Do you generally agree with critics reviews?

The forums own reviewer Casimer the one who best inline with mine a good many time his marks are the same as mine or not to far of.
He more in line with us than, has to be arty farty for fellow critic peers.
 
Really interested in this thread, as I struggle to find ways of filtering out the junk and standing a good chance of watching something decent. I don't have a lot of time, and these days its sometimes only one movie in a week, so I hate sitting down in front of the projector on Saturday night to find out that I have chosen something that is crap.

I think a lot of reviewers/publications are a bit like sheep, and I'm not convinced that a lot of them are able to think for themselves, and just seem to be trying to give the 'right answer' according to current fashions. Timothee Chalamet is a current example, reviewers seem to foam at the mouth over him and everything he does, and a few years back it was Tarantino. Not saying that either are bad, but I saw a review of Don't look up where they suggested that Chalamet is the only good thing in it, and when I watched it anyway, it wouldn't have made much difference the film one way or another if he wasn't in it at all!

I find Rogert Ebert is fairly reliable, when its actually Ebert doing the review, but since he died the new reviewers are hit or miss for me.
 
It was so much easier back in the 80s when we just had Barry Norman, whatever he liked I absolutely would not and vice versa, although you could get away with the odd massive blockbuster that he gave his grudging respect 😃
 
It was so much easier back in the 80s when we just had Barry Norman, whatever he liked I absolutely would not and vice versa, although you could get away with the odd massive blockbuster that he gave his grudging respect 😃
I think his last review on the BBC and was mentioning up and coming films and was bewildered in his comments at the first X-Men film.
 
I think his last review on the BBC and was mentioning up and coming films and was bewildered in his comments at the first X-Men film.
It was quite amusing, I was in my late teens/early twenties while he was reviewing, peak action film arguably, and I was watching a couple of films at the cinema each week when there was enough out.

He completely missed my whole demographic, yes he could predict the Oscar winners but he was such a tragic luvvy it made his reviews pointless for us regular folk 😃
 
It was quite amusing, I was in my late teens/early twenties while he was reviewing, peak action film arguably, and I was watching a couple of films at the cinema each week when there was enough out.

He completely missed my whole demographic, yes he could predict the Oscar winners but he was such a tragic luvvy it made his reviews pointless for us regular folk 😃
I think Johnathan Ross was more inline with the general film going public than Mr Norman was, although still enjoyed his reviews. Dont know if it was picked for him to watch but at a good guess Id say his reviews on subtitled films had a larger percentage of likes than English speaking ones, Although did make me want to watch Cinema Paradiso which I totally enjoyed
 
I think Johnathan Ross was more inline with the general film going public than Mr Norman was, although still enjoyed his reviews. Dont know if it was picked for him to watch but at a good guess Id say his reviews on subtitled films had a larger percentage of likes than English speaking ones, Although did make me want to watch Cinema Paradiso which I totally enjoyed
You're probably right, and watched Film 80s and 90s with Norman as I knew exactly what his tastes were so knew which films to watch and which to avoid.

I probably got into the foreign language films in the 90s, at that point it would have been Luc Besson films I guess, with Nikita being a solid win.

Still don't like the more artistic films, No Country for Old Men, Three Billboards spring to mind, just not my thing.
 
I'm always checking films on the app TVTIME, let me find an exemple brb
 
After checking, most of the movies i've seen have a minimum of 3 stars, but for exemple yesterday I saw a film on Amazon Prime, someone gave a bad review of 2 stars, I'll screen it
 
screen1.png


and here is an other review saying:

screen2.png


These two reviews are contradictory, so I decided nvm I'll watch it
 
It was quite amusing, I was in my late teens/early twenties while he was reviewing, peak action film arguably, and I was watching a couple of films at the cinema each week when there was enough out.

He completely missed my whole demographic, yes he could predict the Oscar winners but he was such a tragic luvvy it made his reviews pointless for us regular folk 😃
Exactly. This is what I meant in my previous post. Particularly in the 80s/90s, “serious” critics were completely out of step with popular opinion (particularly as I was in my teens/20s at the time). Barry Norman was very sniffy about the future action classics of that era. People like Mark Kermode still have a bit of the luvvy vibe.
 
@multicolores
Those are individual reviews from members of the public though. I was thinking more of aggregated reviews or reviews from professional critics.

I'd generally ignore even one star reviews from a random member of the public. Sometimes people do that due to their political views even, but if an aggregated review is less than 50%, I think its a safe bet that its bad. Even with critics I think its rare to see something decent that's less than 50%.
 
Exactly. This is what I meant in my previous post. Particularly in the 80s/90s, “serious” critics were completely out of step with popular opinion (particularly as I was in my teens/20s at the time). Barry Norman was very sniffy about the future action classics of that era. People like Mark Kermode still have a bit of the luvvy vibe.

Is it really "sniffy" for them to not like the same films as you though? Could you guys be accused of being sniffy by calling Kermode/Norman luvvies for disliking the movies you like?

I think if you watch a lot of films. like critics do, action movies probably feel a bit repetitive - bigger bombs, more CGI etc, but not a lot that's original beyond that.
 
Interesting discussion.

Critics in any medium serve a function, and aggregated as a whole are often a good litmus test. But they're not infallible.

I won't list my credentials, but I spent a short while (some years back) reviewing video games and being published on some big-ish sites. I found there was a lot of circle-jerking and got out fairly quickly. I'm sure this is true of any type of entertainment. Reviews and common tropes or fads tend to reinforce themselves across the review spectrum, so I'll always take reviews with a pinch of salt.

But depending on criteria, I still think aggregated reviews serve a purpose. While Peter Bradshaw is very different to Empire reviewers, for example, there are usually reviewers whose approach more directly mirrors my thoughts, and I gravitate to them more than others. For example, in years gone by Wossy was a great reviewer and got very little wrong during his tenure on the BBC's Film Review (probably less so now).

I tend to favour those who are genuinely enthusiastic about films and just want to enjoy themselves. Kim Newman is a good example for anyone who likes horror films: he's so clearly besotted with the whole horror genre that if he likes it, it's almost certainly good.

As a "wider zoom", maybe I'm wrong, but I also feel like there's little middle ground these days, with studios taking fewer risks. You either get more clearly delineated "Oscar bait" art house films (The Tragedy of Macbeth, anyone?) or action blockbusters. I think it's easier to know what to expect from a film for these reasons, and the role of the critic has been diminished accordingly. It just depends whether you personally like them.

One final point from me is that I'll often take good word of mouth recommendations from friends whose opinions I trust. Once I've watched a film and enjoyed it, I then tend to go and seek out some good reviews so that I can pick up anything I might have missed and reflect on it a bit more, think about other positive takes.
 
Is it really "sniffy" for them to not like the same films as you though? Could you guys be accused of being sniffy by calling Kermode/Norman luvvies for disliking the movies you like?

I think if you watch a lot of films. like critics do, action movies probably feel a bit repetitive - bigger bombs, more CGI etc, but not a lot that's original beyond that.
It depends what you want from your critics. If it’s just the artistic merit of the film, then arguably Barry Norman was authoritative, but as an 18yr old, I certainly would quite liked to have had an idea of the entertainment value of the movie as well, particularly when presented on a mainstream TV show (as opposed to some arts show). When Bazza slagged-off an action movie, it was hard to tell whether it was genuinely rubbish, or just a knee-jerk reaction to a blatantly popcorn movie. Luckily, he was oddly entertaining in his delivery, so it didn’t really matter what he thought.

Modem critics are more populist, so will often make this distinction. As has been said, Jonathan Ross is probably better attuned to the wider public. (And to be fair, so is Mr Kermode).
 
@robcat101
I suppose my point was that even Norman's 'knee jerk' reaction to action films doesn't make him sniffy. I probably have a knee jerk reaction to action films, because I have watched movies for decades and watching Stallone blow up more stuff has long since become boring for me. I tend to be put off from the outset because Hollywood churns out a lot of this stuff and a lot of it is much the same. For me action is great in a movie when it serves a purpose, but a lot of action movies seem to prioritise the number of explosions, and the story is an afterthought.

Modern critics are more populist and the internet has enabled that, but I suppose we could debate whether that is a good thing or not. If I only listened to populist reviewers I would probably never have watched a film with subtitles, and I would have missed out on some of the best movies ever made. I do take the point though, if action movies are your thing then there is no point in listening to someone like Barry Norman.

@Billy Goodgun
Interesting insight. I agree that aggregators serve a purpose. Take IMDB. I've seen examples of movies I think are over-rated that are above 8, but that's got a lot to do with personal opinion. There are things at 6 that I would rate 9, and stuff at 9 that I don't think is worth much more than 5. But I doubt that there is anything below 5 that is worth watching.

Its great if you have friends or reviewers that you trust. I struggle a bit to find that. Maybe because I like films that cross a lot of genres.
 
Last edited:
I think generally, going by Rotten Tomatoes scores (which aren't 100% accurate in gauging consensus but as close as you can get), critics get things right.

Weirdly I've found I've disagreed with AVF critics' scores more than most other critics.
 
Unnecessary criticism of film reviewers in my opinion. I read them and get a feel for the film and content etc. I don’t necessarily avoid a film on an review. The score is their opinion. I love many films that have been poorly scored by reviewers. It’s all subjective. Some get their panties in a knot with scores given by reviewers which is hilarious
 
Nope, not even close.
 
1648927398915.jpeg


Made on the year of my birth and possibly the greatest film ever made in my book.The Godfather is my Saturday night viewing.

Pacino facial expression before he shoots the Police Captain is forever etched in my mind.....and that's what got him the role at the auditions... (True Story)

Watching this makes me realise how dreadful today's media is...........
 
They were much more high brow in the early 90’s when I started reading it.
Quite middle of the road now, take this weekends The 355 for example, an absolute stinker, I’ve not checked but I’m sure this’ll get three stars from them, more than likely Helen O Hara.
Absolutely spot on about "The 355" and HOH!

What I find quite funny about the magazine (I get it for free, my work colleague's partner is a subscriber and passes them on to me when she's read them) is that they'll hype up a film in preview/interview as the BEST THING EVER, and then slag it off in the review when it's released!

Clearly, there's a strategy going on whereby they'll talk something up in advance to pique your interest, but that in no way reflects what you'll actually get.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is Home Theater DEAD in 2024?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom