Reviews and Ratings Discussion

I like going on walks. Not very interesting or unique, but nonetheless, I like taking walks. Someone may ask why I like going on walks, and perhaps I'd be able to come up with a list of reasons. Maybe it's the exercise, maybe it's leaving the house, maybe it's seeing new faces. Is that really it? It's part the appeal, sure, but is that really all I like? Or is there something more, some deeply personal emotion imbedded in my brain that makes me appreciate a casual stroll? I could list 500 reasons I like walking, and yet I could never in a million years give someone the same experience I've had walking because that experience is entirely subjective. It's like describing color to the colorblind, or sound to the deaf. It's so personal to me that I don't feel I could ever truly explain why I like to walk. The value of walking is simply too abstract.

Perhaps that's the same with movies. If someone were to ask me what my favorite movie was, I'd tell them Blade Runner (my favorites list says otherwise but that's a discussion for another time). If I were to review Blade Runner, I could list objective, observable qualities that I like: drawn out shots of the city, certain colors used in certain scenes. But can I say something like "the movie is well-shot" objectively? You'd be damned to find anyone who tells you otherwise, but is there something intrinsic in humans that makes Blade Runner beautiful? Perhaps in your average person, sure, but there may be one soul out there who's brain just cannot fathom to look at the film. What makes our perspective more valid than their own, numbers?

That's all a bit long winded but my point is that, although there are objective qualities in movies, whether they are "good" or "bad" is entirely subjective because the concept of good and bad is entirely human. Without us, it vanishes. It becomes clear then that any review or rating that tries to be at all "objective" will fail, and will instead just find qualities that most people agree on as "good" or "bad".

This may seem like a game of semantics. If a film is meant to please, and it fails at doing certain things that the vast, vast majority of people look for in a movie, then why not call it "good" or "bad"? This is what I'd like to discuss, the idea of reviewing film. Now, I'm not really referring to most of the stuff on here, or at least the stuff that acts as more of a log of what someone's seen and what they think of it. The purpose of that is incredibly clear. What I'm really referring to is professional critics, who rate movies as either a recommendation or as a measure of somethings "quality" (i.e, giving it some objective value). How "objective" (in the sense that something "objective" is something widely agreed upon) should a review be, and how subjective should a review be? If a review is meant to recommend, then surely agreed upon objective qualities should be mentioned, but if every review comes up with the same objective score, how is a consumer to find a critic they relate to? What even is the distinction between subjective and objective? Does rating films numerically make sense, or does it remove too much context and make readers less likely to actually digest the review content? Is this the most long winded thread introduction in Movie Forums history? These are the questions I think would make for a good discussion.

Sorry for all the text, I thought without it my topic may seem a bit too vague. Hope you understand .

TL; DR What do you like and dislike about reviews, how objective can a review be, and how well do numeric ratings serve a review?

Now you've taken it too far.

I read a LOT of reviews that are like, "Well, this isn't the movie I feel they should have made, therefore it is not a good movie or not as good as it should be." About music too (the NYT review of St. Vincent's latest was guilty of this).
I think that kind of review can **** right off.
Genuinely damages the reviewers credibility in my mind.

I've seen that a couple times, yeah. That seems to happen with comic book movies a bunch, and just adaptations of non-movie properties in general. I know In a Silent Way by Miles Davis got that reception when it came out since it wasn't "jazz" enough.

How is that new St. Vincent album, anyway? I've heard a couple of her older songs and liked them, specifically the stuff with guitar.

I'd rather read a more "personal" and "subjective" review that goes to what moved that specific reviewer/critic than read a clinical dissection of a film for the purpose of a rubric. Not that the latter are "bad"; they are useful tools to quantify, compare, contrast... but I'd rather you tell me how you felt, and I'll decide if I'm up for that.

At the end of the day, I read a review to see what that other person got out of a film and weigh if I feel like that experience can be something that draws me in, or if it's something I want to try out, or experience as well, or if I care about the things they liked or not.

__________________

As is quite often the case on mofo, you’ve verbalised something I’ve been thinking about for some time. I both agree and disagree. Walks and your personal experience of them is not something you can really share with anyone, likewise with films. It’s impossible to make someone else partake in our enjoyment. That has recently been a source of vexation for me. My take on this is that although good/high ratings are somewhat subjective and rudimentary, bad ratings tend to be fairly accurate.

I find it unconvincing that if a vast community of people who, in the very least, have seen all the best films out there and can surmise what they have in common, find something really awful (e.g. Showgirls, Room (Tommy Wiseau), etc.), this could turn out to be ‘wrong’. The question is, of course, what is meant by ‘wrong’ here, but I do think that if one subjectively enjoys Showgirls and such, then that’s fine, but they’re probably ‘missing the point’ when it comes to what a successful (in storytelling terms) or an efficient film does, or is meant to do.

I think it would be very hard to argue in favour of Showgirls as opposed to The Deer Hunter on any grounds. If it’s a wholly personal, nostalgia-related feeling, then sure, but even that, I feel, would be rather peculiar, and I’d be interested to explore whether the person would be able to recognise it themselves if prompted. In my experience, people do always develop their palate, as it were, when it comes to film. Judging by quite a few relatives and friends that I’ve introduced to film, once they’ve seen a good share of jawdropping masterpieces, they will find it hard to keep watching Knocked Up or Glitter as they will come to see their flaws, or at least to feel these flaws are there, even if they can’t articulate it.

Even if a relative amateur loves Bridget Jones’ Diary with all their heart and would watch it daily to their heart’s content, I rather doubt that after watching a masterpiece a day for the next year they won’t be able to say that Hitchcock at least isn’t half-bad. I can’t see a logic whereby someone can fail to accept something genuinely great as such. Sure, it may not speak to one on a personal level, and I, for one, dislike quite a few undisputed classics on emotional response grounds, but I would never dispute the fact these are some of the best films ever made. I am yet to see a person who will defend the viewpoint that Bridget Jones’ Diary is a more satisfying film than Family Plot (I’m deliberately avoiding anything more morbid in Hitch’s canon as some people dislike that a priori).

Another thing I will note is that ratings are often affected by politics, so films receiving incredibly high ratings in recent years have at least partly been receiving them because they promote the ‘appropriate’ viewpoint. As this is a point I have made before and a few members countered it by saying this has always been the case, I would add that RT and Metacritic make reviewing a much more automated, customised process than ever in the past. In the past, I’d say, even if a film was consciously pushing a viewpoint, the ‘radical’ critics were free to challenge it and even call it out exactly for that, which is not
the case now.

I'll admit my original post is pretty radical, and I've changed my views slightly, although I still agree with everything I said.

Your point about how the films people like as they start to see more is interesting, and I think it points out a bit of a flaw in my approach. While I still think calling something objectively good or bad is false, I do think it's incredibly practical. Like you pointed out, people gravitate towards films that are considered "objectively good" and away from films that are "objectively bad" as they see more movies. It makes sense that the qualities that make these films "good" or "bad" to the vast majority of people would become a basis to measure a films quality, especially when it comes to reviewing something as a recommendation. I pointed this out a bit in my post but I think my wording was a but unclear.

I don't think it's impossible to reasonably argue a critically panned film is better than an acclaimed one, though. It all depends on what those qualities are, and how important those qualities are to a films "value", which is all pretty subjective. Even the most celebrated movies usually have some small but agreeable flaw, and someone could reasonably say it sours the film for them, even if that experience doesn't apply to most people.

I won't comment on ratings being affected by politics simply because I haven't seen enough films that could be used as an example of that.

I’m finding this discussion incredibly stimulating and fascinating. Would you care to elaborate (or attempt to!) how you think one could come at that kind of argument? Surely you would need some sort of metric, or in the very least a pretty rigid definition of ‘better’? I feel in this kind of discussion going full relativist and saying ‘Better is whatever I happen to enjoy this evening’ would not be a helpful development. We’d need a pretty rigid definition of ‘objectively’, too, while we’re at it. I’m not by any means challenging you, just wondering what your take is.

Some points I'd make from what I've skimmed from this thread


1) Negative movie reviews are generally more 'wrong' than positive ones.



2) It's mostly a waste of time to pay much attention to critical consensus. Most paid movie reviewers stumbled into their job. They don't necessarily even want to be film critics. They don't necessarily know anything. And even when they do, they are often stodgy, out of touch windbags.


3) It's easy to argue in defense of a critically panned film over a universally loved one. To wonder why this is difficult, I imagine we must be taking critical consensus a little too seriously (see point #2)


4) As Wooley says, it is a bad way to criticize if you don't at least try and come to understand what a film is trying to do. Who cares what you wanted it to be. It's one of the reasons multiple viewings of a film is preferable before really trying to attempt any serious critique. Otherwise those stupid expectations of what you want are bound to get in there. But contrary to what Wooley says, I also don't think a film has to succeed at doing what it wants to do in order to be a success. As long as the viewer gets something out of it, artistic intent is mostly just a fun little hypothetical to argue about. Are these two points contrary? Probably. But who says movie criticism should be easy (other than probably every magazine and newspaper editor in the world)?

3) You have begun to read this backwards. Return to the top of the page. Douse your head in cold water and get yourself together.

Are you addressing me? If so, might be helpful to clarify. I’ve been unwell last few weeks with knockout migraines, so can’t engage in anything remotely argumentative, nor do I want to. I mean, why do you think it’s remotely acceptable to resort to that kind of tone? People really have no manners nowadays.

I never said you should comment before multiple viewings - I rewatch nearly everything so yes, I would agree.

On that note: perhaps you should refrain from commenting until after you read things, instead of ‘skimming’?

Something I have noticed ever since the thread on the new Oscars standards is that a few posters here tend to make categorical value judgments and then attempt to pass them for undisputed truth.

I appreciate the point you’re making, which may or may not be true, but that’s just your opinion. I see no logical justification, nothing.

Personally, I know of so many films that got rated 90%+ by RT for ‘progressive’ content - how do I know? Because exactly the same type of film without ‘progressive’ content shoehorned in is ‘generally’ (to use your word) rated circa 40%. It’s only fair to assume that, since the ‘progressiveness’ is the only difference, it must be at least the partial reason for the high rating. So reviewed encourage the politically correct Groupthink.

I wonder why you would make said ‘points’ without even a single example, let alone any attempt at logical justification?

Edit: agree with 2), don’t disagree with 3) but would like an example.

Um, it's just a dumb joke about how I mislabelled my last point as also being three. Since I wasn't addressing you specifically, I don't know why you'd think I was referring to your migraine which I know nothing about. It's just a bit of pointless nonsense. No offence was meant towards anyone.


I am making mostly generalized points about my disdain for professional critics. I read a few comments that are just jumping off points of what I probably would have mostly said anyways. If I was actually making an argument against anything you specifically said, I would read what was written, and address you.


Yeah, it's my opinion. I can preface everything I say first by saying "it's my opinion" but that would get a little redundant. As for 'proof' of what I am saying, I can make lots of long arguments about the sort of films that generally get good reviews, or get slagged off, and why I think they are bad takes, but even then I'll still be unable to 'prove' that critics are wrong for feeling what they feel. Who am I to say what they should feel? I can only comment on how I feel about how they feel.


What is provable though, is how most film critics simply don't have the credentials be be critics. Or are particularly invested in the craft of being one. The vast majority of people on Rotten Tomatoes are not terribly well versed in anything regarding film. And they are what make up the bulk of these consensus. Which is why I have no idea why anyone invests any sort of faith in them. Instead, it's best to find very particular critics who speak directly to what you understand to be important in the art of filmmaking and listen to them. Who cares what the riffraff thinks?


This to me is the sort of statement that seems much more in need of proof. Saying something is 'exactly the same type of film' and is reviewed worse, is kind of overlooking the actual craft of how that exact same type of film was made. Which, since I think we mostly agree on how feelings about art are subjective, is hard to come to agreement on, even in the best of times.. Also making the assumption that people only like something because of the politics involved (even if some people might do this) is full of all sorts of assumptions. Not that I care much if you want to hold those assumptions. Only that it is a startling contrast to what you are demanding of me in my fairly flippant remarks.


Because it is generally easier to put my general feelings out there, and if anyone has a question, I can address those as they come. I think I've just hit my maximum number of words clearing up all the confusion I've clearly created though, so I guess that will be for another time.

I do appreciate the above note. General note: it has been pointed out to me that I’ve been sounding rather unreasonable recently (read: mental, and I don’t disagree). Let’s just say lockdowns haven’t reflected well on me, I find myself steering clear of people irl except for work and only talk about movies, even to family, when I do talk to them. Hence it’s crucial for me to be here and have this space, otherwise I don’t get to talk about movies at all, at least not with people who know their business. But I admit I should watch it and will endeavour to appear less combative.

And yes, for the record, I went to see a shrink, but that was not a productive event as I was told I couldn’t be saner. I do take things far more personally than is reasonable and in turn mean no disrespect to anyone (usually, at least; certainly not in this thread). This is not a disclaimer, I do take responsibility. But I never consciously try to insult anyone or dismiss anyone’s viewpoint, so there’s that.

If I try to get back to the issue at hand (admittedly, I’ve contaminated the whole thing a bit, so wouldn’t be surprised if that didn’t work), I could provide examples where I think films get a substantially higher rating mainly because of progressive elements, other things being largely equal. Ammonite created an LGBT relationship where there wasn’t one and so have plenty modern films made post 2012, few of which are rated below 70. Will add examples. I think I mentioned Bridgerton elsewhere, it clearly capitalises on its ‘progressiveness’ and inclusivity whilst being in other ways no different at all from any mediocre period drama in style, plot or depth.

I see your point of view and have encountered it before. I suppose I feel it is a dangerous slippery slope of sorts to democratise any art so much that we cease to discriminate on the basis of quality. You don’t compare Picasso to political cartoonists and I feel it’s that kind of distinction that film criticism, or any criticism, for that matter, exists to emphasise and draw attention to. I do believe there is an objective element to it, as with the golden ratio and the sorts of markers that the human brain is wired to perceive as aesthetically appealing (‘beautiful’). I don’t know why that is, and neither, frankly, does anyone, but I do think this is a real concept. Now, I wouldn’t argue that great films are about beauty, but if there hadn’t been a way of making them that usually works and leaves the viewer appreciative, we wouldn’t study the best of the best films.

I like it a lot, though that may be because I am a big fan of hers already and it is a very accessible album as she is really paying a very intentionally transparent tribute to the 1970s.
That was my issue with the Times review was that they were judging it as if it should have been a much more subtle nod to the '70s if she was gonna do it and I was like, "Well, having listened to it a good bit it's clear that she, an artist that has been willing to be obtuse in the extreme and the actual artist as opposed to you, a critic who created no art of any kind this year, didn't intend it that way. If that bothers you, go listen to something else. But don't tell me what her intentions should have been."
I think what really irritated me about the review though was that the critic started out by saying that St. Vincent has avoided the trope that female musicians have to make personal music, then sort of half-lauded her for making this one more personal, then criticized her for not making it personal enough.
I was like, "Do you even read your reviews before you submit them?"

The problem with that is that a lot of critics may have nothing to do with what I respond to in movies or in some cases may even just have a strong reaction to something because it's personal that cripples their ability to review the film with anything that anyone else can use.
Tell me what the movie is and tell me about the quality of the craft. Then I will go see it based on that. If you tell me you didn't like it because it didn't have enough of this or that or the other or had too much or you don't like this style or whatever, that doesn't actually help me at all.

There are many different types of reviews, and I personally don't take anyone's word as gospel.

My general approach to reviews is to identify a few people (both professional critics and "casual" viewers like people here or friends) who seem to have a similar film sensibility to me. Then I just pay attention to what they write about films and I weight their reviews a little more than reviews from people I don't seem to be on the same frequency with. This doesn't mean I disregard other people and what they write, but I will usually "get a second opinion" by reading more about something they love.

My own reviews are unabashedly subjective. And I assume that people reading them know that when I say "Theron's performance is amazing," that is my opinion and me responding to something in that performance. Reviews would be garbage if you had to preface every sentence with "I think . . ." or "In my opinion . . .".

I personally tend more toward personal reviews, in the sense that I will often give some context about why I feel or respond a certain way to particular themes or situations.

Often after watching a movie, I will seek out a few reviews from people like Ebert, especially if I feel that there may be some aspect I did not fully understand. Other times I seek out reviews for more cultural context, especially if it references a historical event that I know very little about.

The problem, I think, is that people who want to sound expert and knowledgeable tend to speak in absolutes. And while it sort of accomplishes that task, it can also be kind of alienating. So instead of saying "I found the lead performance flat," a review will say, "The lead performance falls flat." And that absolute way of speaking can convey an attempt at objective statement.

In short, I agree with a lot of what Crumbsroom wrote. I think that reflecting on which types of writing we give value, and which type of writing we resent can be a worthwhile thing.

My 2 (slightly cheaper Canadian dollar) cents, which I'll be bouncing off a few other's posts:

I don't think you can eliminate subjectivity from a reviewer's reaction to a film, nor do I think you should seek to. I like reading the perspectives of people who view films from a different angle than me. I'm more likely to get value out of a film if I do so, which interests me more than getting someone to tell me if something is good or bad. (That being said, like Takoma, when looking for recommendations, I will weigh how closely their sensibility skews towards mine. Some of the other posters here or the handful of critics I follow with any regularity are more likely to convince me something is worth checking out than a glance at the Tomatometer.) BUT a good critic, regardless of whatever personal views or biases is in their work, still has to give you a good sense of what the movie is like and what it's trying to do, and whatever their opinion, it should still tie back to the facts of the actual film. (So, not fan theories and the like, and not the "what a movie should be" arguments that Wooley cites.)


As crumbsroom points out, a lot of critics just aren't very good, which I think is ultimately the problem. He asserts that a lot of them kind of stumbled into their career, which is likely true of the old guard who have jobs in major publications. Without doing real justice in dissecting this trend, the movie to a gig economy and the elimination of stable employment for film writers has introduced a generation of writers who've had to muscle their way into these jobs. On one hand, this allows for a greater diversity of perspectives (not just in the demographic sense, but in how they potentially view the medium) and more likely results in people passionate about the subject writing about it. On the other hand, a lot of them still aren't very good from what I've seen. I've seen my share of Ebert backlash, but I wonder if his background as a reporter didn't play into his ethos of trying to accurately convey the experience of the movie to you, regardless of whether or not he actually liked it. I don't necessarily see this kind of discipline as widespread. (And quite frankly, his prose is a sight better than the average internet writer.) There's a critic whose video essays have appeared on Ebert's site who I understand is well liked, but the few that I watched contained the most banal superlatives over almost arbitrarily chosen footage, capped off with an appeal to the movie being good because of the time he watched it with friends. That kind of reaction has zero value to me. I don't know your friends, dude.



Wooley takes issue with critics who try to assess a movie on terms other than its own. I think this can a be useful as a rhetorical device in trying to explain a deficiency with the movie. (i.e. "I thought the movie would be better if it spent more time fleshing out this character, as they were more interesting than the ones who get the most screentime.") But obviously needs to be applied judiciously and within limits, otherwise it loses all meaning. I think the problem with this device is a matter of execution.



Aggrippina takes issue with critics who like movies for sharing their politics. Movies have politics, and so do people, so I don't have a problem with critics examining a movie's politics or critiquing it on those grounds, but it should involve an examination of what the movie's trying to do and how said politics play into that. If they're just patting a movie on the back for espousing values they share with no appreciation for how said values are conveyed cinematically, they're doing it wrong. I also think it helps if it comes across as sincere to how the critics views films in general. I feel like I've read plenty of reviews where it seems like a critic is consciously applying a political (using this term loosely) lens to a work in a way that feels stilted, like they feel like they're supposed to look at it this way. I don't like to ascribe bad faith to the opinions of others, and I suspect it's the result of hacky writing more than anything, but without sounding reactionary as hell, I also wonder if there isn't pressure from the publication to the writer to inject a certain perspective into the work just because the writer happens to fall into a certain demographic. I don't have the inside scoop on how the industry works, so this is (likely dumbassed) speculation on my part.

I guess it also depends on the film. Putting aside that all opinions and reviews are ultimately subjective, If the film moves me, I might go more personal than if it doesn't. Some of you read my review of Antwone Fisher a while ago, which I think is one of the most personal I've written recently, and I trust anyone that reads it to obviously separate one thing from the other, and still get something out of it. But if the film leaves me blank, then the review will probably feel more "clinical" or "barebones".

Yeah sure. I'm not sure I articulated that point very well, but I think the issue largely stems from trying to compare incredibly different movies. If I give an arthouse film a 7/10 and a comedy a 8/10, that doesn't mean the comedy works on the same levels that the arthouse film does. The arthouse movie might be more thematically rich, might have more interesting characterizations, and might be structured in a more unique way. The comedy movie might be funnier, might be more energetic, and might be more fun. What gives these films there value is incredibly dependent on the films themselves, so it would be hard to compare two films like The Deer Hunter and Knocked Up without first judging them on their own merits. Someone could argue The Deer Hunter doesn't work as well as a war drama by highlighting some specific flaw, and someone could argue Knocked Up works well as a comedy by pointing out parts they find funny. The "weight" of these objective qualities is where this becomes pretty subjective. That flaw in The Deer Hunter may be a flaw that most people would agree with, but it may not sour the movie for most people in the same way it does for someone else. The comedy in Knocked Up may work more for one person than for others, and they can still reasonably argue its quality by pointing out if jokes have punchlines or misdirection or subversion.

The merit of a film is very reliant on its own purpose, so when trying to argue one movie over an other, the argument really boils down to which one "did its job", which can end up getting really subjective. Even though it is subjective, what makes it work subjectively can be reasonable argued with objective qualities (objective meaning something everyone can agree on, such as a movies length).

I think that's the way you oughta go about it. It's a big problem with newspaper critics and something I feel the internet is actually helping to solve. Most people just see that The New York Times or Variety gave a movie some score, without really understanding who the actual critic responsible for that score is. This also means an outlet gets the blame for a controversial review, so there's incentive to only represent and publish the most common voice. For as much as I despise practically every online movie critic, at least it's made pretty clear who is reviewing what.

You know what, I’m 100 per cent with you here. This sounds like a perfect review in my book, and I wish people did just that and kept politics, including their own, out of it. I have already admitted that I do think there’s an objective element to ‘craft’, but (how ironic) that’s just my view. So, yes, to me, saying ‘This guy knows how to fix a camera to a moving target well’ and adding ‘This is an unusual take on the serial killer/incest/war film trope because not many people have done that in the past but xyz attempted to’ sounds like a great review.