 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.26.186.105
In Reply to: "...second rate reviewers and glorified bloggers..." -That's a bit harsh, don't you think? posted by Audiophilander on July 13, 2005 at 21:55:16:
RT is to film criticism as White Castles are to filet.Have you really looked at some of these folks' sites and mags? So they're in print - so what?
Cream of the Crop are legit, as are the serious film writers of many major papers and mags. I also have respect for online mags like Slate and Salon as well as online reviewers like James Bardinelli, MaryAnn Johanson et al.
But RT still includes too many marginal reviewers for me to find the place useful. Theres still too many quick review types and fanboys - no way they're "critics" - you have to produce "critical" writing to be to earn that title, you can't just hammer out instant consumer guide capsules or off the cuff opinion. If these types aren't second rate, then they're third rate or worse. Some of the self-published, genre oriented web sites are a joke. I say this as someone who used to pen film reviews for weeklies and monthlies - I see a lot of poor writing and lack of knowledge amongst the host at RT, and no discrimination between the good writers and the wannabes. Probably 30% of those so called scribes wouldn't know the Rules of the Game from Rules of Engagement. .
Moreover, simply noting a film's fresh or rotten rating, while it may be fun, tells me NOTHING about the film itself. Can you imagine the tomatometer rating for say...Eraserhead???? RT never influences whether I would see a film or not, mainly because the fresh/rotten leaves too much out of the equation.
The pass/fail ratings, along with the marginal critics, just doesn't cut it for me. I tend to know something about most movies coming out, and I read 4-5 critics I trust to get a feel fpor the ones I'm unfamiliar with. Most times, my desire to see a movie is based on the filmmakers themselves as well as buzz from festivals and fans, so I usually know what I want to see...or not see.
Your example of WOTW vs F4 is a case in point. Yes, WOTW is a better film and it's well crafted, but it;s no masterpiece. F4 isn't that bad - although it's not very good, it's far less offensive than many films with much higher RT ratings.
If you feel you must use a guide for selecting films, Metacritic is better than RT.
May I suggest, if you like movies, develop your own critical thinking about the flickers based on a variety of sources. RT can be fun, but recognize it for what it is: info to share around the water cooler.
Follow Ups:
the cream of the crop section where they give you a second tomato rating of all the newspaper and major critics.None of it means anything because plenty of films could be "good" as in 3/4 and get a very high tomatoe percentage -- while other films are very polarizing so the percentage could be lower but it might be more of something to see -- because many will give ti 4/4 while others 1/4.
Critics are only useful if they agree with me -- and I don;t know that until I see the movie.
It was your off-handed, misguided dismissing of RT that elicited my defense of it's unique approach as a broad spectrum clearing house of reviews. It may not be perfect ...there are too many pop-ups to my way of thinking..., but it is useful, providing not only a cross section of reviews from various legitimate sources, but also information on grosses, DVD releases, etc.So you like 4 or 5 specific reviewers; that's perfectly fine. If they aren't among those linked to the Rotten Tomatoes site then you should go elsewhere for your information. I've found the reviewer in the Ft Worth Star Telegram, the Metroplex paper to which I subscribe, is wrong almost ALL the time, so I seek other informed opinions before expending time and cash.
In my profession I'm not around a lot of folks on a daily basis whose opinions I can rely on before assessing the value of a given motion picture; so I frequently determine whether to see a picture or rent it later from the RT site. If I see the movie I may then share my informed opinions with others here, sans spoilers, and debate the merits of a given film with those whose perceptions differ from mine. Capice? :o)
> > > "If you feel you must use a guide for selecting films, Metacritic is better than RT." < < <
Everyone I'm acquainted with who goes to movies, unless it's on a whim, uses reviews of some kind, whether it's friends whose opinions they trust or critics with whom, over time, they've found a kind of symbiotic mental connection in regards to the worthiness of certain types of cinema. Teasers and previews may sell tickets, but FAR too often they deceive the curious film goer.
What RT does is give an overview, without spoilers, unless you're seeking in depth analysis, and then it should be, as you suggested, after the fact. I haven't checked out Metacritic, but I will, and I'll get back to you. In the mean time...
f
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
