DVD reviews & reviewers that don't have a clue. (1 Viewer)

[Jay E]

I was checking out reviews of the region 2 DVD of Kurosawa's Kagemusha when I came upon this review from DVD Web:
Its always tough watching an ultra slow-paced, sub-titled movie and a decent English soundtrack would probably have helped its cause. Its one to avoid, unless you're an academic enthusiast or a masochist. Many of you will find the best use of this particular DVD as a 'beer mat' for when you supp your chilled ale as you watch the DTS version of 'Predator (Special Edition)'.
Obviously someone like this shouldn't be reviewing the merits of this film (or any film for that matter).
Anyone else have a review that sticks in their craw?

 

[RaulR]

I'm not a big fan of "Cats," but the idiot who wrote this alleged review is just too stupid to live:
http://www.hit-n-run.com/cgi/read_re...3421_daverules

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Yes, there is so much to complain about in CATS than just the fact it has no plot. The fact it has 1 good song....
Where is this Kagemusha "critic" so that I may..have words with him for insulting the memory of Kurosawa-sensei with his hackdom?

 

[Mike Broadman]

Many of you will find the best use of this particular DVD as a 'beer mat' for when you supp your chilled ale as you watch the DTS version of 'Predator (Special Edition)'.

Guys like him are basically saying, "I found it boring or I didn't get it. I'm obviously so smart and important because people read what I write. Therefore, no one will like it. Thank God they have me to tell them that."

I hate critics so much...

 

[Jay E]

Here's another reviewer who should have his keyboard confiscated. It's a review from Michael D's R4 of the 1973 film A Doll's House:
For me, this movie just reinforces my rule to never watch any movie that was made before 1980. There are of course some notable exceptions to this rule, such as Alien, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind and Jaws, but as a whole I find it is a pretty good rule that serves me well.

 

[StevenA]

DVDFile's review of Horror of Dracula which has just been posted indicates that the disc should have been given to somebody with some appreciation of Hammer and its legacy.

 

[David Lambert]

Guys, I agree entirely. Whenever I'm reviewing something for TVShowsOnDVD, I try very hard to stay away from reviewing the content and merits of the feature itself, and stick to telling you whether the DVD release is any good.
I love, on the other hand, to fill folks in on the history/background of the feature, and in the process try hard for every review to come up with one piece of trivia that the majority of the readers probably aren't aware of (like that the actor who played George Jefferson's prior "role" was as a post office worker in Indiana, or that the guy who invented Clifford the Big Red Dog was told he would never be successful as an illustrator of kid stories).
I might mention in the review that *I* love a show, but I never say anyone else should love it, nor will I say I hate it. I realize that if a feature comes out on DVD, there is an audience for it somewhere. That audience is PROBABLY who is reading my review. They just want to be reassured as to whether or not the disc is worth the bucks. Maybe get more info about the contents than the back of the box provides.
All I consider my role to be is as someone who gives them the data to make the DVD buying decision. I never imply to my readers that they have bad taste in the feature that's on the DVD!

 

[Jay E]

DVDFile's review of Horror of Dracula which has just been posted indicates that the disc should have been given to somebody with some appreciation of Hammer and its legacy.

I agree Steven.I have a feeling that the reveiwer would be happier watching another Friday the 13th film where the blood is more realistic. He also got the year of the film wrong, it was released in 1958, not 1963.

 

[Damin J Toell]

This is why I generally skip straight down to the Video/Audio/Supplements portion of a DVD review....

DJ

 

[RaulR]

This is why I generally skip straight down to the Video/Audio/Supplements portion of a DVD review....

So do I. If I'm interested in a DVD, I already know the movie. I just want to see what people have to say about the quality of the transfer, etc. etc.

Regarding critics in general: I used to be a film critic in a major daily in Manila. Part of the reason I quit was that the realities of the publication business (space limitations, readership considerations, editors, unreasonable deadlines, and so on) pretty much force a writer never to depart from the usual "Here's a summary of the plot, and here's what I thought of the acting and the script and the production design" formula. I wanted to write analytical pieces a la Pauline Kael, but it just wasn't going to happen, unless I wanted to start my own publication. I haven't even mentioned the fact that many so-called critics are paid by the studios (directly or indirectly) to put their products in a favorable light.

It's really too bad, because the one thing that could really serve as a middleman between "evil" studios and the public is an intelligent, unbiased, and reasonably learned critic. A simple "thumbs up or thumbs down" or five-star ranking scale just doesn't cut it, especially if you want to explain why a movie that's an outright failure still deserves attention BECAUSE of why it failed ("The Bonfire of the Vanities" is the perfect example).

I've always believed that the duty of a critic is not to declare whether he or she likes something or not (although that's always at least implied), but to give rise to intelligent discussion and debate. Sadly, the profession has been pretty much reduced to hacking out text that will -- if you're lucky -- eventually be reduced to a one-line or one-word blurb on a poster.

Sorry for ranting.

 

[Thomas T]

Count me in as someone who glances down toward the "How does it look and how does it sound" part of the alleged reviews. I certainly don't need anyone to tell me if a movie is good or bad, I'll decide for myself thank you very much.
I think DVD "reviewers" would be better served by avoiding authentic criticism since for the most part they are ill equipped to do so, the DVD file review of The Horror Of Dracula for example. It's like having someone who hates muscials review Singin' In The Rain.
At least, Ron Epstein is forthcoming and honest in his reviews. In his negative review of Gosford Park, he didn't say it was a bad movie but simplay said it wasn't his thing. If only other "reviewers" could be so upfront as opposed to the clueless condescension.

 

[Joseph Young]

The reviewer dr_lorro, who said the

I must admit that I would never usually even think about buying a 1950s 'mono' movie on DVD. The reasons are pretty obvious: a 'high quality' DVD should have a genuine DTS soundtrack, be anamorphic widescreen, have stacks of quality 'extras' and contain a great movie.

Well then, I guess that means I should thank dr_lorro for revealing the 'obvious.' I should immediately start throwing out all my silent film DVDs and B&W film DVDs, especially those in MONO (what was I thinking???) and start over again. Thank god somebody set me straight! Here I was, thinking that my DVDs of "Diary of a Lost Girl," "Haxan," "Notorious," and many others were actually worth owning!
:rolleyes
~j

 

[Patrick McCart]

This is why I wish Roger Ebert and Robert Harris did joint DVD reviews together.

Most DVD reviewers have no idea of film technology or of vintage films...

I wanted to review for a DVD review website, but I was really turned off by the OBLIGATORY rule to make mono soundtracks no more than 2.5 out of 5 points. A few mono tracks I've heard such as Citizen Kane's and the track for Young Frankenstein are perfect...but no matter how good, it would be impossible to give them a perfect score. I'd virtually have to lie to those who read my reviews "Great soundtrack, but loses 2.5 points for being mono."

Some DVD reviews for The Evil Dead: Book of the Dead edition slammed it for being grainy. Well, since when is 16mm-originated film NOT grainy?

Sure, I have no problem with counting off for obvious stuff like ringing, too much film damage, tears, etc...but it's just pointless to count off for stuff that has been there since day one. I see some reviews slamming Technicolor for being to bright. Well, can Technicolor dye-transfer be flawed for having more vibrant color than Eastmancolor?

I'm organizing my own DVD and film review site to do it right. I'm just sick of older films getting the bad rating why crappy movies like Planet of the Apes get perfect scores because it's recent....and people wonder why it takes so long for classic movies to be on DVD.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Patrick: I've also gotten offers to join various startup DVD review sites, but turned them down for similiar "rules" which I didn't agree with. As it is, I run my own site which is very limited in reviews and I have to pay for the DVDs myself, but I don't have to death with blanket rules that don't allow for the exceptions that are going to follow. I'm glad you're sticking to your guns.

 

[RobertCharlotte]

If only other "reviewers" could be so upfront as opposed to the clueless condescension.

The "clueless" is the central point here. It takes a fair amount of maturity and intelligence to understand that something you don't enjoy isn't bad, it just isn't your pint of ale. For a great many people, there is no difference. They don't understand how anyone can like something they find unwatchable, and people who do qualify in their minds as crazy, if only very slightly so.

 

[Joseph Young]

I'm organizing my own DVD and film review site to do it right. I'm just sick of older films getting the bad rating why crappy movies like Planet of the Apes get perfect scores because it's recent....and people wonder why it takes so long for classic movies to be on DVD.

I couldn't have said it better myself. The de-prioritization of important, classic cinema on a format with excellent longevity is perpetuated by this obsession for the next great 'special edition' of the same stalid, rehashed title.

All this money is going into giving us an additional 3 hours of behind the scenes footage on the set of 'American Pie' when instead we could be working toward some productive and vital restoration. A damned shame.

~joseph

 

[Stu Rosen]

There's nothing wrong with reviewers stating their opinions about films. Yes, we all know what we think about films we've already seen, but I frequently gain some insight into that film by listening to the opinions of others. Indeed, I enjoy if the reviewer disagrees with my opinion -- my own views get challenged, and I revisit my opinion again.

Frankly, with the linked reviews above, I was just stunned at the utter ignorance of the reviewers. Yes, I know, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and certainly there's an intelligent way of giving a negative review to Seven Samurai (theoretically, at least). My 13-year-old kid has all sorts of opinions about films, but that doesn't mean I have to give them equal weight to Anthony Lane or Roger Ebert.

 

[Andy Sheets]

DVDFile's review of Horror of Dracula which has just been posted indicates that the disc should have been given to somebody with some appreciation of Hammer and its legacy.

When it comes to classics and/or cult films, I've found you can almost always count on DVDFile's reviews being painfully clueless. Best to just skip the "movie" section of the review.

 

[BarryR]

I'll echo matters by saying how tired I am of reviews that begin "I hate musicals.." or "If there's one genre I can't stand...", and then do their best to deal with a DVD that is so odiously burdened as a musical, even if it's a classic. First off, the musical genre has always been more than SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and THE SOUND OF MUSIC; hundreds, if not thousands of musicals have been made over 70 years, and still being reinvented a la MOULIN ROUGE, but I have waded through some painfully clueless reviews that treat musicals as some minor, mutant cinematic aberration that contain no context or knowledge of this long suffering-for-online-respect genre. RRRRR!!!

 

[Chris Beveridge]

Now you guys know how a number of us feel when mainstream reviewers tackle the anime genre.

Roeper and his "but they have such big eyes!" whine... ugh.