Reviews, Agendas, and Reliability - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Marshall 

The thing is that it's too easy to colour your experience of a film going in, expect it to play like A and have it turn out like B and be mad at the film for it. I like reviews which are more analytical, which really go into detail about why stuff that I thought was just 'pretty cool' is actually cinematically impressive.

 

Edit: I didn't mean to make a dumber version of Phil's post. Looks like we posted at exactly the same time.

Here is a prime example for me as to why, from now on, I will read reviews after seeing the movie.

Hangover II- after reading the reviews here, both by Staff and forum members, I went to watch it with a very negative attitude, despite myself. I wanted to like it, and even though it was a beat for beat rehash of the first film, I feel maybe I was too jaded by reading the reviews that I could not fully enjoy the movie.

That might be a bad example but I hope it helps.

I have not read reviews beforehand for films like Sucker Punch, The Dark Knight and Hellboy 2 and enjoyed them more for having avoided it. I'm going to see X-Men First Class tonight and although I have not read any reviews, just seeing headlines and tweets such as 'Best Comic Book Movie Ever' has already ruined it for me...

I'm just hoping that my general state of tiredness means that I can go in downbeat and have my mood raised by something that may be good.

It seems like if you want to avoid all hyperbole and see a film fresh you have to just avoid the net period.

X-Men: First Class is fascinating because I sense a massive backlash against it. I think a lot of reviewers assumed the worst given how rushed the production was and the fact that Thomas Rothman is the fucking devil.

The film in actuality is generally good, genuinely great at times, but I think a lot of reviewers had so low expectations that they marked out for the film way stronger than they normally would have. As such you get people calling it the best superhero film ever, which is going to make people expect something more of it.

Harry's review bears no weight regarding the film itself. There is a lot of referencing characters and basic plot points, but, other than a personal nostalgia connection from the writer, there's no draw or interest. The statements similar to "this character reminds me of my childhood friend" do nothing for me. This review leaves me with secondhand sentimentality and vapors of childhood smiles. My big question after reading was, "Who gives a fuck?"

Saying that something comparing to Tobe Hooper's Invaders From Mars is never a good point of comparison is wrong. Boo #2

Every time I've gone to a movie without reading a review first, I've regretted it. In the past six years, here are the movies where I decided "I want to see this so bad, I'm not going to ruin it for myself by risking reading reviews that might discourage me from seeing it": "Superman Returns", "Spider-Man 3" and "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". All big disappointments. Since 2007, I haven't gone to a movie without checking the reviews first, and I find that the number of movies I end up disappointed in has decreased significantly. Occasionally there are still movies that let me down despite getting positive reviews (i.e. "X-Men: The Last Stand", "Drag Me to Hell", "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World"), but those are increasingly rare. 

It's fairly easy to read a review before a movie without spoiling it for yourself. I think the best way is to just skim through it, skipping the parts where the reviewer talks about plot-related stuff, so you're not spoiled if you decide to see the movie after reading. Being familiar with the reviewers, I have a pretty good idea of when they're going to go into plot stuff. Generally the opening and closing paragraphs are where you get the analysis/reflections that are going to make a convincing or not-so-convincing argument about the movie being good or bad.

To determine how credible or relevant to you a reviewer's opinion is, I suggest considering what you thought of movies they praised or put down in the past. For example, Devin Faraci was practically orgasmic over "Hot Fuzz", "Inception", and "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World", all of which I thought were okay, but very flawed, and far from the monumentally perfect masterpieces of film he made them out to be. I often agree with his criticism or complaints about many movies, but I keep in mind his benchmarks for high quality every time he praises something to high heaven. That's why I'm not tempted to rush out and see something as soon as he goes apeshit over it.

This is why star ratings and ratings out of ten are valuable. if you fancy something want to know if its any good and worth ten bucks then skip to the rating, job done! you can avoid the nitty gritty and not spoil it completely.

If i see a two star review of something like Pirates 4, then I think I won't catch it at the flicks and still read the review. Occasionally I find myself pleasantly surprised when I see the movie on DVD some months later but not often...

Perhaps it's too late to bring this detail to the discussion, but there's a difference between reviewers and critics. A good reviewer can tell you what kind of movie to expect-- who's in it, where it's set, what the premise is-- without imposing a personal perspective. A good critic can provide analysis of what works and what doesn't, and share their subjective response.