesterday protagonist’s brother was killed by a policeman, and BOOM - 95%. Yes, yes, RT is an aggregator, not precise, I know all that, but to me, the 95% says a lot. I know people might disagree but to me all such cases are a clear indication that the rating was given mostly for political correctness reasons. Booksmart is not a bad film but again, nowhere near anything that deserves 96% from RT. Films about male high school friendship, if we take its basic story, are barely being made anymore, let alone rated 96%. I believe the 96% owes itself exclusively to female protagonists and the LGBT element, my ‘evidence’ being that male-driven films without the LGBT element do not garner such critical feedback.

I have already used the example of a Joker review in the old stereotypes thread which asked outright, ‘Do we need another film about an angry white man?’ (I don’t believe Joker is a masterpiece, but that ties in with what Mr Minio said re: subversive films being downgraded for their violence alone, and with Joker it’s even worse, as many reviewers (especially female) seemed to hate it for the mere potential it had to inspire some hypothetical violence).

The reviewer who asked if we need another film about an angry white man is wearing his politics on his sleeve unabashed, so why shouldn’t reviewers of a different political persuasion be able to do the same, i.e., ‘Do we need another strong-feminist-superwoman-who-needs-no-man-and-wanks-herself-to-sleep film?’ But they can’t, they’d get annihilated (seeing as no such reviews exist or see the light of day, which means they are discouraged and censored, which means it’s not merely about everyone and everything being subjective).

You seem to need to be the right kind of subjective, or your review and POV is immediately too ‘inflammatory’ to see the light of day. I do believe that’s why progressive films have such absurdly high ratings - because the reviews that are not so keen on them just don’t end up out there, and are consequently not taken into account by aggregators like RT.

And this is where I would slightly diverge from what Takoma and I previously tentatively agreed on, as I feel declaring it’s a personal opinion would be a must in this context, because in reviews of overtly political films or those that touch on politics, your own political persuasion would affect your perception more than in other cases. If I’m Tony Blair’s biggest fan and his staunch defender till the end of time, I’m far, far more likely to like The Deal (which is not a bad film either way in terms of storytelling and attention to detail) than if I were an old-school ‘leftie’.

Not to admit that this has a huge impact on one’s perception and the manner of reviewing films, as well as the rating, is in itself flippant! The least you can do is acknowledge it, but most contemporary critics don’t. Why not add a footnote saying, ‘Yes, by the way, I admit I’d feel differently if I were a conservative?’ I don’t mean that literally, but it is an issue which is not addressed enough.

Can you give some examples of LGBT films that you believe are given overly-high ratings purely because of their content? Because despite the common line that "every movie now is about LGBT, blah, blah, blah" I feel as though it's actually a relatively small crop of films and the ones I have seen that are well-reviewed do tend to be good.

On the flip side, The Danish Girl has a 66% on RT, which is lower than the audience score.

The 2005 version of Rent has a 46% on RT, almost half the audience score of 83%.

Shortbus, maybe the ultimate example of LGBT representation, has a tepid 68% (most of the positive reviews are like, "Yeah, it's okay"), again below the audience score of 77%.

I've been going all over IMDb and RT trying to find an LGBT film that I think is over-rated critically and I'm really not seeing much. (I think the scores for Beginners and Kill Your Darlings are a tad high, but I also think they are good movies?)

I do think that it's true that some films get praise for putting underrepresented characters and stories on screen, but I am totally fine with that. Art and the experience of seeing oneself in art is important, and if a film opens a door for a neglected population to see themselves onscreen, then I have no problem with a reviewer counting that as a point in the film's favor. I don't think, however, that including LGBT characters is some magic wand to wave away criticism. I am very welcome to examples to the contrary. I recently praised Mitchells vs the Machines for being a family film that had a gay lead teen character in a way that I felt both gave representation and was naturally integrated into the film's story. It's something I haven't really seen in the family film genre, so I counted it in the film's favor. Not only because they did it, but because they did it well.

This also kind of goes back to the fact that there are multiple functions of film reviews. Movies exist at an intersection of art and commerce. I agree with many posters above that what I consider "true" film criticism comes from an understanding of craft, historical, and political awareness, and all of the broader world of art.

But I think there is nothing wrong with reviews that mostly exist to help people know if they would enjoy a film. Is Universal Soldier high art? No. But it would be a blast to see in the theater and there's nothing wrong with a review that just tells me that this is a fun and absurd action romp.

And further, there are so many websites (and by extension, reviewers) that cater to specific populations. We no longer live in an era where a handful of newspaper critics have the only word on film quality. Finding someone (or many someones) who echo your own sentiments is not that hard. And even if it isn't a perfect fit, a good review will usually allow you to figure that out and adjust. If you don't think it's super cool to have a gay teen character in a family film, maybe you mentally subtract a star from my Mitchells vs the Machines review. then you look at all the other things I said about it and decide if it sparks your interest.

I also think it is critical to detach yourself a bit from the "consensus" thinking. You can make yourself crazy trying to reconcile your reaction to a film with everyone else's. There are films I LOVE whose IMDb scores are in the low 6s or even upper 5s. Same goes with reviews. If you think that most critics are turned around in their priorities, then don't read most critics.

Amen to this. I can't remember the last time I consulted the Tomatometer. Pretty sure I don't even have RT bookmarked anymore.

Looked up a movie recently on Letterboxd and found an average score of 2 stars, then scrolled down to my "ratings by friends" section and found all 5 star ratings. Those few 5-stars tell me more about what I'm in for than the thousands of unknown users who didn't like it.
(Granted the film was Things, so maybe the lesson I should be taking from this is "get new friends", but I think you get my point)

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

I gave it a 4.5, as in "tread with caution."

Right. I appreciate your restraint

Right.

I imagine that my taste doesn't strongly overlap with the average IMDb or Letterboxd user. Which is not a slam on them, it's just to say that what the people of the IMDb think about Tangerine or Amulet isn't nearly as important to me as what a handful of critics or friends might say about it.

I just go back to the fact that a good review lets you know where the writer is coming from, and then you can decide if that aligns with your taste/priorities/sensibilities. And as a reader you can decide if you are wanting to read capital-C Criticism or if you are just looking for a quick opinion about whether it's worth seeing the latest action film in the theater or not.

I guess you'll just have to keep ignoring me since I give it 1.5.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I actually love many LGBT films and think Call Me By Your Name is one of the most erotic and gorgeous films I have ever seen. Also really liked Brokeback Mountain.

But I think there’s an unfairness to rating something higher just because it offers previously underrepresented characters (or actors, or creators) a platform. I honestly think 66% for A Danish Girl is... incredibly generous.

In terms of where I feel films are overrated, sure, listed below. I do appreciate this can easily descend into a discussion of why I don’t find them worthy of such ratings, but I’ll just go out there and say I don’t think any of these films belong in the high or even mid-90s, as they lack nuance and depth and if they didn’t have LGBT characters, they’d hardly exist as there’s just too many films like that.

Booksmart (the LGBT element felt shoehorned in and unnecessary)
Carol (an okay film but no different from anything else made about this period - but lo and behold, feminism, bashing Blanchett’s husband + LGBTQ equals high 90s)
Disobedience
Love, Simon
Moonlight (a good film, but I didn’t feel it deserved the Academy Award as quite a few others, though not La La Land, were better in my view)
Blue is the Warmest Colour (the sheer length! It’s really quite an undercooked thing, but still, 89%)
Fruitvale Station (this one is good but it’s not spectacular, still, 94% and not a single negative review)
The Help (Sex and the City meets Devil Wears Prada, but look at the acolytes! This one is not in the 90s but 70s, but still, it’s such a basic film, really?)
Straight Outta Compton
The Hate You Give
Captain Marvel (I mean, come on!)

That sums up my general feeling on the subject. And look, I used to be a review junkie when I was younger, okay? At one time I almost wouldn’t watch anything below 70 (that didn’t last long).

It’s not that I dislike any of those and quite a few of them are good. But I feel high 90s should be reserved for something exceptional. It’s almost like the high school exam system where once everyone starts getting As, the very idea of an A being something exceptional is becoming diluted.

I am not personally guided by the Tomatometer, and I agree that in the end, once we mature, we choose for ourselves and cease to care, but I occasionally save titles in all sorts of languages in Notes and end up typing them into Google, at which point RT just pops up. Agree with both Captain and Takoma that RT is no bible and reviews are no gospel, but all I ever said is that I think they work well as a kind of a cross section of where the wind is blowing out there.

Perhaps it is worth just ignoring reviews in the end and I’ve been at a point where I kind of do that for some time. I guess in my mind I still expect reviews to be educational/enlighten me and hence get annoyed.

Unlike Barry J Gillis, who gave his own movie 5 stars. Now there's an unreliable opinion.