when/do you read movie reviews?

→ in
Tools    





I tend to read them if i have ambivalent opinions about popular films or shows and I'm seeking some sort of perspective. My last streak of film watching made me respect the popular opinions on rotten tomatoes a lot less than I did before. It reinforced this cynical notion that humans are absolute trash. SMOD.



At what point do you find film reviews to be overly pretentious? Saying someone's pretentious to me is a wierd insult, but it is detectable. Often people use "pretentious" as a way of dissing something that they're not paying much attention to.


That being said, the fact that I liked terrifier both times I watched it means i chose the perfect screen name.
__________________
Don't mind me, just a friendly internet troll.

He-he, he-he, oh my!

-Rocko



"How tall is King Kong ?"
There's so many different types of reviews. I sometimes read short reviews before deciding to watch a film, when I'm not sure what quality to expect (some pitches can really go both ways). I sometimes read long spoilery analytical reviews afterwards, when it's a film rich in different aspects to interpret or put in perspective. I sometimes read both kinds instead of watching a movie.

And overly pretentious movies are the ones written to inform us more about the reviewer than about the movie.
__________________
Get working on your custom lists, people !



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.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



I read reviews to find films I'd otherwise not have noticed - and see if they're up my alley so to speak. I also read them to compare my views of a film I've just watched to general opinions.

Many times I'll stop reading a review if I'm really excited by what I'm hearing - I try to go into films I'm looking forward to seeing as fresh and unbiased as I can possibly be.
__________________
My movie ratings often go up or down a point or two after more reflection, research and rewatches.




When I have a strongly negative, or positive, or ambivalent feeling about a movie I'll glance at the things critics write just long enough to get annoyed. Sometimes even when they agree with my feelings, my teeth fall out from the frustration of how much they irritate me.


I've said it many times before, but I'd rather read the takes on people in forums like these than anything a movie reviewer from a newspaper has to say. Because almost for sure, 9 times out of ten, the people writing in newspapers are embarrassing idiots.



I've said it many times before, but I'd rather read the takes on people in forums like these than anything a movie reviewer from a newspaper has to say. Because almost for sure, 9 times out of ten, the people writing in newspapers are embarrassing idiots.

I tend to see news "paper" movie reviewers as being too fluffy for me, references to big names and big values. There's a pretty huge difference between a payed movie reviewer and impulsive talking, which of course always makes the professional look bad to a lot of people. Maybe the best movie-reviewer is one who always does so with enthusiasm, as if they are creating another story...


How embarrasing, my typist skills, i miss words so frequently.



As with the OP, I'll read them before a film only if I have little invested interest in it (and want to know if it's worth spending the time watching). But usually I'll only read them after viewing a film... to compare notes as it were. This is also because most reviews contain summaries (and sometimes spoilers) and I like to go into a movie fresh without knowing too much about it.



I tend to news "paper" movie reviewers as being too fluffy for me, references to big names and big values. There's a pretty huge difference between a payed movie reviewer and impulsive talking, which of course always makes the professional look bad to a lot of people. Maybe the best movie-reviewer is one who always does so with enthusiasm, as if they are creating another story...

I'm fine with something being fluffy, as long as I'm still willing to read it. But I can barely read any published film criticism without my toes going numb. And once my toes go numb, I'm done reading.


I definitely agree with your two main criteria for a good movie reviewer.



1) Enthusiasm is a must. Even if it is cloaked in cynicism, or fuelled by negativity, a review has to be enthusiastic. No exceptions.



2) Any movie reviewer worth their salt should be required to at least tell a story when reviewing a movie...the story of them watching the movie. If you don't engage me with exactly how the movie affected you (whether emotionally, intellectually, recreationally) I couldn't give a **** what you have to say about it.



I mostly consume my reviews in podcast form. Mostly independent from what movies I'm actually watching, but can add to the list of movies I intend to watch at some point in the future. Mostly I just like to listen to the people talk and discuss movies.

But after I watch a movie, I might go back through their archives (usually having to go back months, possibly years) to remind myself what they said about it. On the rare occasion, I am watching the movie around the time of the podcasts are covering them, I might put off listening to the episodes until after I watch the movie. Which feels like, I'm not really answering the question.



I mostly consume my reviews in podcast form. Mostly independent from what movies I'm actually watching, but can add to the list of movies I intend to watch at some point in the future. Mostly I just like to listen to the people talk and discuss movies.

But after I watch a movie, I might go back through their archives (usually having to go back months, possibly years) to remind myself what they said about it. On the rare occasion, I am watching the movie around the time of the podcasts are covering them, I might put off listening to the episodes until after I watch the movie. Which feels like, I'm not really answering the question.

good enough for me



I've said it many times before, but I'd rather read the takes on people in forums like these than anything a movie reviewer from a newspaper has to say. Because almost for sure, 9 times out of ten, the people writing in newspapers are embarrassing idiots.
I read The New York Times online every day. I don’t agree with your assessment at all. Sounds visceral & not based on fact.



Back in the day, I read reviews simply because I liked the reviewer. There's still some of that, but increasingly it's about films I'm not sure I want to see. Particularly odd or high concept films, because aggregate review scores don't really tell me whether it fails in interesting ways, which is generally something I'm happy to invest time in seeing.



I read The New York Times online every day. I don’t agree with your assessment at all. Sounds visceral & not based on fact.

Unless the New York Times wrote an article exposing my fraudulent movie review claims, I'm not sure what your newspaper subscription has to do with how I feel towards the vast majority of printed reviews. I don't like them. They bore me. And I think they are all too often extremely lazy in their construction.



Now for those who read them to determine what movie is their safest bet to go out and see, I'm sure they serve their purpose of identifying generic pros and cons. If you want to call this a success on their part, fine, because it probably is considering what the basic goal of a movie review has become. They try and reflect back the general likes and dislikes of the average film goer. They let you know if the film is serious. Or silly. Or well acted. Or has strong dialogue. Or great special effects. Or if the camerawork is acceptable. This is what movie criticism has basically become in nearly all publications, and while I get this is what most people probably want, I don't. And I call it an embarrassment, mainly because I know how much better it could be. I come across examples of how much better all the time, on movie forums like this.



My biggest problems, personally, are that critics rarely provide any insight into film beyond the most surface of pleasantries. They take no clear stance on what art is, or how it should function. They show virtually no knowledge of the mediums history, and frequently show a hesitation in endorsing any film that really takes chances with what we expect a film to be. This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for, and sorry, outside of the occassional exceptions (which are maybe the ones you are reading and that you are happy with) it just isn't there. And I find it annoying. And embarrassing. And while calling them idiots is probably harsh (I'm sure they are good at other things), in the context of talking about film in any kind of depth, they are colossal failures in my book.


Does this make my opinion visceral? Of course. But I hardly see that as a problem. Maybe if more critics could inject a similar viscerality in articulating their experience with the movies they write about, I wouldn't be such a nuisance about this topic.



Back in the day, I read reviews simply because I liked the reviewer. There's still some of that, but increasingly it's about films I'm not sure I want to see. Particularly odd or high concept films, because aggregate review scores don't really tell me whether it fails in interesting ways, which is generally something I'm happy to invest time in seeing.

2021 is a notably bizzare year for film makers, i cant wait for 2022, then you nerds can tell me what the best one is.



Unless the New York Times wrote an article exposing my fraudulent movie review claims, I'm not sure what your newspaper subscription has to do with how I feel towards the vast majority of printed reviews. I don't like them. They bore me. And I think they are all too often extremely lazy in their construction.

So this makes the reviewers “embarrassing idiots”?



So this makes the reviewers “embarrassing idiots”?

In the context of being a professional movie reviewer? Yeah, kinda. I address all of this in my post.

People can be embarrassing idiots at all kinds of things. I'm an embarrassing idiot at computer related stuff. And if I went into a computer related field, I probably should expect for some people to consider me as such.



A system of cells interlinked
I read them as I approve them for the site!
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



In the context of being a professional movie reviewer? Yeah, kinda. I address all of this in my post.

People can be embarrassing idiots at all kinds of things. I'm an embarrassing idiot at computer related stuff. And if I went into a computer related field, I probably should expect for some people to consider me as such.

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