Movies. What do people talk about?
Did it fail? Did it succeed? Did audiences like it? Was it good?
Did it fail? Did it succeed? Did audiences like it? Was it good?
Okay. Some more "important" questions that are apparently indicators of whether a film is good or not.
Did critics like it?
How much money did it make?
What kind of movie is it?
I believe these three questions are some of the most damning ones.
The Critics
As an audience, we collectively seem to believe what we're told by others on whom we bestow our confidence and trust. But that should never be unwavering belief, never blind trust. Hear what they have to say, sure. But before you form your own judgement, don't you think it's better to at least experience it yourself? Get some first hand data, so to speak?
There have been times when some reviews have left me agape. This review of Disturbed's cover of Simon & Garfunkel's classic Sound of Silence, for instance, is extremely one-sided. If you're a reviewer, at least do the courtesy of pretending to look at both sides of the coin, instead of yelling full tilt about how bad it was for you! And as I've said before, dropping a few names of bands and music genres, with a few music eras and instruments thrown in for good measure, does not a good critique — or critic — make.
Sorry for that rant back there. Kinda out of place, but I guess I have a grouse against unbalanced alleged "reviews".
Anyway, if you're a critic, and you're reviewing a film, you could at least
a) assume that you're not a patron saint who represents the entire universe of audiences.
b) try to be a little balanced in your review, however unbalanced you might think that is. Don't just focus on the bad (or the good), there might be some good (or bad) in there that you might have missed.
c) Don't start judging the film from the first second. "Oh hey, that's a 30-second logo. 30 seconds of my precious life wasted. Let's dock a star." Please, no. I'm not saying wait till the whole film is over to go back and think on it. That might be critic-ally impossible for you. Give the film some time to show you what it wants to say — both its pearls and warts.
Enough with the rant. I'll go find something I can pretend to be productive with.
Sorry for that rant back there. Kinda out of place, but I guess I have a grouse against unbalanced alleged "reviews".
Anyway, if you're a critic, and you're reviewing a film, you could at least
a) assume that you're not a patron saint who represents the entire universe of audiences.
b) try to be a little balanced in your review, however unbalanced you might think that is. Don't just focus on the bad (or the good), there might be some good (or bad) in there that you might have missed.
c) Don't start judging the film from the first second. "Oh hey, that's a 30-second logo. 30 seconds of my precious life wasted. Let's dock a star." Please, no. I'm not saying wait till the whole film is over to go back and think on it. That might be critic-ally impossible for you. Give the film some time to show you what it wants to say — both its pearls and warts.
Enough with the rant. I'll go find something I can pretend to be productive with.
Comments
Post a Comment