Gourmet vs Gourmand
Life’s better when you can enjoy complex things for their complexity and simple things for their simplicity =)
All the positive reviews have a suspiciously similar, gushing writing style.
Hmm.
I mean, not a single other current movie/show on their front page has 99% audience score.
Even if Melanoma was secretly good and “the critics were trying to bury it” they would be suspicious.
It’ll be a shit load of bots, and then the same reactionary people that make everything politically partisan and mass review bomb anything “woke”
People that didn’t see it and don’t care about “how well it does” won’t review it at all, so there’s no counter votes because… Literally no one seeing it.
Russian and Israeli bots
It depends entirely on the movie.
Like one of my all time favourite movies is Pacific Rim, because it’s goal is simply to be a bad ass and fun movie where robots fight giant monsters and it succeeds at that incredible.
It doesn’t pretend there’s some big important ehtic dilemma or it’s characters are particularly deep or go through big arcs, but it doesn’t ignore any of that either, it gives just another character to make the film work and be good without distracting from the robots.
But then on the other hand a film like good will hunting has no giant monsters but has a great character arc that is the driving force of the movie and is also good.
As I said of Pacific Rim in another comment:
A giant robot hits a giant monster with a boat, it doesn’t get better than that!
But then another personal favorite of mine is 12 Angry Men. Black & white, most of the movie takes place in a single room, but still fantastic
It’s all about intent.
If a film is trying to be a pseudo-intellectual fuck-fest and fails to do so it should be called out on it. Shutter Island I think tries it and fails. It’s like Scorsese saw Memento, thought “I can do that”, but he couldn’t.
If a film is just dumb fun like M3GAN, then that’s OK. More than fine. The worst thing you can do there is be boring. Michael Bay made robots fighting boring. Colin Trevorrow made dinosaurs boring. If you’re going to be dumb then at least be fun.
Hell, even Tron Ares is OK if you go into it expecting a two hour long music video. If you go into it expecting good acting, a script, a story, or anything other than Trent Reznor assaulting your eardrums to a light show, you’re going to be disappointed.
Yes thank you, that’s what I have tried to explain to so many people. It’s all about intent.
I love your use of Shutter Island as an exemple of a movie that tried too hard to be smart and mindbinding (even though I am usually a Scorsese fanboy). I felt a similar way about Inception. In comparison, Coherence surpassed both those movies in that regard with a budget of only 50k$.
However, in a completely different line, I loved John Wick because it was just about a guy going all berzerk at people that killed his dog. It was not trying to do anything else than being about people shooting at each other, but it was directed so well that I was hooked from the get-go.
You know what film failed to challenge even a second grade understanding of anything? Blues Brothers. You know what film really nails being two solid hours of entertainment? Blues Brothers.
At no point in either movie do you ever wonder what is going to happen to the protagonist, how they’re going to get out of a predicament, or think about the world we live in. Even if you wanted to, you wouldn’t, because you’re jamming out to Aretha Franklin absolutely killing it.
I love dark introspective movies with layers of nuance that make me stare in to infinity for a while had thinking about what I saw. I also love dumb fun entertainment. There’s a wide gap between those two extremes where quality just falls in to a mediocre valley of boring. And right at the middle there’s another peak where truly rare films manage to strike a balance between stupid fun and introspective. It’s like horseshoes, close counts because you almost never hit the peg. Mandy comes to mind. So does the first Iron Man.
I’m going to be honest, the number one way to get a good rating from me is to put a giant monster in your movie and have it fight other giant monsters OR a giant robot.
My number one complaint about movies with kaiju and/or mecha, which can prevent them from getting five stars, is that there are usually too many scenes with people talking and advancing the plot, and not enough scenes of wanton destruction where the kaiju/mecha are brawling.
If you want high star rating from me, make a science fiction movie and make space silent and soundless, as it should be. Bonus points if the people in the spaceship don’t magically stick to the floor.
Even more points if it doesn’t just follow the “Aliens” formula with some stupid variations on the theme.
I used to have a higher bar, but shit has gotten so bad I can’t even. I don’t even know where to begin. I just want ONE good thing, is that too much to hope for???
That’s why Pacific Rim ranks so high in my book
A giant robot hits a giant monster with a boat, it doesn’t get better than that!
The best way to get a shitty review out of me is to make fight scenes and not care about what you studied in high-school kinematics.
Stop a character mid-air without stopping time ->-1.
It was not for quick-time dialogue event, but just randomly stopped the character in air ->-5.
I think people should rate things consistently, and both of those criteria in the post are fairly subjective. Like, they could both vary based on your mood.
Here’s my 3-star rating system, which is less subjective:
*** I would happily watch this movie again, or I have already enjoyed it multiple times.
** It wasn’t bad, but I don’t see myself watching it again.
* I would refuse to watch this again, or I turned it off because I couldn’t watch it once.
Of course, it’s not perfect. Movies like Dear Zachary would be forced to be 2 stars. But for the most part, since star reviews are to help people decide what to watch, if the criteria is whether or not people would want to watch it a lot, I think the intentions line up with the implementation better.
Good system. I really like the practical call to action.
- must watch
- watch
- don’t watch
You could even extend it with half stars to a 6 star system equivalent.
Lots of rating systems gain an inflation of the hightest grades.
I’m a fan of:
** - Watch
* - Dont watch
Why can’t it be both? Too many people think that nuanced movies can’t be fun. It’s even dumber when they think a movie must not be nuanced just because it is fun. (Like anyone who talks about super hero movies like the entire genre is one bad movie.)
Right has the far better perspective. Thats the one I try to take into all movies sight unseen.
Movies made for Left tend to make themselves known within the first 15 minutes or so, and then he can come out and offer literary critique
Right has the far better perspective.
You can have a world where both The English Patient and Paddington 2 are considered good movies
Seriously how did they make a movie about a talking bear so goddamn good?
If you’ve got standards, sure.
But “Paddington 2 is just as good as Tron 3” leaves me questioning your rubric.
i think a film’s quality is multidimensional and shouldn’t be reduced to a single number.
so i literally don’t rate films unless all aspects of it are consistently good or bad.
Neither? If you’re going to rate every movie 5/5 then there’s no point in rating movies. Just watch them and enjoy them.
Sometimes a movie is neither fun, nor has anything valuable to say
How dare you call out Pixels like that.
Context is key. Depends on what the movie is trying to be
I apply both of these to all movies in tandem. A movie can be both “enjoyable to watch” and “having artistic merit” to varying degrees.
I really dislike when critics and audiences are unable to separate them. There are real, professional critics who seem to only judge movies by how much they enjoyed them, and I think that’s fucked because they laud a lot of “bad” movies. Then there’s others who seem to care exclusively about the perceived level of artistry - and usually they only like movies with a narrow range of themes and tones.
inside me are no cinephiles
One is not a cinephile, and the other is a fantastic exaggeration of what a cinephile is.
“This comment lacked perspective and nuance. A dreadful affair, 0/10.”
vs
“Hehe true.”
Why the fuck would I want to be challenged as a viewer?
Life is already challenging enough.
Film is a great way to show you an experience that may expand your perspective. The viewer is usually challenged by this as they have to empathise with a person outside of their comfort zone.
A good example is when a character first comes off as bad and you have to really feel his situation and empathise with him to understand why he made the choices he did and two people might walk away thinking different things about if he was right or wrong. This is a lot more involved than non challenging films where the intentions are out in the open.
Theyre fun if you’re in the mood but theres nothing wrong with chucking on something mindless, entertaining and enjoying.
It’s perfectly possible to enjoy chewing gum for the brain even though one gets no nutritional value from it.
you sound like a menace to polite Christian society, sir.
Your gum chewing shall corrupt the children and women, and lead weak men astray.
