Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!bch From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: How I Rate Films Message-ID: <2438@mcnc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Dec-84 22:59:26 EST Article-I.D.: mcnc.2438 Posted: Mon Dec 17 22:59:26 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 01:18:51 EST References: <141@ahuta.UUCP>Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service Lines: 59 Summary: In article bill@hp-pcd.UUCP (bill) writes: >I don't know about other people, but I tend to get tired of reading >overly critical and analytical movie reviews written by apparently >self-proclaimed movie "critics". Personally, when I go to see a >movie I usually go for enjoyment, not just to be able to say I saw >it and proceed to fling around an opinionated critique along with >my own biased "rating" system. >I guess you have to take most of the reviews and rating systems you see >on the net with a grain of salt. They best way to determine whether >or not you'll like a movie is to go see it, not just take someone >else's (opinionated) word for it that the movie is a "dog"; don't >believe everything you read. A film review is, and always has been, nothing more than one person's opinion. Hopefully the opinion expressed is somewhat thoughtful and informed. The reviews I have posted in mod.movies are hopefully something more than overly critical analyses by "apparently self-proclaimed movie 'critics.'" Each of them has indicated not only whether or not the reviewer liked the film, but why. Further, each of them has demonstrated some standard of comparison as to why the reviewed film is better (or worse) than other films of similar genre or from the same artists. The objective of posting a review is not to either laud or indict films (I often do not agree with the reviewers' opinions,) but to provide enough useful information so that people who do not have enough time and/or money to run out and see every available film can make some judgement as to whether a film is worthwhile. Of course you should take film reviews with a grain of salt! I'm astonished that you would think someone would do otherwise. In an ideal world, you should be familiar with the criteria a reviewer uses to judge films, know how those criteria differ from your own, and use that information to decide whether to see a film. You could waste an awful lot of money having to decide from first-hand experience whether a film is worthwhile or not. Further, you encourage rewarding producers and directors who do slipshod work by allowing them to make profits. Everyone has some standard of judgement as to whether they choose to see a film. Often it is whether their friends like it, whether they've read the book (if applicable) or whether they like the previous work of the actors, director etc. Note, however, that the process of selection is exactly the same as should be expected from using film reviews: You generally are in some sense familiar with the reviewers (friends, your own) tastes, are aware of how those tastes fit with your own (often tautological) and make your decision on that basis. Just saying that a film is good or bad, worth seeing or not worth seeing is really not enough. If I walk up to you on the street, point to a theatre showing a film you aren't familiar with and say "Go see it," you are more of a fool than I can imagine if you do. You don't know me, don't know what I like, and could scarcely be surprised if you didn't like the film. The purpose of the analytical review is to provide the necessary background material so you *can* make your own informed decision. -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch