Some of my favorite movies were bashed to bits by critics, so no, I don't read reviews first. So, the boyfriendal unit finally saw "The Witch." He absolutely loved it. We spent a lot of time spazzing over how unsettling parts of it were Spoiler especially those darn twins and the raven/boob bit. Seriously, if you haven't seen the movie by now, you should.
Well, sites like RT and Metacritic are review aggregators. I mean they both have different formulas/criteria but neither of them are limited to "online reviews". So, I mean, you guys just completely dismiss the entire field of film criticism whole cloth? No Pauline Kael? No Roger Ebert? Do you reject, like, film theory and analysis as well? It just seems bizarre that someone would chose to sit through awful movies rather than find some professional or semi-professional opinions you can trust to help guide you through the enormous mire of celluloid dreck that's being pumped out there. Does this dismissal of critics extend to other areas? Will you only check out a band or a record or even restaurant if someone in your social sphere recommends it? Or if you see a commercial for it? Sorry, I probably wouldn't be reacting with such incredulity had it been one guy's opinion, but two in a row [edit: three in a row], my head is spinning.
Not sure what difference it makes to you, or why anyone has to justify why they watched something. I didn't set out to watch a bad movie. It came up on Netflix, it sounded interesting, so I gave it a whirl. Do you end up liking every movie you watch? I actually read horror blogs, this thread, and my trusty copy of The Encyclopedia of Horror, to get info on movies. "Review," sites are filled with shills, and most professional reviewers rarely speak to my interests.
Dude, I'm just asking about something I'm curious about, I'm not trying to insult anybody. If sombody'd said "I don't trust doctors, most doctors are quacks and I can tell if I'm sick", I'd have questions about that, too. I'm actually going to let it go, because I don't want you to think I'm being hostile or something, but I'm definitely open to discuss this with anybody else. And I'm still not sure you're getting how aggregate review sites work. This is from Wikipedia on RT (which is probably the least reliable review site):
For lots of us in this thread it's really simple. The genre we are enjoying here can be a little sparse as far as releases so it's not like we always have tons of stuff to pick through. One of the biggest reasons horror films appeal to people is because of the scare factor and the mystery involved. So reading reviews ahead of time can really take the fun out it which doesn't always apply to other types of movies. For those two reasons alone most of my friends try as best they can to go in blind when watching scary movies. Sure we warn one another with a "hey you have to see this flick" or "nooo don't waste your time" but we stop ourselves there unless someone wants spoilers. My big problem with review sites like RT is that it's common knowledge TONS of critics are obligated to review movies from genres they don't like in the first place which ruins the entire process. Click on any random horror film and you'll see reviewers who are sick of or never even liked horror films in the first place. Then they complain about too much gore or how unbelievable a film is or how overly violent or even scary it is. It would be like me going and professionally reviewing romantic comedies. I would hate them all. Sometimes I browse reviews of movies I have already seen but rarely will I do that ahead of time. The idea that there is something wrong when we "chose to sit through awful movies rather than find some professional or semi-professional opinions you can trust" is laughable. We are perfectly capable of forming our own opinions and liking or even loving something that someone else or everyone else hates. My opinion on art and film matters more to me then anyone else's ever could and that's a good thing.
We're on a toy forum where everyone collects different things, and some people hate/love certain sculpts and makers. Horror movies aren't much different. I don't need a critic to tell me that a toy or movie is good, I can judge for myself. Heck, if I collected toys by other peoples opinions, my collection would be one obnoxious hypebeast shelf worth more than a used vehicle.
@Waterbear OK, most of that makes sense. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm not really a horror film fan, so I really wasn't able to view it from that perspective. I guess it's like a sub-culture thing. Thanks for taking some time to break that down for me. My statement you've quoted here doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusions you're implying I was trying to make. I never suggested you should yield to someone else's opinion on something because they get paid to write reviews or whatever. Of course not. But, taking the horror element out of it, I think it makes sense to consider critical opinions. I mean, it works for me. I really can't remember the last bad film I saw, and I'm have pretty delineated tastes. Like anything else you need to know how to filter and interpret the information that's out there in a way that makes sense for you. But to dismiss criticism out of hand just seemed a little excessive to me. Oh, and I don't actually read reviews either, and for exactly the same reasons you've stated. Occasionally I'll read an Ebert review of something I've just watched if it's an old enough movie, but that's about it. Other than that I just look at the numbers and read the blurbs gathered by RT and/or Wikipedia, which are generally spoiler-free and can give you some insight into the tone of the picture. Particularly if there's conflicting opinions, which there almost always is. And I'm going to start easing into more "actual" horror films, with the following three in this order: Bay of Blood, the Babadook, and Berberian Sound Studio. Those were all very highly rated
Yeah, so is this, which is precisely what I was responding to. If you read the information I quoted about how RT vets it's critics, you would know that your statement did, in fact, communicate that you didn't understand how review sites worked and you'd know that my pointing that out was not "REALLY condescending", but truth. I think this is false equivalence or some other kind of logical fallacy. I don't consult reviews before I buy a toy either. I can't tell you why that is, but the compassion is preposterous. I think @Waterbear explained it with the specifics of the horror genre. But that is a distinct subset. If people didn't value the opinion of critics on movies (and other things) these people wouldn't have jobs. I now realize you guys have your own little in-group regulations and beliefs, and perhaps you're a little sensitive towards outsiders poking their noses in, or whatever. I'll keep that in mind in the future. And I have no idea what a hypebeast is.
The horror genre is such a complex thing with numerous distinct categories and sub-genres all within itself. It's nearly impossible to explain it all in one single message on a toy forum but just to give you a slice of how it works I would bet that nearly every single person in this entire thread has seen a "bad film" in just the last few months that they totally enjoyed. Horror can be "bad" and still be great. C.H.U.D is a ridiculous movie with shit acting and laughable special effects but it is a cult classic that people to this day pack themselves into theatres to watch during film festivals. The original Evil Dead is more funny then scary and it's spawned sequel after sequel and now has a wildly successful cable show decades later with the same actor. The Friday The 13th movies run the gambit from great to shit and all the way back again. Same thing with the Halloween movies. Part one and two defined an era and part three was amazingly ridiculous but that is the joy of being a horror fan. Sometimes we want to see a great "movie" like The VVitch. Sometimes we just want to laugh ourselves stupid with one of the Phantasm sequels. Sometimes we want something in the middle. So being "good" or "bad" can be pretty meaningless. What some critic thinks who only likes one kind of horror film when there are so many different kinds is often irrelevant. Tonight I am doing paperwork while watching an Asian horror flick because that is what I was in the mood for. All subtitles and creaky sounding ghosts and slow burning atmosphere rather then actual gore or blood. Maybe tomorrow I'll want to see Hatchet because putting your fingers in someone's mouth and tearing the top of their head off leaving just their tongue flopping about is hilarious. And I know enough about horror to appreciate both without anyone else ever telling me which one I should or shouldn't watch.
I honestly don't believe that you intended your statements to come off this way, Mr. Odi, but your 'clarification' to Mark reads as even more condescending than your first comment. You don't realize you're doing it, clearly, but the limb I'm walking out on tonight is a second opinion on the issue; making an aggregate score of approximately 66.7% negative. We understood you the first time.
Yeah, it probably does. That was in reaction to him being offended by my responding to condescension with condescension. Again: Is a dismissive, inaccurate and condescending statement. I'm not sure how I'm expected to respond to that. And this not a fair or kind characterization. I wasn't addressing the forum, or even horror film buffs in general, I was addressing Mark about specific statements he made. And even if I was addressing everyone, you're not qualified to speak for everyone here, I seem to be having a thoughtful and polite exchange with @Waterbear, and no one else seems to feel they've been condescended to. As far as I know, anyway. And I maintain that pointing out factual information to Mark that he has either overlooked or neglected to acknowledge can not be condescension. He's perfectly allowed to present evidence, anecdotal or factual, to support his assertion that "review" sites are full of shills. You stepping in and characterizing this as me being the one person on the forum who doesn't get it in no way helps his case or denigrates mine.
Reacting to condescension to perceived condescension with condescension was absolutely wrong of me, and for that I am sorry. Rolling my eyes and moving on would have been my best course of action, considering that I'd already decided not to make the effort to weigh in publicly on the general topic being discussed. At the risk of undoing whatever potential positive I may or may not have achieved above... For what it's worth, Peter Travis is the very picture of a shill to me, I don't put a lot of stock in what the named critics from the EW staff have to say, and Michael Phillips strikes me as a monster among men. "Top Critics", in the context provided, reads to me as being in air quotes. Looking back:
Everyone who's into ANY type of niche/genre/cult cinema knoes that review sites are fucking worthless. Hardcore Henry, which was the most fun I've had in a cinema in probably the last ten years, has a 48% rating on RT. So they can fuck right off afaic. On topic: Finally received my Arrow package and re-watched Yuzna's wonderful Society yesterday. Twenty years ago it didn't have enough gore for me, today I consider it a unique milestone of horror cinema and Yuzna's finest moment as a director. Btw, it has a 50% rating on RT. So again, they can fuck right off. Have a good day everyone.
I don't negate all film criticism. not at all....That's their job and they do it well. I just like to view a movie for myself without knowing what other people think of it first. That's all.
I can't believe this is still going on. Can't people just watch a movie without knowing what they're getting into? Maybe they like the surprise? Maybe they're bored and don't have anything better to do so they're playing Russian Roulette with their Netflix account? Maybe they're completionists and want to watch all the horror movies they can? Maybe RT scores are bs most of the time because they have critics that don't like horror review horror movies? Maybe people just don't care? I don't even see why this is an argument, just let people do what ever the hell they want. If I want to watch a shitty movie and then complain about what a waste of time it was, then by all means, that's my right. Can we talk about actual movies now?
WRONG @MisterYuck 10 year old me strongly disagrees with you and thinks Puppetmaster is a genius film. Haha, now I need to go back and rewatch that.
I finally caught that Road Games movie on netflix. I wouldn't even classify it as horror at all. I was disappointed but maybe because I wanted to see it for so long. And yes on netflix it has subtitles for the french parts. I know there was a version online for a few months with no subtitles and people complained about it a lot. Tried getting into that new Dead of Summer horror show on tv mostly because Tony Todd is in it. First two episodes did nothing for me at all. I think the biggest failure is that it's set in the 80's but doesn't feel at all like it fits that time period. A bunch of teenagers wearing shirts from different bands from that era while talking and acting exactly like kids do now just feels wrong. You can't capture that 80's feeling just buy wearing chuck taylors and a cure shirt.
@Lttr Prssd When I clicked over to Netflix, after I first saw mentioned that the film available now, I was initially disappointed; I was looking forward to being able to watch the 'real' Road Games again, ha! The Ozzie flick is an old favorite of mine. Is this new movie a remake? Haven't read about it because, well, I'm among the legion that feels it's always best to go in as blind as possible when checking out some 'art' that I'm curious about. Criticism and analysis consumed after the fact > steeping yourself in publicity releases and summary opinions beforehand. If you're me.
No, there is no connection. Probably for the best, leave the classics alone, but another reason I think the English title isn't doing the film any favours. As one final note, and I really, really, don't want to get this all dredged up again, I do feel it is very important to point out that Fandango recently purchased both Flixster and RT. And if you don't think that is going to have some impact on the 'reviews' you see.... well, that's fine. Post-script edit: Fandango, for those who are not aware, is a movie ticket sales company; and, in addition to this fact, also happens to be a subsidiary of Comcast, who also hold Universal Pictures among their 'little' umbrella of companies. Yeah, that is totally on the up-and-up. Not my own words, but:
I will say ONE thing regarding my previous comments. I was referring to READER reviews on RT. Not critics'. Reader reviews on ANY website are suspect, as far as I'm concerned. I.e. shills. I need to see this, so I'm on the hunt.
I really wasn't trying to condemn anybody for doing what they do, it just seemed, as I said, really odd to me not to want to know what you're getting into before seeing something and I was curious about the logic behind it. I guess I should a apologize if my wonder presented as condescension. Please! I actually tried to initiate that transition a couple of posts back, but I guess the films I mentioned were too "casual" or something. Or maybe no one wants to discuss horror with a pompous initiate prick like me Actually, my first stop is usually Wikipedia, and if a film is critical flop, but is later "reevaluated", or if a film has some cult recognition/acclaim they'll cover that a lot of the time. Since you mentioned "niche/genre/cult cinema", I've got to mention I'm watching Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (about halfway through, I stopped to get some sleep), and it is about the most glorious thing I've EVER seen. Truly amazing. I can't believe I waited this long to check it out. Ah, we find a point of agreement. Your comments would've made a lot more sense to me had I known that. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to reader reviews/averages either, unless it's a film that has a real paucity of critical reviews for some reason. There's one particularly worthless company called CinemaScore that surveys audiences that have seen films in a theater. Apparently, audience just love anything they've paid to see in a theater, because really crappy flicks routinely get stellar scores. it's supposed to be pretty accurate at predicting what films will be box office successes, though, regardless of the movies' actual quality I'm not familiar with Flixster, but I did mention RT was the least reliable of these kind of sites. I generally deduct about 10% off of the critical score for any picture that gets a decent score there (lower scores seem to be more accurate). But, yeah, that is unfortunate news. There seem to be a lot of "air quotes" being used in this particular discussion. You seem to be more aware of particular critics than I am, though. I think I can usually tell from a short blurb (which RT almost always provides) whether a particular critic is a vapid, shilling douche or someone who actually has something worthwhile to say to me about a particular film. It's certainly not an exact science of course. OK, I guess that should about cover it, then? i hope this wasn't seen as a completely worthless detour. I've certainly learned some stuff. Back to your spooky monsters and flesh stabbin', then