I swear rotten tomatoes and IMDb fucked up movies and tv more than anyone talks about. You can’t REALLY make an review of a work of art, even if it is corporate produced tripe, with a percentage scale or */10 system, and before anyone comes at me I know it’s been done for decades but it was never a be all and end all thing, critics wrote articles about things and you might disagree with their sensibilities and go see it specifically because a particular critic didn’t like it, the opposite is also true.
At some point though we crossed a line where no one actually reads the criticism and internalizes it, instead they just look at the number and make it either a personal attack or validation. Thats a really bad way to experience art of any kind.
This isn’t a complete thought I feel, but I hate the reality of film and television criticism today, not because critics are worthless, because that’s just silly. If you like something Peter Travers said was dog shit go find a critic that speaks to your taste it’s not difficult and doesn’t mean your favorite movie actually sucks.
I agree they both fucked it up, but my main problem is how there seems to have been a clear shift in how they "weigh" reviews after both IMDB and RT were bought by large corporate entities (Amazon and Fandango, respectively).
I can't help but feel like a lot of the movies coming out from those companies or their subsidiaries (...and at least some number of politically expedient allies) somehow manage to get higher overall review scores on RT and IMDB than they maybe deserve.
...which is one of the main reasons I shifted to checking Letterbox'd for reviews... but unfortunately, another day to shift to a different platform be coming soon again.
In Darknet Diaries Ep 27: Chartbreakers, Jack Rhysider describes how cheap and easy it is to buy your way to the top of the Apple Podcasts rating chart or onto the New York Times bestseller list.
After listening to this, it's pretty easy to extend the logic to every other rating platform. Paying for review manipulation is basically part of the marketing budget.
I want to be clear I don’t disagree at all you’re correct. Corporate control of art means they will go to any lengths to ensure profit.
But also, I really kinda glossed over the overarching problem, which is that the film industry is now driven by reviews and vibes reviewed by c-suite folks that answer to shareholders and don’t give a fuck about the actual film or show or whatever
This has always been true with the plastic arts but we’ve reached a zenith.
I will die on the hill that art cannot be considered a financial investment. It by definition has to take risks and investment people cannot handle that
This Patrick Willems piece does a really good job of digging in to why so many streaming "blockbusters" are so shitty these days.
Tl;dw: The streaming companies have the metrics, and are now essentially making movies that hit certain beats to satisfy what they perceive as customer requirements, rather than movies that exist for their own sake.
What does that mean? Does it mean it's the best movie ever made? Nope, it just means everyone at least kinda likes it. It's Toy Story, it's a good movie. Though I wouldn't say it's the greatest movie of all time. Just a decent movie.
The way the scoring works means that if everyone thinks a movie is better than average, the movie gets a perfect score.
If 75% of the critics think something was the greatest movie ever, while 25% didn't like it, it's a 75% score. It might be a movie you'll think is the greatest movie ever too, but you might give it a miss to watch movie that 90% of the critics thought was just ok instead.
So if a studio is making a movie to try to get a good score, they will make it so it doesn't offend anyone, and have it universally be considered ok. The way these sites measure movies encourages mediocrity and playing it safe.
Yeah these ratings are worse than useless. Oh The Abyss 14% better than Amelie?? Fuck off, Poindexter.
They're completely disconnected from my own opinions and when I see then before watching a movie they just distract me by wondering what tf other were watching.
You can't map.reduce this shit, it's totally subjective
Kinda why Siskel and Ebert was popular back in the day. Siskel approached criticism as being about trying to encourage film makers to make better movies. Ebert was about indicating whether he thought the audience would like the movie. So they would debate. One of them or both would often be wrong. But from the discussion you could get an idea about whether it's a movie you might enjoy.
There just isn't anything like that now. You're going either hear someone tell you it's the best thing ever, or it's the worst thing ever. Someone will review it as if it's supposed to be art while someone else will tell you if it's got good action scenes in it. These will all be ones or zeros that are added up to produce a rotten tomato number. We don't even really know what perspective someone is reviewing something from.
You're right, it's all subjective so there's no way to know whether you'll like a movie until you've watched it yourself.
I was specifically thinking about Siskel and Ebert while reading this post yeah. I actually loved their reviews.
Funnily enough I very frequently disagreed with their opinions, but between the two of them they explained so well what made the movie appealing or not, that I was able to make up my own mind based on the text of the review even if the "rating" was not one I agreed with.
And then of course the more you read a reviewer and get to know where your opinions line up and where they differ, the more useful their reviews become. Same thing with IRL friends ofc.
Actually reminded me of Ebert's review of The One. He roasted it while accurately predicting that a basic person like me would love it.
If you just saw 1.5/5 you'd think wow what a stinker and miss out on this incredible brainless vibe piece sitting at the border of 90-00 dripping in pre-cringe cool, just before everything would get way too gritty and serious.
Yeah it depends on what you want from a movie. My favourite Siskel and Ebert review was for the third Inidana Jones movie. Siskel didn't like it because there wasn't enough depth to the father and son relationship. Ebert recommended it because, well you got to an Indiana Jones movie for the action, and the action scenes were good.
So I'm Ebert's side on that one, because yeah I'm going there to see Indy on horseback go up against a tank. Sure maybe the father and son relationship didn't have a lot of depth, but that was because their conversations kept getting interrupted by action scenes. Which is what I'm there to see.
So it's not that Siskel was wrong, I just don't care about what he was criticizing on that one. If it were more of an arthouse drama kind of thing, then I would care about his criticism. But the discussion indicates the father-son parts of the movie weren't bad, just there wasn't a lot. Too me there was enough of that for an action movie, so it's a good movie.
Hearing the different perspectives meant you could decide which one you care about most and gave a better indication of whether you will like the move.
90% on rotten tomatoes? I don't know what that means.
It’s not that Siskel’s opinion or critique of the film was wrong, but his contention that his average audience member would dislike the movie for the same reasons he disliked it were at least for this poster incorrect.
Based on the info from the comment in question, I'm guessing you meant Ebert? But yeah, that tracks! Though they did say they were sometimes both wrong. I can see how one's opinion of whether or not other people will like something could be proven wrong, but not an opinion of what makes a good movie, that's entirely subjective.
Yeah I got mixed up but you got what I meant, and they both could easily be wrong! Art is always an ongoing subjective conversation between artist and audience and then subsequently audience to audience
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another, broadly speaking. It's not something to boil down to a percentage, but you might as well show more detail when you have the data.
Personally, I use ratings to estimate whether a movie that I'm interested in is worth my time. Especially Rotten Tomatoes is super useful for this because the critics score is basically a distilled thumbs up or down.
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another
I mean I wouldn't say that, it's kind of the opposite of what I was saying actually. But if reviews form a kind of aggregate metric you find useful then that's good for you.
Elsewhere I even talked about how frequently I disagreed with Siskel and Ebert's thumbs ups/downs, but the text of their reviews at least showed me I would love a movie they thought was bad.
At some point though we crossed a line where no one actually reads the criticism and internalizes it, instead they just look at the number and make it either a personal attack or validation.
There's too much media now. Used to be, a few good movies came out every couple months. Now between all the studios and streaming services and other formats, we exist within the cone of a firehose of content. No one has time to read and internalize reviews, they're just looking to filter the firehose to a binary watch/don't watch
I view the rating as marketing these days. There are so many awful movies with good reviews, that I'm 100% convinced that they use bots to push the rating up, trying to increase the sales.
Since people generelly trust the reviews, it works.
What's more important than the score is the written reviews.
So many films with bad scores because people didn't "get it", or watched a film that wasn't "for them".
For example, I've seen critics write reviews for the third movie in a franchise, saying they didn't understand what was happening, because they didn't watch the first two.
It's not about affirmation, it's about feeling connected to some parts or the human race. Mostly people who are simular to ourselves. When you meet your friends, you probably discuss things you all like. Its universal.
We feel what we feel and we look for others to feel the same. Not affirm it, but to not feel alone in our feelings.
As much as I understand what you say, this is not one of those things for me. I just don't care what other people like or don't like. I am going to form my own opinion based on my own experience and information. I also don't look at these ratings at all.
Fair enough. Have you found that the rating is wildly inaccurate when you view a rated movie?
I dont like almost any movie now these days but that's because I think they are so silly, and that's because I'm 50 years old. Movies are made for teenagers, so I'm not the right group.
I mean, it's a binary: either you like it or you don't (plus the neutral option). The ratings in the meme were portion of people who liked it and didn't. So you will either always fall with the majority or minority (or won't care if you feel neutral about it). There is no wildly inaccurate for that, there's just how many others you agree or disagree with.
Assuming their sample population is representative, at least, because what it says about the population can be inaccurate (but "my friend group all agrees with the minority side" doesn't necessarily mean it's inaccurate for the pop since your friend group probably doesn't represent the entire pop).
It depends. I think sometimes the joke goes over everyone's head and then they catch up. Like a horribly rated comedy but the joke was that it was horrible and they leaned into it. But I don't look at the ratings other than me looking and going "well I didn't expect that" and moving on.
I really can't remember a rating I remember. I know word of mouth. Like most of my coworkers didn't care for Sinners but I thought it was decent. Same with One Battle After Another. I thought it was excellent. But it seems that most of the Internet thinks it's crap.
Well yeah, I dont do anything my friends say. We often have different opinions about things too. But its how you deal with that. Some people fight over different opinions (common on Lemmy). Others have their own opinion without needing others to agree, and still remain friends anyway.
The magic numbers are helpful to give you insight you missed something. I hated The Thin Red Line initially (I expected an action movie) but gave it a 2nd shot when I saw the high reviews. Enjoyed it more the 2nd watch.
All reviews are subjective personal opinions and if you personality enjoyed a game then they really shouldn't get to you, unless of course there's a despicable little niggling in the back of your mind that maybe you're not having as much fun as you've convinced yourself you're having, which doesn't go away no matter how many times you try to slap it down with a wet flannel of weak excuses.
I'm more annoyed that they included Matt Damon in the leading role. That guy's been washed for years.
I don’t care about the historical accuracy or the racial makeup
I do think it's very funny to be mad about Elliot Page for being transgender when I'd be more upset that he's got zero tan in a movie about rugged sea faring people just north of Egypt.
Like so much Sword and Sandal that Hollywood produces, it's way too white. Maybe make more movies that take place in the Baltics if you want to use this many Brits, Franks, and Nords.
I found she was a terrible choice for the character she played in it. Like I think she's a fine actress, but she definitely doesn't play a rugged desert woman well. I think a large part of my issues with her character are from the writing/adaptation, but I also don't think that she's who I'd cast.
Historically I never had the patience but I've watched a ton of movies over the past couple years (easily 300+) and initially I agreed with audience rating. Although I'm far from an insufferable cinephile and really don't care about underlying theory and whatnot, I definitely find myself agreeing more with critic rating now. Of course there's plenty of exceptions where I disagreed with both. Movies can be fun or awful for you regardless of what anyone else thinks.
That being said, I think Roger Ebert's reviews usually nail it. That man was a connoisseur of weird enjoyable movies and quick to call out corporate crap.
As much as certain people like to proclaim reviewers are paid shills or sycophants, especially whenever a movie with diversity cast does well... The audience metric is nigh on useless half of the time.
Look at that Melania movies critic and audience score. Then see a genuinely great movie with some non white person cast in a main role get review bombed to hell and back by the same people
I spot it with Ubisoft. The entire audience is primed to the idea Ubisoft = Open World = Slop which is sometimes true but many levels of disingenuous. Ubi has some pretty good writers that have made some enjoyable characters, though they’re often muddled by the need to build 80 hours of content. So when a Ubisoft game gets good reviews (not often) everyone feels it was paid off and that it’s laden with microtransactions. Meanwhile I’ll be like “If I literally wanted to burn money on this game I wouldn’t even know which menu it’s in…”
I have a very simple system. If the movie was made for legitimate artistic reasons, then I think it was worth the effort to make it. If the movie was made to sell tickets, I don't bother.
Hm...I can see your angle but some of those can stilll be fun to watch.
Movies can't always be about deep thought 100% philosophical question of life. That's tiring for me.
I do want to point out that "legitimate artistry" doesn't equal "deep thought 100% philosophical" all the time or even most of the time.
Like I think Indiana Jones is legitimate artistry. Same with The Terminator. Or Alien. Or Mad Max. Even Sinners is legitimate artistry. Get Out.
I haven't seen it yet, but I get the impression that "The Odyssey" was made because Nolan thought the subject matter was interesting.
People have made cool movies for the love of the game forever. I think the big difference is "did an executive come up with this idea in a boardroom?" Or "did a real creative person come up with this idea?"
The primary target can be X or Y or a 50/50 split.
Someone can have passion to make a movie but also wanting more € to make more movies.
Or get rich from the (maybe) one-hit wonder ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I love me some V for Vendetta, but Zootopia is also really good at what it is. It's meant to entertain children while also having some laughs for the parents, and Disney is really good at that shit.
That sounds about right, you need to think about who is going to see those movies. Zootopia will be parents and children, who are a lot easier to impress than the kind of snob that would watch V for Vendetta.
A movie doesn't have to be a flawless masterpiece to be 100%. Getting certified fresh on RT is honestly more a balancing act of meeting expectations, but also not being so predictable that it becomes bland.
I never look at reviews, I just go in expecting to be disappointed and so usually am not. Even shitty movies are fun since I plan on them sucking..
Update- saw it last night. A bit of a mess, but interesting and enjoyable. I like how it was a retelling of the story but connected it with modern themes. I enjoyed very much the diverse cast, I like performances, and appreciate various takes on the roles from performers with different backgrounds. Dialog was a bit wooden in places, especially the last line, but it was a show, not a documentary so I don’t mind a little ham-fistedness.
The best part was the Trojan Horse portrayal. My whole life I’ve seen the cartoons of a horse rolled up to the gate, and a simple telling of how they were tricked. This put the human cost of it into perspective (the fictional human cost anyway), and the stuggle with how it unfolded by Odysseus. Made me think about it more than I ever have, and from a new perspective.
My partner and I walked out of The Odyssey after ten minutes and got a refund.
WAY too loud. Excruciatingly, painfully, unnecessarily loud. And yet I still had trouble hearing some of the dialogue. We were in an AMC Dolby theater, and I don't think I'll ever go to a Dolby branded theater like that again.
I'm not sure how to split the blame here between AMC, Dolby, or Christopher Nolan, but I'm mad at all three for the ringing in my ear that's still there several hours after we walked out.
Can't comment on the movie itself as we barely saw any of it. Might see it at a different theater but I'll be bringing earplugs just in case, though I may want a refund there too if it's still so loud as to require earplugs.
Nolan really not helping his reputation at being an outright sadist when it comes to sound.
Hey, I go to a lot of AMC theaters, I feel very strongly that it was the "Dolby" theater. I've had similar experiences there (but haven't walked out). It might be a perfect storm of scenarios making it uniquely worse, but I can definitely say everyone in our group has all had the same experience at Dolby theaters.
I watched it, did not care for it. To dark, there were so many points i could not see what was happening, WAY to loud, actually hurt my ears, and, i just did not enjoy it as an experience. Actors are all fine, but there were times where the writing felt clunky or out of place ngl.
I love Man of Steel, needed a bit better editing (because his conflict between helping humanity or not is undermined by pretty early on by helping those offshore workers) but otherwise I think it’s a pretty good movie.
The Odyssey trailers did not appeal to me much, so I'm confused by the praise it's getting, is it because it's actually good or normies just giving it 10/10 because it's a Nolan movie. I watched Oppenheimer in theater and realized I could have saved the cost of the ticket and watched it at home without losing much, how does this movie compare to that, I've liked most of Nolans other movies except Tenet
I liked Tenet more than Oppenheimer, at least insofar as I feel like it benefited more from being on a big screen. Oppenheimer was a biopic first and foremost.
I'll probably just wait for it to stream, I'm getting too old to be hyped up about most movies.
You forgot the “haha go woke go broke” and “fucking NPC” line. For some reason the people that take movie and game reviews too seriously are those right wing basement dwelling chuds
For me it's more, "I wonder why critics / audience disagree with me?" It's an interesting thing to think about.
I try not to expose myself to any social media surrounding a movie before I watch it. No reviews, no trailers, nothing. Then I compare my experience with others, and it's usually wildly different. It makes me wonder how much of a review is "inertia" from the environment surrounding the movie, rather than the movie itself?
As an example, I absolutely loved the film Chappie. I thought it was a great film, but the general population AND critics absolutely blasted it. I actually agreed with some of their points in the reviews, but overall I still like that movie a lot, and I still rate it 9/10.
If I'd seen the 30% rating beforehand, would I have even bothered watching the movie? Maybe not…
I think the best approach is to find reviewers whose tastes largely align with your own. Their reviews can serve as a good reference when you’re looking for a movie you haven’t seen yet.
There are simply too many criteria you could apply. The "Cinesiasts", for example—who like films like Citizen Kane or works by Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, and the like—naturally know a great deal about their field. However, that by no means means their reviews would be a good reference point for the general public, who simply want to be entertained and don’t place too much value on artistic merit or the most elaborate technical skills of filmmakers.
RT lost its credibility a long time ago and IMDB just results in the bell curve effect where most things end up at 3.5/5 which is too accurate/condensed for most people.
You need to follow a couple or even just one film critic who makes quality reviews on their own if you want good information.
What's really crazy to me is with movies like that that get drug through the social media culture war bullshit, all the people arguing about "how they should have made the movie" never seem to realize that they don't get a choice about how anybody makes their movie. The movie-makers choose how they make their own movies, not the culture warriors or critics.
People should really back off and shut up about it all. "They should have done this, and the ending was all wrong" and so on. We don't get a say in any of that. We just get to view the art that artists have created, and you can like it or not like it. That's it.
The general point was the public's perceived entitlement that their opinion matters in how movies are made, while they are not involved in any of those decisions in reality.
If people are paying money for movie tickets, they are purchasing a product. Yes, their opinion on a product they paid hard earned money for matters.
If admission to a movie were free, then I might agree with you. But if people are paying for something, then it's a product. If anything it's Hollywood assholes that have a screwed up sense of entitlement in this scenario. It's just another instance of wealthy people not appreciating the people who buy their products.
I have. I enjoyed the heck out of it, it's a retelling definitely intended for modern audiences with some things removed and additional historical context added.
It's an excellent telling of an old story that reminds you that the Iliad was not truly glorious, and those that go to war will not come back the same.
If someone watches LOTR and goes “what a stupid movie, they retconned the wizard dying — he didn’t even cast fireball — and why didn’t they just ride the eagles like badasses” nothing I say will make them like it, but it is a garbage opinion they formed themselves (hypothetically… I made this up)
Sometimes racism is a collection of unfortunate priors.
More often, it's just cultural alienation supercharged with an advertising budget.
In the end, having your own view - even if it's unpopular or outright wrong - is better than letting your understanding be shaped by someone else's marketing budget.
If there's a movie I don't like,
and I see the rating site consensus showing "low critic score + high audience score",
THAT is more likely to convince me than anything else to re-evaluate my opinion.
And if there's a movie I DO like,
But it gets an AWFUL audience rating despite high praise from the professional critics,
That will ACTUALLY make me second guess and wonder if I'm wrong about how good I thought it was.
Nope, I'm still pissed off at Ridley Scott's Napoleon for changing things historically. It was a fun movie and really entertaining but it pissed me off so I couldn't fully enjoy it.
I'm assuming this movie will be the same, so I'll pass until I learn to let things go
Bonus points for the Odessy as a tale told in song until history began. Other works were lost, and the Odessy itself is likely just "the best parts" of the original.
Nah, it's in line with myths and traditional stories. Would a faithful adaptation be cool? Sure. But retelling and reimagining ancient stories is tradition.
Just came home from watching it. I've read it quite a few times, both out loud to students and by myself, so I didn't go in completely blind so to speak.
Still, it managed to confuse me a few times, especially a few conversations, and at some points, a little who's who. (Might just have been me, though. See below).
Still, overall, it was a pleasure to watch. Damon gives one of his best performances. It's perhaps not the best he's ever done, but he's good enough to carry a large part of the movie by himself. There are other standouts as well, a few from his crew, and Pattinson is his usual brooding self, which fits right in here. Casting Tom Holland as Telemachus perhaps wasn't completely fair to his capabilities, but he did well enough with his limited time and lines.
It's quite hard to write about further details without spoiling stuff, but one thing I can say is that the scenery is very well done. If you go in expecting Greek summer sunshine, you're in for another thing altogether. The backdrops were gorgeous. The CGI is also quite well done, imo.
Anyway, to be completely honest here, I have issues with my spine and right leg (the ischias nerve) so I'm pretty heavily medicated and that might have put a positive tint on the whole thing, I don't know.
(tl;dr) Still, in my opinion, it's very much worth watching, and if you can afford it, it's worth watching it in a movie theatre because of the effects and sound.
Edits: I had to repair my broken and not very sober English after the fact.
Nope, because most people share their thought with friends and family. Don't care what stranger say on internet. And most of the time even don't know those websites.
Yup, problem is we apply this to everything from dating, culture, politics, religion, and so on. Obviously all the things I think are valid and obviously whoever doesn't agree is somewhere between misguided to the spawn of Satan.
I've never used that app/site and have been able fully enjoy movies for all the exact reasons I watch them. Not sure why people use that thing at all. I use imdb to check parental guide before my teens see things but otherwise why is there such a want for critics? Not to mention... bots and click bait tactics drive that site. Rage bait from it makes you form opinions on it for others on social media? Do you have a need to live that lifestyle for some reason? Wild times we're in. We really need to pump more money into mental health.
I don't know how anyone can extrapolate from these aggregate reviews. Taste in art is so personal. I find these utterly useless. Personalized movielens ratings are a little helpful at least.
Disclaimer: I have only seen the trailers. Multiple things were from substantially incorrect regions or time periods. They could have at least tried.
Also, I bought a Nolan movie to watch at home once, and the sound balancing was complete garbage. It was disappointing that he let his pretentiousness make his movie unwatchable. Maybe someday he'll understand what art is for.
Unless the people in my life that watch more movies than I do say it's really good, I won't see it, but also won't be reviewing it for Rotten Tomatoes.
Odessey is a piece of shit movie. They even confess it's made from "a female perspective". It's full of race swaps and gender swaps, pushing the same gay/trans agenda that we have seen for years from Hollywood now.
Also it's incredibly lacking any colors appearently. It looks like brown mud, through the entire movie.
Nolan got told to make a diversity movie and it's his worst movie because of it.
Some youtube channels who reviewed this shit movie:
This is a masculine story about a masculine hero if you haven't noticed. That's why feminist perspective makes the movie awful.
This comment being downvoted just shows how many in the lemmy community has the same mindset as hollywood today. Movies being about diversity, gay, trans are good, but masculine movies about strong heterosexual men, thats the enemy for you guys. Its funny. :)
Not sure how that would make it bad, just different.
Middle Earth from a female perspective could absolutely be a good film - though I wouldn't trust anyone to actually do it well. It would also be a very different story.
I can easily see how it makes it bad, and not just different. But we are all different.
I think we need masculine movies today. Top gun is an amazing movie, if you want an example. Making a version of top gun from a feminist perspective would be absolutely awful and not just different.
Bad faith comment? Because you don't agree with it? Please. I'm fine with your opinion about it, so maybe you can be fine with my opinion about it, since this is MY opinion about it. Get it?
The question was for people who actually saw the movie. Not looked at the cast and decided their opinion based on their fucked up culture war politics before it even premiered.
Sinon was supposed to be a low key super soldier because Odysseus feels bad about a child getting picked and sent to war. On the long journey to Troy over the next like ten years Sinon receives extensive personal training by Odysseus.
Then when it's Sinon's time to shine they're a short, small, trans person that doesn't act or appear narratively correct for a low key Greek super soldier at all.
Elliot Page is an accomplished actor. Looking forward to seeing his portrayal. Sorry they didn't cast a modern ubermensch for you, bub. I'm sure it was deliberate cultural Marxism or something. We're doomed?
As if it wasn't completely obvious who you are and where you get your ideas lol
Edit: but you're right I should have said solider, not comrades. I didn't mean to imply you were Russian or being unauthentic. I do however think you're at war with culture and totally unoriginal.
181 Comments
cmbabul@slrpnk.net · 72 pts · 17d
I swear rotten tomatoes and IMDb fucked up movies and tv more than anyone talks about. You can’t REALLY make an review of a work of art, even if it is corporate produced tripe, with a percentage scale or */10 system, and before anyone comes at me I know it’s been done for decades but it was never a be all and end all thing, critics wrote articles about things and you might disagree with their sensibilities and go see it specifically because a particular critic didn’t like it, the opposite is also true.
At some point though we crossed a line where no one actually reads the criticism and internalizes it, instead they just look at the number and make it either a personal attack or validation. Thats a really bad way to experience art of any kind.
This isn’t a complete thought I feel, but I hate the reality of film and television criticism today, not because critics are worthless, because that’s just silly. If you like something Peter Travers said was dog shit go find a critic that speaks to your taste it’s not difficult and doesn’t mean your favorite movie actually sucks.
JDPoZ@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 17d
I agree they both fucked it up, but my main problem is how there seems to have been a clear shift in how they "weigh" reviews after both IMDB and RT were bought by large corporate entities (Amazon and Fandango, respectively).
I can't help but feel like a lot of the movies coming out from those companies or their subsidiaries (...and at least some number of politically expedient allies) somehow manage to get higher overall review scores on RT and IMDB than they maybe deserve.
For example, that shitty right-wing nationalist churchslop movie "Young Washington" got relatively high scores on RT...
...and IMDB...
...but not on Letterbox'd...
...which is one of the main reasons I shifted to checking Letterbox'd for reviews... but unfortunately, another day to shift to a different platform be coming soon again.
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 16 pts · 17d
In Darknet Diaries Ep 27: Chartbreakers, Jack Rhysider describes how cheap and easy it is to buy your way to the top of the Apple Podcasts rating chart or onto the New York Times bestseller list.
After listening to this, it's pretty easy to extend the logic to every other rating platform. Paying for review manipulation is basically part of the marketing budget.
cmbabul@slrpnk.net · 15 pts · 17d
I want to be clear I don’t disagree at all you’re correct. Corporate control of art means they will go to any lengths to ensure profit.
But also, I really kinda glossed over the overarching problem, which is that the film industry is now driven by reviews and vibes reviewed by c-suite folks that answer to shareholders and don’t give a fuck about the actual film or show or whatever
This has always been true with the plastic arts but we’ve reached a zenith.
I will die on the hill that art cannot be considered a financial investment. It by definition has to take risks and investment people cannot handle that
djdarren@piefed.social · 18 pts · 17d
This Patrick Willems piece does a really good job of digging in to why so many streaming "blockbusters" are so shitty these days.
Tl;dw: The streaming companies have the metrics, and are now essentially making movies that hit certain beats to satisfy what they perceive as customer requirements, rather than movies that exist for their own sake.
cmbabul@slrpnk.net · 14 pts · 17d
Art by corporate committee, a fucking travesty
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 17d
Yeah fedi needs a letterboxd. I kind of wonder if bookwyrm would be a good inspo for it.
loaf@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 17d
I think NeoDB is a good start. Just needs a larger community l
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 16d
I'm on it 🫡
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 17d
Toy Story is 100%
What does that mean? Does it mean it's the best movie ever made? Nope, it just means everyone at least kinda likes it. It's Toy Story, it's a good movie. Though I wouldn't say it's the greatest movie of all time. Just a decent movie.
The way the scoring works means that if everyone thinks a movie is better than average, the movie gets a perfect score.
If 75% of the critics think something was the greatest movie ever, while 25% didn't like it, it's a 75% score. It might be a movie you'll think is the greatest movie ever too, but you might give it a miss to watch movie that 90% of the critics thought was just ok instead.
So if a studio is making a movie to try to get a good score, they will make it so it doesn't offend anyone, and have it universally be considered ok. The way these sites measure movies encourages mediocrity and playing it safe.
cmbabul@slrpnk.net · 0 pts · 16d
Good to see a fellow ball knower out here
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 17d
Yeah these ratings are worse than useless. Oh The Abyss 14% better than Amelie?? Fuck off, Poindexter.
They're completely disconnected from my own opinions and when I see then before watching a movie they just distract me by wondering what tf other were watching.
You can't map.reduce this shit, it's totally subjective
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 17d
Kinda why Siskel and Ebert was popular back in the day. Siskel approached criticism as being about trying to encourage film makers to make better movies. Ebert was about indicating whether he thought the audience would like the movie. So they would debate. One of them or both would often be wrong. But from the discussion you could get an idea about whether it's a movie you might enjoy.
There just isn't anything like that now. You're going either hear someone tell you it's the best thing ever, or it's the worst thing ever. Someone will review it as if it's supposed to be art while someone else will tell you if it's got good action scenes in it. These will all be ones or zeros that are added up to produce a rotten tomato number. We don't even really know what perspective someone is reviewing something from.
You're right, it's all subjective so there's no way to know whether you'll like a movie until you've watched it yourself.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 16d
I was specifically thinking about Siskel and Ebert while reading this post yeah. I actually loved their reviews.
Funnily enough I very frequently disagreed with their opinions, but between the two of them they explained so well what made the movie appealing or not, that I was able to make up my own mind based on the text of the review even if the "rating" was not one I agreed with.
And then of course the more you read a reviewer and get to know where your opinions line up and where they differ, the more useful their reviews become. Same thing with IRL friends ofc.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 16d
Actually reminded me of Ebert's review of The One. He roasted it while accurately predicting that a basic person like me would love it.
If you just saw 1.5/5 you'd think wow what a stinker and miss out on this incredible brainless vibe piece sitting at the border of 90-00 dripping in pre-cringe cool, just before everything would get way too gritty and serious.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 16d
Yeah it depends on what you want from a movie. My favourite Siskel and Ebert review was for the third Inidana Jones movie. Siskel didn't like it because there wasn't enough depth to the father and son relationship. Ebert recommended it because, well you got to an Indiana Jones movie for the action, and the action scenes were good.
So I'm Ebert's side on that one, because yeah I'm going there to see Indy on horseback go up against a tank. Sure maybe the father and son relationship didn't have a lot of depth, but that was because their conversations kept getting interrupted by action scenes. Which is what I'm there to see.
So it's not that Siskel was wrong, I just don't care about what he was criticizing on that one. If it were more of an arthouse drama kind of thing, then I would care about his criticism. But the discussion indicates the father-son parts of the movie weren't bad, just there wasn't a lot. Too me there was enough of that for an action movie, so it's a good movie.
Hearing the different perspectives meant you could decide which one you care about most and gave a better indication of whether you will like the move.
90% on rotten tomatoes? I don't know what that means.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16d
How can you be wrong about an opinion?
cmbabul@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 12d
It’s not that Siskel’s opinion or critique of the film was wrong, but his contention that his average audience member would dislike the movie for the same reasons he disliked it were at least for this poster incorrect.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 11d
Based on the info from the comment in question, I'm guessing you meant Ebert? But yeah, that tracks! Though they did say they were sometimes both wrong. I can see how one's opinion of whether or not other people will like something could be proven wrong, but not an opinion of what makes a good movie, that's entirely subjective.
cmbabul@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 11d
Yeah I got mixed up but you got what I meant, and they both could easily be wrong! Art is always an ongoing subjective conversation between artist and audience and then subsequently audience to audience
amorpheus@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16d
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another, broadly speaking. It's not something to boil down to a percentage, but you might as well show more detail when you have the data.
Personally, I use ratings to estimate whether a movie that I'm interested in is worth my time. Especially Rotten Tomatoes is super useful for this because the critics score is basically a distilled thumbs up or down.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 15d
I mean I wouldn't say that, it's kind of the opposite of what I was saying actually. But if reviews form a kind of aggregate metric you find useful then that's good for you.
Elsewhere I even talked about how frequently I disagreed with Siskel and Ebert's thumbs ups/downs, but the text of their reviews at least showed me I would love a movie they thought was bad.
brachiosaurus@mander.xyz · 3 pts · 16d
They are not reviewing work of art though, they are reviewing products.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 16d
There's too much media now. Used to be, a few good movies came out every couple months. Now between all the studios and streaming services and other formats, we exist within the cone of a firehose of content. No one has time to read and internalize reviews, they're just looking to filter the firehose to a binary watch/don't watch
1984@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 16d
I view the rating as marketing these days. There are so many awful movies with good reviews, that I'm 100% convinced that they use bots to push the rating up, trying to increase the sales.
Since people generelly trust the reviews, it works.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 17d
Is anyone else getting a little uncomfortable having their confirmation bias put in the spotlight like this?
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 17d
It's a three hour movie. If you need a heuristic to justify why you saw it (or skipped it) do what is necessary.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 17d
This is gonna have to be a home viewing because there will NEED to be at least one pee break and stretch exercise in the middle.
Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16d
They should bring back the intermission before people start bringing pee bottles.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 17d
Nah, I know I'm fickle
Zozano@aussie.zone · 30 pts · 16d
What's more important than the score is the written reviews.
So many films with bad scores because people didn't "get it", or watched a film that wasn't "for them".
For example, I've seen critics write reviews for the third movie in a franchise, saying they didn't understand what was happening, because they didn't watch the first two.
LodeMike@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 16d
The critic reviews are also partially made up. The site will interpolate >= 50% in whatever review system the reviewer uses as a good review.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 3 pts · 15d
It feels very odd to me to view someone rating a movie as 51/100 as them giving it a positive rating.
ddplf@szmer.info · 23 pts · 16d
My man, If you need your tastes to be affirmed by some magical numbers, then I don't know what to tell you.
1984@lemmy.today · 12 pts · 16d
It's not about affirmation, it's about feeling connected to some parts or the human race. Mostly people who are simular to ourselves. When you meet your friends, you probably discuss things you all like. Its universal.
We feel what we feel and we look for others to feel the same. Not affirm it, but to not feel alone in our feelings.
GladiusB@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
As much as I understand what you say, this is not one of those things for me. I just don't care what other people like or don't like. I am going to form my own opinion based on my own experience and information. I also don't look at these ratings at all.
1984@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 16d
Fair enough. Have you found that the rating is wildly inaccurate when you view a rated movie?
I dont like almost any movie now these days but that's because I think they are so silly, and that's because I'm 50 years old. Movies are made for teenagers, so I'm not the right group.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16d
I mean, it's a binary: either you like it or you don't (plus the neutral option). The ratings in the meme were portion of people who liked it and didn't. So you will either always fall with the majority or minority (or won't care if you feel neutral about it). There is no wildly inaccurate for that, there's just how many others you agree or disagree with.
Assuming their sample population is representative, at least, because what it says about the population can be inaccurate (but "my friend group all agrees with the minority side" doesn't necessarily mean it's inaccurate for the pop since your friend group probably doesn't represent the entire pop).
GladiusB@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16d
It depends. I think sometimes the joke goes over everyone's head and then they catch up. Like a horribly rated comedy but the joke was that it was horrible and they leaned into it. But I don't look at the ratings other than me looking and going "well I didn't expect that" and moving on.
I really can't remember a rating I remember. I know word of mouth. Like most of my coworkers didn't care for Sinners but I thought it was decent. Same with One Battle After Another. I thought it was excellent. But it seems that most of the Internet thinks it's crap.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 16d
It's both. The old motherly advice "if your friends jumped off a bridge would you too?" still applies. Everything is intertwined.
1984@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 16d
Well yeah, I dont do anything my friends say. We often have different opinions about things too. But its how you deal with that. Some people fight over different opinions (common on Lemmy). Others have their own opinion without needing others to agree, and still remain friends anyway.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 16d
True enough.
Agent641@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 16d
Upvoting this
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 16d
You must be great at parties :p
Sometimes it's just fun to have someone that agrees with your opinion.
Duckingold@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
The magic numbers are helpful to give you insight you missed something. I hated The Thin Red Line initially (I expected an action movie) but gave it a 2nd shot when I saw the high reviews. Enjoyed it more the 2nd watch.
GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16d
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 17d
Seeing it on Sunday!
I do have an issue with the amount of stars in the movie, especially Zendaya, but I'll try to keep an open mind.
I don't care about the historical accuracy or the racial makeup of the cast, all I care about is whether it's a movie I enjoy watching.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 17d
She's a stellar actress and a smokeshow.
I'm more annoyed that they included Matt Damon in the leading role. That guy's been washed for years.
I do think it's very funny to be mad about Elliot Page for being transgender when I'd be more upset that he's got zero tan in a movie about rugged sea faring people just north of Egypt.
Like so much Sword and Sandal that Hollywood produces, it's way too white. Maybe make more movies that take place in the Baltics if you want to use this many Brits, Franks, and Nords.
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 17d
Agree to disagree, I've never seen anything I've enjoyed her in.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 17d
Well, I'm a huge fan of Challengers. And she was a great Mary Jane in the Tom Holland Spidermovies.
NeilNuggetstrong@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 17d
She's mid, I don't give a shit if she's in it or not tbh
btsax@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 16d
Dune?
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 14d
I found she was a terrible choice for the character she played in it. Like I think she's a fine actress, but she definitely doesn't play a rugged desert woman well. I think a large part of my issues with her character are from the writing/adaptation, but I also don't think that she's who I'd cast.
cattywampas@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16d
I have some thoughts on Dune, all right.
Phantaloons@piefed.zip · -1 pts · 16d
She's alright,
Smokeshows often have curves tho, but to each their own.
Leviathan@fedinsfw.app · 4 pts · 16d
Booty is in the eye of the beholder, son. Some men like em long and lean, some like em thick and mean, and there's a person for everyone in-between.
duckythescientist@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 17d
I actually think Damon did a good job in this one
OS2Warp@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 17d
What movie?
Edit: Duh - it’s in the description.
Dookieman12@piefed.social · 19 pts · 17d
See also: everyone driving slower than me is an idiot, everyone driving faster than me is an asshole.
jsheradin@fedia.io · 19 pts · 17d
Historically I never had the patience but I've watched a ton of movies over the past couple years (easily 300+) and initially I agreed with audience rating. Although I'm far from an insufferable cinephile and really don't care about underlying theory and whatnot, I definitely find myself agreeing more with critic rating now. Of course there's plenty of exceptions where I disagreed with both. Movies can be fun or awful for you regardless of what anyone else thinks.
That being said, I think Roger Ebert's reviews usually nail it. That man was a connoisseur of weird enjoyable movies and quick to call out corporate crap.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 17d
If you can manage subtitles I would suggest Survive Style 5+, don't look it up, just watch.
Crescent@fedinsfw.app · 1 pts · 15d
Survive Style mentioned!
Karjalan@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 17d
As much as certain people like to proclaim reviewers are paid shills or sycophants, especially whenever a movie with diversity cast does well... The audience metric is nigh on useless half of the time.
Look at that Melania movies critic and audience score. Then see a genuinely great movie with some non white person cast in a main role get review bombed to hell and back by the same people
Katana314@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
I’ve been with this in video games too.
I spot it with Ubisoft. The entire audience is primed to the idea Ubisoft = Open World = Slop which is sometimes true but many levels of disingenuous. Ubi has some pretty good writers that have made some enjoyable characters, though they’re often muddled by the need to build 80 hours of content. So when a Ubisoft game gets good reviews (not often) everyone feels it was paid off and that it’s laden with microtransactions. Meanwhile I’ll be like “If I literally wanted to burn money on this game I wouldn’t even know which menu it’s in…”
thethrilloftime69@feddit.online · 18 pts · 16d
I have a very simple system. If the movie was made for legitimate artistic reasons, then I think it was worth the effort to make it. If the movie was made to sell tickets, I don't bother.
I decide which artistry is legitimate.
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 16d
understandable but like, aren't 99% of movies made to make a profit?
thethrilloftime69@feddit.online · 10 pts · 16d
Yes that's true but I have a pretty simple algorithm for movies that were "made to sell tickets"
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16d
Are there any movies you like which are an exception to those?
thethrilloftime69@feddit.online · 4 pts · 16d
I liked Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy... Actually just the first 2.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 16d
Hm...I can see your angle but some of those can stilll be fun to watch.
Movies can't always be about deep thought 100% philosophical question of life. That's tiring for me.
thethrilloftime69@feddit.online · 2 pts · 16d
I do want to point out that "legitimate artistry" doesn't equal "deep thought 100% philosophical" all the time or even most of the time.
Like I think Indiana Jones is legitimate artistry. Same with The Terminator. Or Alien. Or Mad Max. Even Sinners is legitimate artistry. Get Out.
I haven't seen it yet, but I get the impression that "The Odyssey" was made because Nolan thought the subject matter was interesting.
People have made cool movies for the love of the game forever. I think the big difference is "did an executive come up with this idea in a boardroom?" Or "did a real creative person come up with this idea?"
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 16d
Thanks for explaining your standpoint.
Hereby I stand corrected :)
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 16d
The primary target can be X or Y or a 50/50 split.
Someone can have passion to make a movie but also wanting more € to make more movies.
Or get rich from the (maybe) one-hit wonder ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 15d
Simpler than that. The movie was made because Nolan saw the Titans movies and thought, "someone should make a not 'ass' version".
Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 12 pts · 16d
Disney movies like zootopia 2 are 100% but v for fucking vendetta is like 70? Wtf RT
Read the "professional reviews" and are like "my daughter liked it so 10/10"
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 16d
I love me some V for Vendetta, but Zootopia is also really good at what it is. It's meant to entertain children while also having some laughs for the parents, and Disney is really good at that shit.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 16d
That sounds about right, you need to think about who is going to see those movies. Zootopia will be parents and children, who are a lot easier to impress than the kind of snob that would watch V for Vendetta.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 16d
V for vendetta is for snobs?
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 16d
Definitely people who think of themselves as having more refined tastes.
Also, it's not actually that good.
Hoimo@ani.social · 1 pts · 16d
A movie doesn't have to be a flawless masterpiece to be 100%. Getting certified fresh on RT is honestly more a balancing act of meeting expectations, but also not being so predictable that it becomes bland.
4grams@awful.systems · 12 pts · 17d
I never look at reviews, I just go in expecting to be disappointed and so usually am not. Even shitty movies are fun since I plan on them sucking..
Update- saw it last night. A bit of a mess, but interesting and enjoyable. I like how it was a retelling of the story but connected it with modern themes. I enjoyed very much the diverse cast, I like performances, and appreciate various takes on the roles from performers with different backgrounds. Dialog was a bit wooden in places, especially the last line, but it was a show, not a documentary so I don’t mind a little ham-fistedness.
The best part was the Trojan Horse portrayal. My whole life I’ve seen the cartoons of a horse rolled up to the gate, and a simple telling of how they were tricked. This put the human cost of it into perspective (the fictional human cost anyway), and the stuggle with how it unfolded by Odysseus. Made me think about it more than I ever have, and from a new perspective.
teslekova@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 16d
Bring a bucket of water balloons and you will enjoy every movie.
noxypaws@pawb.social · 9 pts · 16d
My partner and I walked out of The Odyssey after ten minutes and got a refund.
WAY too loud. Excruciatingly, painfully, unnecessarily loud. And yet I still had trouble hearing some of the dialogue. We were in an AMC Dolby theater, and I don't think I'll ever go to a Dolby branded theater like that again.
I'm not sure how to split the blame here between AMC, Dolby, or Christopher Nolan, but I'm mad at all three for the ringing in my ear that's still there several hours after we walked out.
Can't comment on the movie itself as we barely saw any of it. Might see it at a different theater but I'll be bringing earplugs just in case, though I may want a refund there too if it's still so loud as to require earplugs.
Nolan really not helping his reputation at being an outright sadist when it comes to sound.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 3 pts · 15d
Hey, I go to a lot of AMC theaters, I feel very strongly that it was the "Dolby" theater. I've had similar experiences there (but haven't walked out). It might be a perfect storm of scenarios making it uniquely worse, but I can definitely say everyone in our group has all had the same experience at Dolby theaters.
ConstantPain@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 16d
I have so little incentive to go to the movies these days that any negativity, deserved or not, is just enough.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 3 pts · 16d
You don't have to go to the movies to see a movie
UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 16d
Arrr!
ConstantPain@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 15d
Yeah, even without piracy, I don't care to wait a month or two to see something that peek my interest
deft@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 15d
That's fair
Zacryon@feddit.org · 9 pts · 16d
Things to do when bored: arguing about taste.
trslim@pawb.social · 8 pts · 16d
I watched it, did not care for it. To dark, there were so many points i could not see what was happening, WAY to loud, actually hurt my ears, and, i just did not enjoy it as an experience. Actors are all fine, but there were times where the writing felt clunky or out of place ngl.
noxypaws@pawb.social · 8 pts · 16d
My partner and I actually walked out after 10 or 15 minutes because it was so painfully loud. Asked for (and received) a refund.
Infuriating that I can't trust movie theaters to maintain reasonable volumes. I shouldn't have to bring earplugs to a movie.
kamee@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 16d
I love Man of Steel, needed a bit better editing (because his conflict between helping humanity or not is undermined by pretty early on by helping those offshore workers) but otherwise I think it’s a pretty good movie.
BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 16d
The Odyssey trailers did not appeal to me much, so I'm confused by the praise it's getting, is it because it's actually good or normies just giving it 10/10 because it's a Nolan movie. I watched Oppenheimer in theater and realized I could have saved the cost of the ticket and watched it at home without losing much, how does this movie compare to that, I've liked most of Nolans other movies except Tenet
Dozzi92@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 16d
I liked Tenet more than Oppenheimer, at least insofar as I feel like it benefited more from being on a big screen. Oppenheimer was a biopic first and foremost.
I'll probably just wait for it to stream, I'm getting too old to be hyped up about most movies.
stark@sopuli.xyz · 7 pts · 16d
You forgot the “haha go woke go broke” and “fucking NPC” line. For some reason the people that take movie and game reviews too seriously are those right wing basement dwelling chuds
duckythescientist@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 17d
I saw it opening night! I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't call it amazing. Solid 8/10 and no complaints
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 16d
cars 2 is the best one fight me
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 16d
psx_crab@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 16d
You, me, friend. I don't care what people said, it's a nicely executed spy thriller.
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 16d
there were also epic Lazer beams and a bad oil company, and a car with wings
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16d
Cars 7: Mater's Mutti's Revenge was far more romantic than the title indicates
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16d
Cars 1 is better
You, my friend... need to 🎶 find yourself. Yea, that's when you find yourself 🎶
qevlarr@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16d
Oh man, I knew I couldn't be the only one!
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 7 pts · 16d
For me it's more, "I wonder why critics / audience disagree with me?" It's an interesting thing to think about.
I try not to expose myself to any social media surrounding a movie before I watch it. No reviews, no trailers, nothing. Then I compare my experience with others, and it's usually wildly different. It makes me wonder how much of a review is "inertia" from the environment surrounding the movie, rather than the movie itself?
As an example, I absolutely loved the film Chappie. I thought it was a great film, but the general population AND critics absolutely blasted it. I actually agreed with some of their points in the reviews, but overall I still like that movie a lot, and I still rate it 9/10.
If I'd seen the 30% rating beforehand, would I have even bothered watching the movie? Maybe not…
MintyFresh@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
Chappie was great!
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 16d
I know right! One of my favourite movies, actually. I remember it fondly.
DandomRude@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 16d
I think the best approach is to find reviewers whose tastes largely align with your own. Their reviews can serve as a good reference when you’re looking for a movie you haven’t seen yet.
There are simply too many criteria you could apply. The "Cinesiasts", for example—who like films like Citizen Kane or works by Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, and the like—naturally know a great deal about their field. However, that by no means means their reviews would be a good reference point for the general public, who simply want to be entertained and don’t place too much value on artistic merit or the most elaborate technical skills of filmmakers.
mlg@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 16d
RT lost its credibility a long time ago and IMDB just results in the bell curve effect where most things end up at 3.5/5 which is too accurate/condensed for most people.
You need to follow a couple or even just one film critic who makes quality reviews on their own if you want good information.
RaoulDook@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 17d
What's really crazy to me is with movies like that that get drug through the social media culture war bullshit, all the people arguing about "how they should have made the movie" never seem to realize that they don't get a choice about how anybody makes their movie. The movie-makers choose how they make their own movies, not the culture warriors or critics.
People should really back off and shut up about it all. "They should have done this, and the ending was all wrong" and so on. We don't get a say in any of that. We just get to view the art that artists have created, and you can like it or not like it. That's it.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 17d
So people shouldn't be allowed to talk about movies they don't like?
RaoulDook@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16d
Is that what I said? Nope, read it again.
The general point was the public's perceived entitlement that their opinion matters in how movies are made, while they are not involved in any of those decisions in reality.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · -1 pts · 16d
If people are paying money for movie tickets, they are purchasing a product. Yes, their opinion on a product they paid hard earned money for matters.
If admission to a movie were free, then I might agree with you. But if people are paying for something, then it's a product. If anything it's Hollywood assholes that have a screwed up sense of entitlement in this scenario. It's just another instance of wealthy people not appreciating the people who buy their products.
Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 17d
The corpos funding them sure do
RaoulDook@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
Some do and some don't. Some filmmakers even choose to self-fund and make their movies however they want.
Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 16d
Those are in the minority or religated to low budget arthouse films.
lordbritishbusiness@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 15d
I have. I enjoyed the heck out of it, it's a retelling definitely intended for modern audiences with some things removed and additional historical context added.
It's an excellent telling of an old story that reminds you that the Iliad was not truly glorious, and those that go to war will not come back the same.
Trampampoline@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 15d
Movies you haven't seen:
"this might be good, idk... nah, probably not."
nialv7@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 17d
I mean, exactly? Only thing that really matters is whether you enjoyed it or not. To hell with other people's opinions
Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 17d
See also: motivated reasoning
otacon239@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 17d
I just don’t check reviews. I’m genuinely the fourth one, but all the time.
drath@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 16d
If this is a place to throw hot takes: Battlefield Earth is better than Mad Max 1979, if only just marginally.
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 17d
But people don’t know anything and you should form an opinion of your own. Even if it’s a garbage opinion everyone else hates.
Dookieman12@piefed.social · 0 pts · 17d
Bad advice for racists and misogynists
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 17d
We’re talking about movies.
If someone watches LOTR and goes “what a stupid movie, they retconned the wizard dying — he didn’t even cast fireball — and why didn’t they just ride the eagles like badasses” nothing I say will make them like it, but it is a garbage opinion they formed themselves (hypothetically… I made this up)
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 17d
Sometimes racism is a collection of unfortunate priors.
More often, it's just cultural alienation supercharged with an advertising budget.
In the end, having your own view - even if it's unpopular or outright wrong - is better than letting your understanding be shaped by someone else's marketing budget.
Draegur@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 17d
If there's a movie I don't like,
and I see the rating site consensus showing "low critic score + high audience score",
THAT is more likely to convince me than anything else to re-evaluate my opinion.
And if there's a movie I DO like,
But it gets an AWFUL audience rating despite high praise from the professional critics,
That will ACTUALLY make me second guess and wonder if I'm wrong about how good I thought it was.
I fucking hate the professional critic grift ._.
OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 15d
Nope, I'm still pissed off at Ridley Scott's Napoleon for changing things historically. It was a fun movie and really entertaining but it pissed me off so I couldn't fully enjoy it.
I'm assuming this movie will be the same, so I'll pass until I learn to let things go
Herr_S_aus_H@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 15d
You are aware that the Odyssey is a work of fiction, right?
nexguy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 15d
When Odysseus pulls out his light saber it really puts me in the story againt the one eyed Megatron.
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 1 pts · 15d
Starscream: Who are you?
Odysseus: I am nobody!
Starscream: Megatron, help me! I am being attacked by nobody!
Freddy Faz Bear: Hor hor hor hor hor
Weirdfish@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 15d
But it is in and of itself a piece of history.
Changing a story that is thousands of years old is wrong.
Go ahead and make the movie, but be faithful to the original work.
bilb@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 15d
The original is still there, though, unchanged. If you need to be completely faithful to the original version, why bother making one at all?
JackbyDev@programming.dev · 4 pts · 15d
Every retold story is slightly different. Readapting works in the public domain is a tale as old as time.
lordbritishbusiness@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 15d
Bonus points for the Odessy as a tale told in song until history began. Other works were lost, and the Odessy itself is likely just "the best parts" of the original.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 14d
Nah, it's in line with myths and traditional stories. Would a faithful adaptation be cool? Sure. But retelling and reimagining ancient stories is tradition.
Nikki@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 17d
me to all of them: i had fun at the movies :D
Hamartia@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 17d
You should watch the trailer here first
limer@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 17d
You have enriched my life
Hamartia@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 16d
You are alive my son!
andxz@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 16d
Just came home from watching it. I've read it quite a few times, both out loud to students and by myself, so I didn't go in completely blind so to speak.
Still, it managed to confuse me a few times, especially a few conversations, and at some points, a little who's who. (Might just have been me, though. See below).
Still, overall, it was a pleasure to watch. Damon gives one of his best performances. It's perhaps not the best he's ever done, but he's good enough to carry a large part of the movie by himself. There are other standouts as well, a few from his crew, and Pattinson is his usual brooding self, which fits right in here. Casting Tom Holland as Telemachus perhaps wasn't completely fair to his capabilities, but he did well enough with his limited time and lines.
It's quite hard to write about further details without spoiling stuff, but one thing I can say is that the scenery is very well done. If you go in expecting Greek summer sunshine, you're in for another thing altogether. The backdrops were gorgeous. The CGI is also quite well done, imo.
Anyway, to be completely honest here, I have issues with my spine and right leg (the ischias nerve) so I'm pretty heavily medicated and that might have put a positive tint on the whole thing, I don't know.
(tl;dr) Still, in my opinion, it's very much worth watching, and if you can afford it, it's worth watching it in a movie theatre because of the effects and sound.
Edits: I had to repair my broken and not very sober English after the fact.
Malyca@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 14d
Oh brother, where art thou or nothing
FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 15d
I never trust the critics over normal viewers, lol. I am NEVER the second guy down
wewbull@feddit.uk · 2 pts · 15d
Does he manage to get back to earth in this one?
alexquiniou@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 17d
Nope, because most people share their thought with friends and family. Don't care what stranger say on internet. And most of the time even don't know those websites.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 16d
And it's always the good Manga, with deep story telling and world building, that get axed.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 2 pts · 16d
I really don't believe the live action Little Mermaid film got over 90%, though.
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 17d
Yup, problem is we apply this to everything from dating, culture, politics, religion, and so on. Obviously all the things I think are valid and obviously whoever doesn't agree is somewhere between misguided to the spawn of Satan.
WudgieLore@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 16d
I've never used that app/site and have been able fully enjoy movies for all the exact reasons I watch them. Not sure why people use that thing at all. I use imdb to check parental guide before my teens see things but otherwise why is there such a want for critics? Not to mention... bots and click bait tactics drive that site. Rage bait from it makes you form opinions on it for others on social media? Do you have a need to live that lifestyle for some reason? Wild times we're in. We really need to pump more money into mental health.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 16d
I don't know how anyone can extrapolate from these aggregate reviews. Taste in art is so personal. I find these utterly useless. Personalized movielens ratings are a little helpful at least.
Aeri@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 12d
I ignore RT.
I hate how people treat it as the ultimate authority.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 16d
I didn't see it. And I'm not going to. I won't even pirate it. It's their IP and they're free to enjoy it however they like.
prime_number_314159@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 15d
Disclaimer: I have only seen the trailers. Multiple things were from substantially incorrect regions or time periods. They could have at least tried.
Also, I bought a Nolan movie to watch at home once, and the sound balancing was complete garbage. It was disappointing that he let his pretentiousness make his movie unwatchable. Maybe someday he'll understand what art is for.
Unless the people in my life that watch more movies than I do say it's really good, I won't see it, but also won't be reviewing it for Rotten Tomatoes.
1984@lemmy.today · -11 pts · 16d
Odessey is a piece of shit movie. They even confess it's made from "a female perspective". It's full of race swaps and gender swaps, pushing the same gay/trans agenda that we have seen for years from Hollywood now.
Also it's incredibly lacking any colors appearently. It looks like brown mud, through the entire movie.
Nolan got told to make a diversity movie and it's his worst movie because of it.
Some youtube channels who reviewed this shit movie:
The Odyssey is an Overhyped Pretentious Nightmare - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY3EgxurBL8
Odyssey Was Everything I Expected it to be...AND WORSE! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6atY6ahfH1w
The Odyssey - Oh, Dear... - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkGOs3_q79I&t=153s
Admittedly, these are from youtubers I listen to, and Im sure there are others who love the movie. But I share the perspective of these ones.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 16d
So I will admit I have absolutely no knowledge of this film. But why is a female perspective bad?
1984@lemmy.today · -14 pts · 16d
This is a masculine story about a masculine hero if you haven't noticed. That's why feminist perspective makes the movie awful.
This comment being downvoted just shows how many in the lemmy community has the same mindset as hollywood today. Movies being about diversity, gay, trans are good, but masculine movies about strong heterosexual men, thats the enemy for you guys. Its funny. :)
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 16d
Not sure how that would make it bad, just different.
Middle Earth from a female perspective could absolutely be a good film - though I wouldn't trust anyone to actually do it well. It would also be a very different story.
1984@lemmy.today · -10 pts · 16d
I can easily see how it makes it bad, and not just different. But we are all different.
I think we need masculine movies today. Top gun is an amazing movie, if you want an example. Making a version of top gun from a feminist perspective would be absolutely awful and not just different.
Masculine movies are good. I like them.
MBech@feddit.dk · 4 pts · 16d
You need masculine movies to feel masculine yourself? That's pretty sad
1984@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 16d
You need gay/trans/feminist movies to feel good about yourself? That's pretty sad.
green_goglin@thelemmy.club · 3 pts · 16d
Now now — bang it out like Greek alpha males (no eye contact) you two.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 16d
Sounds like the conclusion is that we can't have any films
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 16d
It is fine to have masculine movies and enjoy them. A feminine movie existing doesn't stop that. Both should be able to exist.
1984@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 16d
Yes exactly.
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 16d
I haven't seen it yet but I already hate your comment. What in the right-wing fuck is this and why is it getting upvoted? Go back to Facebook
Wataba@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 16d
Lemmy today seems like a hotbed for some of the shittiest bad faith takes out there.
1984@lemmy.today · -4 pts · 16d
Bad faith comment? Because you don't agree with it? Please. I'm fine with your opinion about it, so maybe you can be fine with my opinion about it, since this is MY opinion about it. Get it?
1984@lemmy.today · -8 pts · 16d
I dont like your comment either. Right wing? I couldn't care less about politics. Go back to Instagram.
clifmo@programming.dev · 4 pts · 16d
The question was for people who actually saw the movie. Not looked at the cast and decided their opinion based on their fucked up culture war politics before it even premiered.
ryannathans@aussie.zone · 0 pts · 15d
Sinon was supposed to be a low key super soldier because Odysseus feels bad about a child getting picked and sent to war. On the long journey to Troy over the next like ten years Sinon receives extensive personal training by Odysseus.
Then when it's Sinon's time to shine they're a short, small, trans person that doesn't act or appear narratively correct for a low key Greek super soldier at all.
clifmo@programming.dev · 0 pts · 15d
Elliot Page is an accomplished actor. Looking forward to seeing his portrayal. Sorry they didn't cast a modern ubermensch for you, bub. I'm sure it was deliberate cultural Marxism or something. We're doomed?
1984@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 16d
Not going to watch it even for free.
clifmo@programming.dev · 3 pts · 16d
Keep up the good fight comrade. Soon you'll be victorious
1984@lemmy.today · -3 pts · 16d
I'm a westerner, man.
Its just objectively a shit movie. If you want something a lot better, watch Gladiator.
clifmo@programming.dev · 3 pts · 16d
As if it wasn't completely obvious who you are and where you get your ideas lol
Edit: but you're right I should have said solider, not comrades. I didn't mean to imply you were Russian or being unauthentic. I do however think you're at war with culture and totally unoriginal.
1984@lemmy.today · -2 pts · 16d
I'm afraid so. :) At least the kind of "culture" you like.
clifmo@programming.dev · 3 pts · 16d
It's fucking art dude. Why are you so terrified?