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

[Brian Lawrence]

I don't begrudge dvd reviewers for their differing opinions as to what makes or does not make a great film.

But what does irk me a little is when I see a dvd of some low budget cult film from the 1970's that gets a poor grade in transfer quality because the reviewer feels that their is to much film grain compared to their dvd of 'Fast and the Furious' and god forbid some 40 year old film that played mostly at drive-ins, should have a few minor specks or scratches in the film print.

Don't even get me started on dvd reviewers that feel any dvd that does not have a re-mixed 5.1 soundtrack as being a "missed opportunity" and thus give the disc a poor rating for audio.


It seems that there are a lot of dvd reviewers out there that think having a high end system and a dvd player, suddenly makes them an expert on the way all films should look and sound.


I can't really point to anyone review site though, as most of them are comprised of several reviewers who can widely vary in their opinions and level of common sense.

 

[Dan Kaplan]

together they assemble a very large team in a very long and boring sequence that produces so many car thieves we can't keep them all straight. It looks like they sent out contracts to a lot of actors and were surprised when they all said yes.

I may have to go back and count, but as I recall, the number of old crew members they succesfully recruit is only 3. Man, Ebert must've hated 12 Angry Men! Granted, the movie is hardly a literary masterpiece, but he then goes on to praise Fast and the Furious for being mindless fun...
I've also seen countless DVD File (I rarely agree with their reviews, but I enjoy reading them for some reason) reviews where the reviewer smugly points out a plot impossibility, but upon further analysis, it is quite easily explained away. One that I was just looking at today is The 6th Day. The "single glaring flaw" actually seems quite sensible to me... If someone knows they are walking into situations which might lead to death and cloning, it stands to reason the bad guys would be a wee bit more aware of their situation than the naive good guys. It actually seems so reasonable that I had to read the reviewer's complaint several times just to figure out what he was objecting to...
Ok, so I should be going to bed instead of ranting endlessly. Good thing I only listed two examples.
Dan

 

[Seth Paxton]

I hate critics so much...

Let's be fair. For every bad critic there's a good one.
Well, for every 10 there's a good one. Triple that for internet reviews.
A good critic should be able to review from multiple points of view, IMO. When I review a film to someone I try to give them an idea of what sort of experience the film might be TO THEM. I will also say what I thought, but I have no illusions that my way of looking at film is the only one.
But then I'm not reviewing for a website, nor do I get paid. Maybe there is an initiation where such divergent thoughts are washed clean from my brain.

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

Another irritating one is Mark Keizer's review of "Man Bites Dog" on DVDFile. Peter Bracke seems to be the high point there now that Cliff no longer writes for him. Keizer's review of the satirical Man Bites Dog completely misses the point. I don't mind when someone doesn't necessarily agree with my sensibilities, but when you go in to a review with guns a-blazin' and your mind set as to what you're going to say, it sort of ruins it all.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Forgive me for being a little too oversensitive
about this thread, but had this been any other
DVD site, I would cring to think my name would
be included here in the same manner you have
included others.

Let me give you my perspective on being a DVD
reviewer for this site.

There are more than enough times that I admit to
myself that I shouldn't be writing DVD reviews.
Like some of the other reviewers you have trashed
in this thread, I lack both knowledge of film and
skill of writing.

I took on this post as a reviewer because it
suddenly fell in my lap. My first reviews were
pretty darn awful (see FAMILY MAN), and it was
even comforting to receive a letter from one
jack-ass "professional" Internet DVD reviewer who
told me I shouldn't be writing reviews because it
brings down the integrity of the inner circle of
DVD reviewers that reside on the Internet.

I must admit that my reviews have steadily
improved over the past year, but the truth of
the matter is, I lack the basic fundamentals for
coming across as a professional.

So why do I continue to write reviews? Well, for
some odd reason, despite the occasional mistakes
that I make, you guys seem to like what I post.
I am hoping that my reviews come across as someone
who enjoys what they watch instead of trying to
be technical. I write in simple terms, and I call
them as I see them.

As for DVDFILE....

First, I don't appreciate the attacks on that
site nor any other site. I have said this time
and time again that I have the utmost respect for
Peter Bracke and his site. In fact, I would not
hesitate to say that Peter Bracke is my favorite
reviewer on the net. His reviews are extremely
well written, and you can tell he has great
knowledge of his material. If you guys have anything
negative to say about reviews on that site, I can
only imagine what you think of mine.

I have tried not to pass myself as anything more
than what I am. My reviews aren't meant for show
off. I know what my flaws are, and it's quite
amazing that I haven't been laughed off this forum
at times. Thing is, I somewhat enjoy what I do,
and as long as you guys enjoy reading what I write,
I have no problem continuing to do this.

I'd just appreciate that you don't bring the
professional level of this forum down by talking
about reviewers on other DVD sites -- especially
when the one that represents THIS site is
no better than most. The one thing we will not
tolerate here is badmouthing of other sites.

If you want to take shots at reviewers, take a
shot at me. Honestly. Members of this forum are
certainly entitled to criticize what I do, just as
long as the criticism is expressed in a constructive
manner. No need to point fingers at other reviewers
on other sites. Talk about how I can improve what
I am doing, instead.

Thank You

 

[Stacie]

It's not just Internet reviewers. I feel the same way about DVD reviews in print mags. I get Sound and Vision and Stereophile Guide to Home Theater. I enjoy both of these magazines, but I'm not reading them so their writers can give me their opinions on film. What I read them for is information about the DVD itself: transfer quality, sound quality, extras, etc. I usually skim over anything they have to say about the film itself. When I want opinions about film, I'll turn to true critics (my handful of favorites).

Ron, I don't spend a lot of time surfing around reading DVD reviews, but I appreciate yours for the same reasons that I get something out of HT mag reviews: not because of your opinions on the films themselves, but because you are a very thorough technical reviewer. The number of screenshots you include is also a nice bonus. It also seems to me that you make a huge effort not to automatically dismiss films that you personally don't like -- you always try to understand why the film might appeal to others. That quality alone sets your DVD reviews apart from many others.

 

[Douglas R]

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.

This quote suggests that only somebody who likes a particular film should review it! I don't see anything wrong with DVDFile's review of Horror of Dracula because it is a review which makes valid criticisms such as:

"His static camera makes everything feel far too stagey. With little real suspense generated and none of stately grandeur and creepiness of a Nosferatu".

Now you may disagree with what is said but you cannot deny that the reviewer is explaining what he thinks is wrong with the film, which is what a good reviewer should do.

 

[Brent Hutto]

I don't think it's a big issue for movies on DVD since the movie was usually out many months before the DVD arrives. By the time a DVD is released for a movie I'm interested in, I've long since read what Roger Ebert (whom I seldom agree with but he writes interesting, informed reviews) or other "known quantity" critics have had to say about it. So when I read a DVD review, I skip right down the part that tells me whether there are any issues with the sound or picture.
No offense to Ron or the other fine Internet DVD reviewers but I've read hundreds of Ebert reviews (for example) which lets me treat his opinion as a well-calibrated standard that I know how to interpret in terms of my own likes and dislikes. And there are certainly witty, well-informed and insightful reviews coming out all the time from Ron and others which I appreciate all the more because they're unexpected treats from reviewers who are new to me.
Although come to think of it...wasn't it Ron who gave that glowing review to the DVD with the trivia quizzes and junk to show before the movie? What the heck were you thinking, man? That's a terrible idea! You must be a terrible reviewer because I don't agree with that at all! Worst...reviewer...ever...
(Just joking, of course. We love ya, man.)

 

[Randy A Salas]

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.

That's a major "oh, by the way." Care to provide some examples?

 

[John_Berger]

Ron, you're being over-sensitive, buddy.
There are various degrees of critics. Some are stuffed-shirts; some are professionals who are respectable; some are professionals who are not respectable; some are "just one of the guys"; and some are complete morons.
I don't think that any of us on HTF who do reviews, whether for DVDs, software, hardware, PC-related items, gadgets, etc., think that we're any higher or lower than anyone else. We do our reviews; we say it like it is; we don't even try to pretend that we're the best critics in the world. We do, however, at least try to have some semblance of professionalism.
(For those who are wondering "Hey, you don't do HTF reviews!", I do PC and gadget reviews for other sites, although I did do one M*A*S*H review for HTF. )
Comments like "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)'" deserve abuse. "Supp"? "chilled ale"? Oh, please. The concept that only DTS makes you a true videophile is also disturbing. Reviews with comments like this are highly unprofessional and deserve to be abused. That other comment about not being able to watch movies from before 1980 also does not ring of professionalism either.
Then we also have the "professional" critics who don't have a clue. A lot of the movie buffs that I know in the area all agree that the local newspaper critic is as full of crap as she is of herself. If she says a movie is bad, it must be good; if she says a movie is good, it must be great. But she's been doing this for over fifteen years, so everyone who doesn't know better thinks that she's the epitome of accurate movie commenting.
We avoid those kinds of things. Yes, we can give our impression on what we review, but I think that for the most part we talk about how it comes across. You talk about color, sound, features with your DVD reviews; I talk about usability, compatibility, functionality in my PC soft/hardware reviews. We don't get into degenerate comments like "this movie/CD-ROM is deserving of a beer coaster or a skeet target because the movie/program just {censored} sucks", which puts us way above some "critics".
Sit back. Relax. Breathe in the nose, out the mouth. And look back at all of the replies for your reviews that say "Great review, Ron!" Just because people like your reviews doesn't mean that they need to like everyone else's reviews.
Just my two cents.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

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.

Where's my fat checks?
If a DVD sucks, I'm going to slam it into next Tuesday. The movie on it may suck, but if it's a great DVD that deserves praise.

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

I actually like DVDFile and go there once a day; I do the same with The Digital Bits and DavisDVD (DVDReview got the boot after their non-OAR stance and TheBigPictureDVD's arcane subscription-only approach is irritating). I don't think critics need to "like" what they're reviewing -- Glenn Erickson's criticism of Grease is an excellent review -- but I am irritated when they go in with preconceived notions or worse, have already seen the film before reviewing the DVD and hate it and make sure you know this from the word go. In that case, spare us your diatribe and let us know if the disc is any good.
On the other hand, simple fanboy gushing does no one any good either. ("This is the most awesomist Jason movie ever and you're stupid if you can't see it, dood!")
The DVDSavant -- and Nathaniel Thompson's Mondo Digital (he writes for Video Watchdog) -- are both superlative.
That Epstein guy freaks me out, though. And what's with the yellow car?

 

[RaulR]

Care to provide some examples?

Of course not. I may be cynical, but I'm not crazy. But you know a couple of them -- they're the ones whose blurbs ALWAYS appear in the promotional material for crappy movies.
I'm surprised at your skepticism, though. Just about every aspect of the mass media is tainted to some degree by corporate interests. Why should movie reviewing be any different?

 

[Dave Anderson]

Panning critics because of their opinion on a movie is childish, and plain wrong. A reviewer's opinion of any particular movie is exactly that - THEIR opinion. As long as they state the reasons why they dislike a movie, the first part of their job is complete. If sound, video, and extras (also subject to their opinion) are reviewed accurately, the reviewer has completed their job to the best of their abilities.

 

[Randy A Salas]

I'm surprised at your skepticism, though. Just about every aspect of the mass media is tainted to some degree by corporate interests. Why should movie reviewing be any different?

Well, I'm an editor for a mass-media publication (a top 15 U.S. daily newspaper) and corporate interests don't affect the writing of my weekly DVD column, nor do they taint movie reviews by my two colleagues who do those. But citing "corporate interests" is a long way from saying that companies *pay* reviewers "directly or indirectly" for favorable reviews.

 

[RaulR]

But citing "corporate interests" is a long way from saying that companies *pay* reviewers "directly or indirectly" for favorable reviews.

Payment doesn't have to come in the form of cash, you know...

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

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

I'm intrigued. What haven't I been getting from the studios to put their discs in a favorable light? For me, the only thing I need from a studio to give them a favorable review is a quality product. If you consider getting the disc at no cost as a perk, I think most reviewers would agree that for the time it takes to research the film and properly review a disc, the per hour rate is far better working at Wendy's.

I also disagree with the notion that films shouldn't be reviewed by anyone other than an expert on the particular film, or someone who is a fan of a particular genre. While this is a useful perspective, it is also useful to have someone's first impression of a film available.

 

[RaulR]

For me, the only thing I need from a studio to give them a favorable review is a quality product. If you consider getting the disc at no cost as a perk, I think most reviewers would agree that for the time it takes to research the film and properly review a disc, the per hour rate is far better working at Wendy's.

No, I don't think freebies are a perk, but I wish I had them when I was in the business. I was a critic before the days of home video, and I had to pay out of my own pocket to watch the movies I reviewed. And of course to do a proper review I had to see the film more than once.

Being a critic is a thankless job, but most of the ones who want to do it right do so out of love or obsession. It certainly isn't for the glory or the financial gain.

 

[John_Berger]

I also disagree with the notion that films shouldn't be reviewed by anyone other than an expert on the particular film, or someone who is a fan of a particular genre. While this is a useful perspective, it is also useful to have someone's first impression of a film available.

Sorry, I don't buy that. The views of someone more familiar with the history or genre of a film should hold far more credibility than views of someone who is not familiar with the history or is a fan of the genre.

For example, I do not like horror movies; therefore, I would not be an acceptable candidate to critique a horror movie. Yes, I could critique a horror DVD for its technical merits; however, if asked to critique a movie for the merits of the movie I would not be an acceptable candidate because I have a blatant bias against horror. I would find the movie to be neither enjoyable nor watchable; therefore, my views would be invalid.

This is the same with any genre. The views of someone who does not like a particular genre should not be given any credence because that person went into the theater with a bias against that genre to start with.

Even technical reviews can have biases against them. When I did my M*A*S*H review for the season 2 DVD, I made a statement that there were no frills and there there was no real need for them, when I got contradicted about commentaries. I didn't even think about them because I have no real love for commentaries; therefore, I didn't think to even comment on the lack thereof. My lack-of-love for running commentaries therefore (and unintentionally) tainted my review. Granted, I didn't come out with some asinine and totally ridiculous statement about making the M*A*S*H discs a coaster while you "supp" your "chilled beer", but it was still the result of a bias.

It's for reasons like these that the reviews of those who ARE fans of a genre should have more credibility in their reviews than those who are NOT fans of a genre. If you're going to review something that you're already certain that you won't like, then don't bother review it because we already know what the outcome will be. Let someone else who not nearly as biased do an appropriate review.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

If you're going to review something that you're already certain that you won't like, then don't bother review it because we already know what the outcome will be. Let someone else who not nearly as biased do an appropriate review.

A good reviewer, while having biases (no one can claim to be unbiased to some extent), tries to approach everything with an open mind. Limiting reviews to only those who have an affinity for a certain genre is just as biased as the other way around.
For a review to have merit to a wide range of audiences, it can't just be targeted at those who are fans, otherwise it does the film a disservice. When I reviewed Carnival of Souls, I went in knowing I wasn't a fan of zombie flicks, and discovered an awesome movie experience in the process, which I would hope might encourage others who also aren't that keen on that type of film to give it a shot. There are films in every genre which appeal to more than just a core audience, but the only way to discover them is by exposing them to outsiders to judge.