Post by mslo79 on Mar 13, 2020 7:44:46 GMT
Sarge
Yeah, that's pretty much the bottom line for people in general.
but I guess it can be tricky to know whether one will like a movie or not by a critics review unless of course someone follows specific critics fairly regularly to see if their general taste is inline with their own or not (personally, while I do read a occasional review on a movie once in a while I largely do not as I tend to use my own judgement (keep reading for more info)).
but either way... I think once a person has seen plenty of movies they can get a pretty good feel whether they will like a movie or not and can probably tell whether the movie they are about to watch has potential to stand out from the pack or not. at least that's my experience as I am usually pretty good in this regard as I tend to go into most movies I have seen expecting something around average, give or take, and the times a movie does stand out for me I can usually tell prior to seeing it based on the following four key categories... Subject Matter/Director/Cast/Trailer. but the Director option is not always a factor, since name directors are not always making movies, but the other three generally are a factor as you can usually gauge a movie pretty closely given those factors. sure, I am not 100% right but anyone who watches plenty of movies and is not super selective, is almost guaranteed to get burned once in a while with a total crap movie etc. I would say at this point in time I usually will underestimate a movie before ill overestimate one. because I think when someone is younger and has seen less movies they are more apt to buy into the hype and can damage their opinion of a movie because of it as they are more likely to go into a movie expecting the world from it and they will probably be disappointed most of the time when they go into a movie expecting something top notch. plus, I think as one gets older and has experienced more movies it's generally more difficult to please them to a higher degree than someone who's younger who has not seen as many movies as once you have seen plenty of movies you can tell what are the true gems vs just another movie sort of thing and I rate accordingly.
because like I have mentioned in the past around here... there are 156 movies (another 34 if I count movies a bit shy of favorite movie status) out of the 2,300+ total movies I have seen that stand out from the pack. so while only about 7% (or about 1 out of every 15 movies I have seen over the long term) of all movies I have seen is good enough for me to call a favorite, about 20% (or about 1 out of every 5 movies I have seen) of everything I have seen is good enough for me to re-watch once in a while as like I have mentioned before... a movies true worth are the ones I like to re-watch from time-to-time as the years pass as those who fail to be worth re-watching are ultimately forgettable. that separates the movies that have any real worth from just another movie sort of thing.
with that said... critics are generally better at writing reviews than the common person, as ill give them that much, but in the end, like you said, the main thing is whether you and I (and others reading the critics review) will ultimately like the movie or not. but like I was saying, I can't really fault them too much here since all I can really ask of them is that they judge movies based on EVERYTHING they have seen as at least then it will tell those who are reading their reviews how much that reviewer likes the movie being reviewed (so if they do praise it, it's legitimate praise, instead of more false praise). because you see a fair amount of BS on TV calling a bunch of average-ish movies 'masterpieces' here and there over the years, which is BS, as I doubt even that person who claimed that thinks all that highly of the movie and will probably have mostly forgotten about it not all that long after and will be onto the next movie which tells us a lot about what they truly think. NOTE: I get peoples opinions can change, for better or worse, as time passes with re-watches and all though. but you get the gist
I can't really fault them here as it would be like them trying to guess whether random people will like a movie. which is why all I ask of them is they just give their honest opinion of a movie in relation to ALL movies they have seen as that's how I rate all movies I see as it's the most accurate way of rating movies as those who try to rate movies by say genre will skew ratings a bit too high. for example... if one tried to judge a movie based on it's genre, it's might get a fairly high score but when compared to all movies that person has seen it might not be nothing special and I am more concerned with what a person thinks of a movie in relation to everything they have seen as if a movie fails to stand out here, then it's nothing special for that person at the end of the day.
I 100% agree with your post. I don't even care about the critic's opinion, all I want from a review is to know if I will like a film, not whether the critic likes it.
Yeah, that's pretty much the bottom line for people in general.
but I guess it can be tricky to know whether one will like a movie or not by a critics review unless of course someone follows specific critics fairly regularly to see if their general taste is inline with their own or not (personally, while I do read a occasional review on a movie once in a while I largely do not as I tend to use my own judgement (keep reading for more info)).
but either way... I think once a person has seen plenty of movies they can get a pretty good feel whether they will like a movie or not and can probably tell whether the movie they are about to watch has potential to stand out from the pack or not. at least that's my experience as I am usually pretty good in this regard as I tend to go into most movies I have seen expecting something around average, give or take, and the times a movie does stand out for me I can usually tell prior to seeing it based on the following four key categories... Subject Matter/Director/Cast/Trailer. but the Director option is not always a factor, since name directors are not always making movies, but the other three generally are a factor as you can usually gauge a movie pretty closely given those factors. sure, I am not 100% right but anyone who watches plenty of movies and is not super selective, is almost guaranteed to get burned once in a while with a total crap movie etc. I would say at this point in time I usually will underestimate a movie before ill overestimate one. because I think when someone is younger and has seen less movies they are more apt to buy into the hype and can damage their opinion of a movie because of it as they are more likely to go into a movie expecting the world from it and they will probably be disappointed most of the time when they go into a movie expecting something top notch. plus, I think as one gets older and has experienced more movies it's generally more difficult to please them to a higher degree than someone who's younger who has not seen as many movies as once you have seen plenty of movies you can tell what are the true gems vs just another movie sort of thing and I rate accordingly.
because like I have mentioned in the past around here... there are 156 movies (another 34 if I count movies a bit shy of favorite movie status) out of the 2,300+ total movies I have seen that stand out from the pack. so while only about 7% (or about 1 out of every 15 movies I have seen over the long term) of all movies I have seen is good enough for me to call a favorite, about 20% (or about 1 out of every 5 movies I have seen) of everything I have seen is good enough for me to re-watch once in a while as like I have mentioned before... a movies true worth are the ones I like to re-watch from time-to-time as the years pass as those who fail to be worth re-watching are ultimately forgettable. that separates the movies that have any real worth from just another movie sort of thing.
with that said... critics are generally better at writing reviews than the common person, as ill give them that much, but in the end, like you said, the main thing is whether you and I (and others reading the critics review) will ultimately like the movie or not. but like I was saying, I can't really fault them too much here since all I can really ask of them is that they judge movies based on EVERYTHING they have seen as at least then it will tell those who are reading their reviews how much that reviewer likes the movie being reviewed (so if they do praise it, it's legitimate praise, instead of more false praise). because you see a fair amount of BS on TV calling a bunch of average-ish movies 'masterpieces' here and there over the years, which is BS, as I doubt even that person who claimed that thinks all that highly of the movie and will probably have mostly forgotten about it not all that long after and will be onto the next movie which tells us a lot about what they truly think. NOTE: I get peoples opinions can change, for better or worse, as time passes with re-watches and all though. but you get the gist
And unfortunately very few or no critics make the effort to provide that kind [whether the viewer will like it or not] of insight.
I can't really fault them here as it would be like them trying to guess whether random people will like a movie. which is why all I ask of them is they just give their honest opinion of a movie in relation to ALL movies they have seen as that's how I rate all movies I see as it's the most accurate way of rating movies as those who try to rate movies by say genre will skew ratings a bit too high. for example... if one tried to judge a movie based on it's genre, it's might get a fairly high score but when compared to all movies that person has seen it might not be nothing special and I am more concerned with what a person thinks of a movie in relation to everything they have seen as if a movie fails to stand out here, then it's nothing special for that person at the end of the day.