A lot of film critique industry is based upon fart-sniffing snobbery.
It’s like a game of one-upsmanship on how much “meaning” you can invent derive from dull, self-important drudgery and the more masochistic your movie-watching experience, the more “refined” you are.
Source: had to study media crit and industry a lot in school.
That’s why I find it important to look at both critic and user reviews. If they agree, they’re probably right. If they disagree things get interesting.
If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it’s probably technically good but boring. If critics disliked it, but audiences liked it, it’s probably kinda bad but exciting.
Both are also affected by social media, especially user scores, so if “the Internet” hates/loves something if can be unfairly inflated/deflated.
New, but not brand new, films also usually have a more accurate score. I enjoyed The Godfather, so I would rate it positively, but if I didn’t like it I’m probably not rating it at all. I saw it X years ago and unless it was absolutely terrible or I have a vivid memory of disliking it, I’m just going to ignore it.
If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it’s probably technically good but boring.
Or it’s something fresh instead of the same junk that critics had seen hundreds of times (literally), whereas most of the public can’t be arsed with original but marginal concepts.
For me, I do enjoy a movie that’s deep or well written or has great cinematography, even if it’s a bit boring. I also like movies that have entertainment value. Both can exist.
Only gripe I have is shitty popular movies prevent smaller indie movies from being shown at my small town theater.
It’s kind of weird, but I find that the higher a film is rated by film critics and websites, the less I tend to enjoy it.
A lot of film critique industry is based upon fart-sniffing snobbery.
It’s like a game of one-upsmanship on how much “meaning” you can
inventderive from dull, self-important drudgery and the more masochistic your movie-watching experience, the more “refined” you are.Source: had to study media crit and industry a lot in school.
but what if i like the way quentin tarantinos ass fart? what therefore then?
foot
you make an adulterously valid point
That’s why I find it important to look at both critic and user reviews. If they agree, they’re probably right. If they disagree things get interesting.
If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it’s probably technically good but boring. If critics disliked it, but audiences liked it, it’s probably kinda bad but exciting.
Both are also affected by social media, especially user scores, so if “the Internet” hates/loves something if can be unfairly inflated/deflated.
New, but not brand new, films also usually have a more accurate score. I enjoyed The Godfather, so I would rate it positively, but if I didn’t like it I’m probably not rating it at all. I saw it X years ago and unless it was absolutely terrible or I have a vivid memory of disliking it, I’m just going to ignore it.
Or it’s something fresh instead of the same junk that critics had seen hundreds of times (literally), whereas most of the public can’t be arsed with original but marginal concepts.
There’s a reason McDonald’s is popular.
For me, I do enjoy a movie that’s deep or well written or has great cinematography, even if it’s a bit boring. I also like movies that have entertainment value. Both can exist.
Only gripe I have is shitty popular movies prevent smaller indie movies from being shown at my small town theater.
That’s called being a contrarian
The inverse of Rotten Tomatoes is a good measurement of how I’d enjoy a movie.