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