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

[Ryan Peter]

I thought he said in an Answer Man he was just joking about not knowing why Peter walked away? It's in the latest answer man and the person who asked is 12 I believe.

 

[Terrell]

That may be what he's saying now, but it sure didn't seem like he was teasing when he wrote that in his review. If what you state is true, it makes him look even worse. I wonder if he changed his review?

Ultimately it doesn't matter. His hating movies I liked, or even loved doesn't change my stance on them. But he didn't always contradict himself like he does now. But with Star Wars, people alway carry baggage into that film, whether good or bad.

 

[Ryan Peter]

Please delete

 

[Terrell]

Well, I normally read reviews as entertainment. I rarely use them as a guide on what to see. I see what interests me, and I read a few reviews after the fact.

 

[Ricardo C]

What the hell is up with all the "please delete" and "post deleted" messages??

EDIT: Was it "Attack of the Quadruple Posts"?

 

[Duane Robinson]

I read reviews with about the same amount of seriousness as I read the Sunday comics. I can tell what I will like just from the subject matter, the stars, or who's involved in the production. Take the new J LO movie, I have no desire whatsoever to see this movie and I stick by it. It could end up being nominated for best picture or something but I know me and I know I wouldn't like that crap. I'll take chances with films like these on HBO or something when I have a lot of free time and nothing better to do. After I see a movie and form my own opinion then I usually check the forum to see how others viewed a particular movie.

The only thing that really comes from that though is maybe me learning something new or being alerted to something I didn't notice the first time through. I also love reading reviews of bad movies since those are usually the funniest and even if I liked the movie that's getting panned some of those reviews can be damn entertaining. A perfect example of this is Scott's review of the Fast and the Furious, which I liked and he hated. Our opinions differed but his review had me laughing my ass off.

 

[Terrell]

Ricardo, Ryan and I got into a little argument that we felt derailed this thread. So we decided it was best to delete them. Hopefully, a mod will delete them completely.

Duane, I'm pretty much the same way. I know what I'm interested in without ever reading reviews. I read reviews only after the fact. I sometimes look to see if films get negative or positive reviews, before I see the movie. But I don't really read any in their entirety until after the movie.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Always read reviews though I often skip the lame plot summary section. I want a general feeling description with perhaps a few plot points/moments as examples at best.

Either the summary is a spoiler or it's what you already know from trailers, etc and then it just seems boring to read.

I think it's easy to speak about a film's qualities or failures without specifics. I understand "bad dialog" for example without actually having to read it all (but an example helps a person understand the reviewers idea of "bad dialog").

If I could see every film I wouldn't do this, but my funds are limited. Reviews fail sometimes, but rarely.

 

[Richard WWW]

I read reviews pretty frequently. If it's a film I don't really intend to see, maybe I'll go and see it if it's well-reviewed. I saw Y Tu Mama Tambien and Monsoon Wedding because of reviews I'd read about them, and enjoyed both films. If I already intend to see a film, I'll often read the review afterwards, to get a different perspective on it. But I will no longer read Lisa Schwarzbaum's reviews in Entertainment Weekly. She rated the Britney Spears filth 'Crossroads' higher than 'Attack of the Clones', which she spent the first quarter of her review dogging for Lucas' internal reasons for doing what he did in Episode II. I DETEST reviews where the reviewer supposes that they can read the mind of whatever director whose film he/she is reviewing. It's the most pointless endeavor conceivable for a reviewer, and it infuriates me!

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I read reviews, but only after I see the movie. However, I read film criticism all the time. Those in the know can tell you the difference.

 

[GregoryM]

For movies that I know I want to see, I avoid finding out anything until afterwards, but then I'll check in with my favorite critics (Ebert, Cranky Critic, Berardinelli) For movies for which I am on the fence, or don't have any information, I'll read a few reviews. This has led me to some real gems that I might have missed.

 

[Talal]

The only reviews I ever read were those of Janet Maslin(former NYTimes film critic). Her reviews spoke of movies as one who enjoyed film would enjoy them. It was a sad day when I found out she left. I'll never forget her review of The Phantom Menace.. her first sentence PERFECTLY summed up the movie, and firmly established the already lingering thought that she is a genius.

"It's up to snuff."


That crackpot AO Scott who took her spot is a clear high-minded, "put me on the poster" critic...

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

I read them, occasionally. Not really to make a decision, more because I know some reviewers are very gifted and the way they can analyze a film is magical to read. By now, I know what kind of film I want to go see, I know what directors/actors/producers work I admire and I don't need a written article to either lure me in or drive me away.

Bruce

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I never read reviews.

Makes me wonder why you are here. Aren't most of the posts here comments or reviews of films?
~Edwin

 

[Seth Paxton]

No, most of the posts are trolls or those responding to trolls.
It must be spring, my cynicism is in full bloom.