Am I the only one who doesn't read movie reviews? (1 Viewer)

[StephenA]

I never read reviews. If a movie looks like a type of movie I'd like and/or interesting, I'll see it. I usually end up liking it, even if it gets panned by everyone else. I have seen a few movies I hated though, but they were rentals. Luckily I never saw a movie in a theater that I hated. I like to form my own opinion on something, not let it be influenced by a review. I have to admit that I'll occasionally read a review after I've seen the movie, but never before.

 

[Jeff Rogers]

I read a review on people like you. You should read it!
But seriously, I read reviews...it they like it it pumps me up...
If they don't it lowers my expectations so I might enjoy it better....

 

[Jack Briggs]

Um, Stephen, I always read reviews. I think a majority of people here do.

 

[Tom Rhea]

I read reviews all the time. As a matter of fact the only magazine I read regularly is Film Comment, which is mostly reviews.

That's not to say that I let the reviews tell me what I should or should not see. Mostly I read to learn -- I've only been "serious" about movies as art for a short while and what I don't know about movies would fill up several large volumes.

When it comes to deciding what to see or avoid, I just follow my instincts.

 

[Matt Pelham]

I read reviews....ONLY AFTER I'VE SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!

I find that the less I know about movies before I see them, the more enjoyable my viewing experience is. Usually I'll scan reviews to get a general feeling of whether or not critics liked the movie, but I never actually read the review before I see it. After I've seen the movie then I read the reviews to see if I agree or not.

 

[Jim_K]

There aren't many reviewers that I respect enough to read their reviews. I also tend to avoid in-depth reviews because they usually contain spoiler material. I do glance at ratings (Basic Star ratings or the IMDB ratings are a good indicator)to form an overall consensus (this helps me avoid turkeys such as Battlefield Earth, etc.). I don't like wasting my time watching crappy films which can be avoided sometimes.

However living in Chicago I get the Sun-Times so I always read Roger Ebert's reviews. Even though I don't have to agree with his views/tastes, I will read his articles because he is just a wonderful/gifted writer who is very adept at avoiding spoilers. I have no problems forming my own opinion on a film after reading reviews as this holds no sway over my own judgment.

 

[Ben Motley]

I pretty much don't read reviews. Sorry.
I tend to pretty much follow my instinct, and yeah, sometimes I miss out on stuff, but I figure if a buzz is still goin' on somethin' after a long time, that's all the review that I need, and nay check it out. I also hate spoilers with a passion, and so don't read reviews until after I've seen a movie, or rarely in the event that some movie piques my interest and I have no knowledge of the subject matter or the filmmakers. Yep, those are about the only two times I read reviews.

 

[Chris Wittry]

I'm there with you Stephen. I say "Screw the Reviews" because there is no other person in the entire world who has the exact same tastes as I do, so no person could ever put into words the way that I could feel or do feel about a movie. Thus, I must experience a movie for myself and then decide whether it was something I might wish to experience again.

 

[Harv]

No, I don't read reviews either...I usually let word-of-mouth from people whose tastes mirror my own, or the teaser/trailer dictate what I see or don't see

 

[Terrell]

I read reviews....ONLY AFTER I'VE SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!

Ditto! And even then, I only read 3 or 4 critic's that I generally like. And one of them, Ebert, has gotten worse and worse. He's quickly falling off my list. I like James Berardinelli.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

This thread depresses me. :frowning:

 

[Ryan Peter]

Please delete

 

[John Spencer]

Yeah, but then Ebert had the nerve to form a negative opinion on Episode II.
We kid because we love.
Not.

 

[RobertR]

I try to get a good cross section of opinion about a film. Doing so gives me a better idea about the reasons (and biases) why someone did or didn't like a film. For example, I know where Roger Ebert is coming from when he reacts to a film that's political in nature, so I take that into account. It's the ability to articulate one's feelings about a film that are important.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Please Delete

 

[Terrell]

Post Deleted by member

 

[Ryan Peter]

Please delete

 

[Terrell]

Post Deleted

 

[Ryan Peter]

I only read reviews after I've seen the movie. I check the stars before I go to the theater to see if it's worth my while. I strictly use Ebert, but before I used to use Siskel/Ebert combination. On some occasions I go to rottentomatoes.com to get a treasure chest of reviews for a movie I either really like or dont' like. I tend not to trust any critics about comedies, especially Ebert. You can't account for someone's taste in comedies. I rented Happy, Texas based on Ebert's review and really didn't like it. Same for a few others as well.

What I don't get are these threads that pop up that discuss a movie months or weeks before a film opens and the people inside of them discuss spoilers like crazy. I'm super anal about spoilers so much so I don't like watching movie trailers on TV because they always give away too much. Especially this happens for movies I want to see, if it's just some movie I don't care much about I will watch trailers all the time but it does take away from my enjoyment of the movie when I finally see it.

The reviews I like the most are ones found here. Specifically those of Edwin, Tino, Richard Malloy, Scott W., Gary Tooze, Crawdaddy and others. I like those the best because I feel I know more about them than I know about someone like Ebert and I can ask them questions and get feedback.

That's my opinion on that.

 

[Terrell]

Well, I will agree with you on that. I personally put more faith in the opinions here, especially Ron and Scott, simply because I find myself agreeing with them about 90% of the time.

Look, I have no problem with Ebert personally. But I do feel that lately he has gotten worse. I mean, he said the performances were stiff in AOTC, yet he never mentioned this about TPM. I think the performances in TPM are far more stiff and lifeless than in AOTC. I thought the performances in AOTC were good, except for the fireplace scene. His just contradicts himself to much now. I also find it funny that he is well known for hating digital filmmaking, and AOTC was shot digitally. Then his review spends a lot of time slamming digital. Just review the movie, good or bad.

As for Spider-Man, he didn't even remember why Peter walked away, and they basically told you why the 10 minutes before. Those are the kinds of reasons Ebert has gone down. But I'm not gonna go in for personal attacks. When I defended him in the Spider-Man thread, I hadn't seen the movie. But I realize just how bad it was after seeing the film.