Movie Reviews

Dustin Elmore · 07-27-2005, 02:12 AM

Am I the only person who’s extremely dissatisfied with state of movie reviewing? Every week there are hundreds of notable reviews written and none are done so with any consistency or practicality. To rate the films people use thumbs, some use stars or points, they’ll use a 5 star, or maybe a 4 star system. Or they’ll grade it, but they won’t have any reasoning behind the grades, they just arbitrarily say “B-.” When you wrote papers for English class in college, were there not clearly defined terms for how the material was graded—despite it being a work of art in some cases. Would it be too much for the MPAA or some other organization to institute some kind of review standard?
Personally I don’t like to read reviews before I see a movie, I just want to see the grade so I won’t be spoiled. Roger Ebert always has heavy spoilers in his written reviews, and there isn’t any kind of score at the end. Not even a stupid thumb. However, after seeing a film there are a number of reviewers whose thoughts I like to ponder. I always go to see the percentage at rottentomatoes, but that really is a misleading number. They would have you believe that it’s a percentage of how good the movie is, when in reality it is nothing of the such. And worse is that often it’s up to their own interpretation whether a review is positive or not. And there are plenty of Tomatoes on there that read like splats to me.
When I review a film, I like to use a 10 point scale, with sub-points in between if I want to be very specific. Like the Olympics. And I don’t just watch any crap film and say “Wow, that was great, I don’t see how that could have been any better,” just because there was one area or two that I happened to enjoy. I look at the major pieces of a movie; Direction, Cinematography, Editing, Music, Acting, Screenplay, and so on, and then rate each one of those individually. When a movie comes along that needs something extra taken into account, then you do so; like the originality of a remake. And then you look at the overall picture and see how it all comes together. There are so many movies that come out now, and it cost so much to see them. I can’t see them all and often don’t want too. It would be nice if all those overpaid film reviewers were actually helping me choose which films I want to spend my money on instead of just filling up space and wasting time.

Alex Spindler · 07-27-2005, 08:17 AM

Wouldn't this be to your liking?

http://www.metacritic.com/

Jason Walstrom · 07-27-2005, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Am I the only person who’s extremely dissatisfied with state of movie reviewing? Every week there are hundreds of notable reviews written and none are done so with any consistency or practicality. To rate the films people use thumbs, some use stars or points, they’ll use a 5 star, or maybe a 4 star system. Or they’ll grade it, but they won’t have any reasoning behind the grades, they just arbitrarily say “B-.”

Quote:

Personally I don’t like to read reviews before I see a movie, I just want to see the grade so I won’t be spoiled.

I think I know what you mean. The review talks about the movie and sometimes does and sometimes does not go into detail on why the film is good or bad and just gives a grade. I enjoy Eberts thumbs up or thumbs down but I don't really take reviews all that seriosly. How many times have you loved a film hated by critics etc.

Dustin Elmore · 07-27-2005, 03:09 PM

Wow, thanks Alex, I've never heard of Metacritic before. I'll try them out for a while instead of Rottentomatoes, they sound as if them may be more accurate.

Mark Pfeiffer · 07-27-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

To rate the films people use thumbs, some use stars or points, they’ll use a 5 star, or maybe a 4 star system. Or they’ll grade it, but they won’t have any reasoning behind the grades, they just arbitrarily say “B-.”

From my discussions with other critics, many would prefer to write reviews without ratings (stars, grades, etc.) at all. I don't agree with that thinking 100%, but the argument is that it reduces complex opinions to an oversimplified score. Also, there's the belief that it makes all of the writing extraneous because people are looking for a rating only. And yes, some do consider their rating arbitrary.

Quote:

Would it be too much for the MPAA or some other organization to institute some kind of review standard?

The MPAA, or no other organization I can think of, has no authority in this area. It's up to the publication.

RE: the Tomatometer

Quote:

And worse is that often it’s up to their own interpretation whether a review is positive or not.

It may be different for the "cream of the crop", but the rest of us select "fresh" or "rotten" (along with any other rating) when we add our reviews to the database. In other words, if it reads positive but says "rotten", then either the critic made an input error or should have done a better job clarifying. (The fresh/rotten rating has no room for something in between, which is why you might be better served looking at the average rating score.)

Quote:

It would be nice if all those overpaid film reviewers were actually helping me choose which films I want to spend my money on instead of just filling up space and wasting time.

Can't say I know any who are overpaid. Many aren't paid at all or just scraping by. You don't get into this racket looking to get rich, that's for sure. The best advice I can give you is to find a few critics whose opinions are a good gauge for you. As far as I'm concerned, someone who you disagree with most of the time is just as valuable as someone who mirrors your tastes. (There are plenty out there to pick from.) Both help you figure out if you'd like the films in question.

**HTF Ads**

ThomasC · 07-27-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Many aren't paid at all or just scraping by.

So how much do you think Frank Gabrenya makes (you better know who I'm talking about :p))?

Mark Pfeiffer · 07-27-2005, 06:05 PM

Quote:

So how much do you think Frank Gabrenya makes (you better know who I'm talking about )?

Yeah, I know him. Saw him at this morning's screening of The Great Raid.

He probably does okay for himself. For that matter, anyone writing full-time for a daily city newspaper is probably making decent money. After that, who knows?

Dustin Elmore · 07-28-2005, 04:12 PM

I'm only referring to the more well known and supposedly professional film critics who work for major publications and such. The reviewers in the non-cream of the crop section are often just film fans who write reviews for a website. I wouldn't hold them to the same standard. I expect the professionals to have a background knowledge of film making, and be able to critique all the areas aptly. I don't think thats asking too much. And even if reviewers don't want to print their rating, wouldn't it be nice if they made it available to Rottentomatoes and similar publications to use for their data.

JohnRice · 08-01-2005, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Wow, thanks Alex, I've never heard of Metacritic before. I'll try them out for a while instead of Rottentomatoes, they sound as if them may be more accurate.

I sense a fundamental flaw in what you are seeking.

DaveF · 08-01-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Would it be too much for the MPAA or some other organization to institute some kind of review standard?

They can use my rating system, if they like.

I've added a simple numerical scale to suit your particular desires.

$10 = Worth paying full theater price
$7 = Worth paying matinee price
$4 = Worth renting
$2 = Worth watching at second-run theater
free = Worth watching on an airplane
-2hr = Two hours of your life you'll never get back

TonyD · 08-01-2005, 01:54 PM

quote:
"Wow, thanks Alex, I've never heard of Metacritic before. I'll try them out for a while instead of Rottentomatoes, they sound as if them(they?) may be more accurate."

"I sense a fundamental flaw in what you are seeking."

accurate?

a review of a film really only offers an opinion.
what accuracy are you looking for.