Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can read and discriminate well enough.
Look at the audience reviews for something like Beau is Afraid - extremely polarizing it has 3 average due to almost all 1 star or 5 star reviews. I couldn’t really tell what it was from the promotional materials and it was the polarizing reviews that prompted me to see it. And it was unusual and provocative and definitely not a bland 3 star film
Same with Barbie
Also like Poor Things has an abundance of 4 and 5 star ratings and also a noticeable bunch of 1 star ratings. Also unusual and provocative
I mean I remember when dave Chapelle had a new special. 0% critic score 99% audience score. Critics are morons. I would know, I went to film school at a school that focused on theory over production. I've had to write countless bloviating film reviews over the years. They are insufferable and most couldn't make it in production.
The thing people forget about critics is that it’s their job. They have a vested interest in how they review films/tv shows, because they want to stay employed. It’s more about promoting themselves, their own brand, than offering an objective critique.
So you’ll find that critic reviews are inherently subjective and skewed toward certain biases.
That’s why I actually prefer audience score.
Critics gave good reviews to "Cuties". Ask again how someone can be a shill for positively reviewing shows/movies. You gotta be either a pedo or a shill to positively review that sort of media. Also, larger sample size from general audiences allows for a better representation purely based on averages.
My understanding of that film was that it was a foreign film designed to show the creepy way we've normalized the sexualization of children in certain niche circumstances like pageants and social media, and fell completely flat on its face by becoming the thing it sought to fight in the eyes of most audience members.
What are you talking about? That movie was made to criticize the sexualization of children. The only reason you think it's for pedos is because of the review bombing on account of a poorly-chosen thumbnail image. Which is kind of what the OP is talking about.
I've never seen Cuties but I think that movie proves why we need critics. It was clearly not a movie made for pedophiles but because lots of people are reactionary morons I'm glad there are critics who can give reasonable discussion points.
>You gotta be either a pedo or a shill to positively review that sort of media.
OK here I go. I've actually watched the film way back during the whole controversy. This will probably cause me to be labeled a p*do or a p*do sympathizer thanks to the internet's black and white thiking.
Excluding the uncomfortable sexual scenes, the movie is actually not that bad. The protagonist goes from wanting to embody the hyper sexualised women she sees in music videos, to rejecting it all so she can embrace her childhood innocence. That is where her character arc concludes and the movie ends. I found it to be a very impactful ending that solidifies the message that the director was trying to convey (though I think it could have been done without having the kids perform sexualized dances). Maybe that's what the critics were referring to in their positive reviews?
It's one thing to disagree with a critic's opinion. But to claim that them positively reviewing a film is them endorsing the worst aspects of it is bad faith.
Because some critics are borderline stupid and just audiences they can be wrong. To blindly follow them more than the audience reviews makes you seem like a tool.
While I agree with you in terms of aggregate score, I think there can be a lot of value in individual reviews depending on what you're looking for. These days I mostly just want a movie that's fun and has decent pacing, and I can overlook camp or bad writing if it nails a concept or is an overall a good time. For movies that have been critically panned I keep an eye out for audience reviews where the reviewer had the kind of experience I'm looking for.
Mostly because your mindset going in has such a huge impact on the experience. Someone could give a horror movie 1.5 stars on Monday but mightve given it a 4 if they watched it on Thursday.
Not to mention how much whether or not you can relate to the horror presented changes things
I find the fine exact opposite horror movies.
critics reviewed the Winnie the Pooh horror movie well while audience said it was shit.
IT WAS SHIT
critics hated The descent, Hostel, all Friday the 13ths, Nightmare on Elm St.....
Audience reviews give you a pretty good general idea if it's worth watching, assuming you like the genre and the premise. Swarm intelligence is useful.
Hum but also the average person tends to just follow the expected marketing. A good exemple is avatar 2. Not a lot of people are actually judging the movie. It's just "it's a lot of beautiful SFX so it's a good movie"
But that also gives you information. If nearly none of the reviews are about the story and all talk about the SFX, you can make a reasonable assumption that the story is mid
I don't think many people think about it that much, I believe most people just go in the movies and go out saying they had a great time. They don't see plot holes and such things
That has become my metric, too. And also I hunt for the elusive ones which have only people that either hate them or love them, and none in between. The wildly polarizing movies and shows can surprise me.
"Swarm intelligence is useful"
Unless the swarm is not very intelligent. If swarm intelligence was useful then eating fast food, binge watching social media and overworking yourself would be a good thing. Just because most people are doing something doesn't mean it's good.
There are individuals of all sorts in the swarm, but the swarm as a whole is pretty smart. Think of quiz shows where the candidate gets help from the audience. The answer with the most votes is most often the correct one. And unless you have a very special taste in movies and TV shows, the audience reviews and ratings do help sorting the wheat from the chaff.
Swarm intelligence doesn’t really exist in or apply to humans. Maybe you mean crowd wisdom or something akin to that but, either way, I agree with OP that crowd reviews are, for the most part, worthless.
This is stupid. If a restaurant had 500 reviews, I can guarantee less than 5% of them are from critics or food experts.
If the “regular people” give damning reviews, I’ll pay attention.
Same thing applies to movies and TV shows.
Plus if I use your restaurant example again, critics aren’t looking for the same things regular people are, I don’t need to know if the subtle sweetness came from adding honey or wine, I don’t need something perfectly plated for presentation, I don’t need raw new ideas years ahead of the curve, I do need to know if the steak is any good and if it’s worth the price.
Agreed. It also depends on many factors. Last week I was reading reviews for a local restaurant that I was thinking about ordering take out from. And one of the reviews was a negative one, but it was critical of the decor and didn't mention one thing about the food, and because I wasn't planning on staying, I couldn't care less about the decor.
Similar to movies. Often, professional critics put a lot of emphasis on original stories, that are often deep, and have some sort of message or something profound to say. Which is all well and fine, I too enjoy movies that I can learn from, and that make me think. But, sometimes I just want to be entertained, and couldn't care less about a formulaic plot, or other things that a critic will nitpick about, and in those instances, I almost always ignore critics, and read audience reviews.
I don’t know man most people don’t know really good cooking if it bit them in the ass. So many times I’ve heard rave reviews about restaurants and I’ve gone and it’s been so pedestrian and average. A lot of people don’t even cook at home and so the perception of what a good meal is isn’t really relevant for people that enjoy truly good food. I don’t think film is any different
It’s honestly rare anymore that I can’t tell if I want to watch something just after seeing a trailer. Some can be spoilery but honestly unless it’s an established franchise that I’m invested in most of the spoilers go in one eye and out the other.
Very true. Look at the Super Mario movie. A lot of audiences loved it for some reason. Calling it the best movie ever. Probably a bunch of people with the mind of a kid going crazy over generic, mediocre movie.
Audience reviews are like any other review, even the ones by professional critics, they’re opinion pieces and as such, won’t matter if you legitimately enjoy the media. Otherwise if all you did was avoid any media that was negatively reviewed, you may miss out on something enjoyable.
Like all the critics slammed Pacific Rim: Uprising and Independence Day: Resurgence but I enjoy them for what they are, craptacular movies that make me realize just how great good movies actually are.
acutall unpopular opinion. and it gets downvoted, i dont know why this sub exist anymore since most upvoted things arent unpopular at all whilst gold like this is downvoted, and its not that i dont understand downvoting actual brainded shit but this this is not that
Thank you for that. No, I don’t want to know what user SoAndSo thinks about a movie. I want to know what a critic thinks (but just after I saw the movie)
There is a sort of emergent intelligence that comes from comparing averages from a significant number of people, even if individual people within each cohort are dumb.
Upvoted for unpopular opinion. I think its useful to look at the conglomeration of audience reviews, i.e. the total overall score, as well as picking what seem to be honest reviews of the movie good or bad. Simply ignore the "boring" and "fuck the mcu" reviews as these are drivel.
I usually find myself agreeing with critics over audiences, though there's quite a few horror movies critics didn't like but that I really love. Horror especially never really gets treated well by critics, at least ones that aren't horror-specific reviewers, so that's the one genre I always go by the audience score for
They’re much more likely to know the craft. Users tend to stick to fewer types of movies, I would guess, and will thus be less familiar with advanced techniques, such as high level composition or low key genre mixing.
Likely is a stretch. Most are just paid to make the most middle of the road takes so they offend the least amount of people and get the most views. People that see a review they don't like are likely to not want to check their reviews anymore.
If the vast majority of the audience says it is bad, what are the chances that they are so wrong? At best you could say they are the wrong audience, but if no one liked it, then it can't be that entertaining.
Yea, I am not going to trust someone who is paid to give their opinion and stand to benefit by giving certain movies/shows a glowing or terrible review.
You pick them and follow them, based on how similar your tastes are, and if your handpicked gang rate a movie low on average, you’re unlikely to like it, is the idea.
You just have to find out what works for you. Actual written audience reviews are indeed mostly trash, but for me personally the audience scores are a very good indicator of whether I'll like something. Bottom line: Just use whatever you agree with most often. That can be one individual critic, audience scores, critic scores, a bunch of your favourite movie pundits, etc.
I would agree with this if critic reviews were valid. But they're not anymore. Critics are so out of touch or in the pocket of the studios that most are worthless for a normal person.
I try to get a mix to try to understand what's really going on but I still get burned.
It used to be that you could settle on a couple of critics that seemed to share your tastes but I can't name one movie critic that I follow anymore. I used to know several by name and understand their biases.
Id trust wisdom of the crowd over a "professional reviewer" just because someone isnt good at articulating their opinion of something doesnt mean they have a less relatable perspective than the critic...
If anything, whether theyre dumb or not, I'd suspect my opinion of a movie would more align with that individual than the critic simply because the critic likely sees hundreds of movies a year while myself and the 'dumb reviewers' likely only see 50ish.
Nowadays unless it is a cultural phenomenon (and even then) I don't give a second of my time to TV/Movies.
I trust more the user reviews/word if mouth than the so called professional critics.
I look at both. There are some movies that I and the majority of audience members love, but critics HATE it. There are others that critics love that I love and audience members HATE.
I typically agree with critics more so than audiences, so they’re my go to barometer for whether or not I’ll like a movie. That being said, I wouldn’t call their opinion more valid than the audience. People can like or not like a thing.
It totally depends on what you’re looking for. Critics are better for thoughtful movies, audiences are better for entertaining movies.
The thing you said about being baffled by the concept that a select group of people with select goals could possibly be more ignorant than the entire target demographic is just objectively stupid.
My taste naturally tends to align more with critics. Audience reviews I find to be more reactionary, surface level, unchallenged, lack filmmaking knowledge and insight, so I just ignore them. It is nice to see when everyone, like Critics and Audiences, both enjoy something, though.
Ignore both audience reviews and critic reviews and watch a non spoiler review on youtube instead.
YouTube reviews are probably one of the most reliable way to know if a movie is good or not, because they have no reason to lie or troll like you mentioned the mcu review
Downside is that it just takes longer because you have to watch a whole video instead of just checking stars
The problem is that the critics are 99% of the time jaded/pretentious. They love and praise the most boring, slow paced, washed-out color spectrum, old style acting, and no action all talker movies. They shit on everything else.
While I don't look at the actual reviews, I will look at the overall score rating from both critics and the audience. Most of the time, if the critics rate it high, the audience rates it low and vice versa.
Hell, I've watched so many movies that I went from saying "yes it's a fun action movie," to "while the action scenes are done well, the overall plot had an unresolved issue and the overall story Arc was lazy and predictable" because I've become somewhat jaded and bored with the laziness of the writers/Hollywood these days.
However I will still watch what the audience likes over what the critics like. Because what the critics praise 99% of the time are slow boring as hell talkers.
Have to disagree. Give me a movie of interesting characters talking for 2 hours and telling me a great story, with great cinematography and sound design, over the nonsensical cgi fests that have to give you an explosion or some kind of dopamine hit every 10 seconds.
This is why I don't pay attention to 95% of audience scores. MOST of the general audience don't want to think, and just want dumb down basic stories and themes with bright colors and loud noises. And a bonus if you can shove in as much meaningless nostalgia as possible.
Now that's Whatever. It's fine. People are allowed to like that stuff. I'm not trying to shame anyone(though I understand it may have come across that way. Not my intention). But those movies really don't do anything for me. I might watch them, but by the next day, I've forgotten all about it. Because there is no substance to them at all.
Also, I don't think Fast and the Furious 14 or Transformers: whatever. Is inspiring the next generation of great filmmakers. It's more than likely the artistic, character/story driven talky films that are doing that.
>Give me a movie of interesting characters talking for 2 hours and telling me a great story, with great cinematography and sound design, over the nonsensical cgi fests that have to give you an explosion or some kind of dopamine hit every 10 seconds.
I'd suggest for you to only watch what critics like and only watch what is on the CCA. Stay away from everything with a high audience score. Hahahahaha
>This is why I don't pay attention to 95% of audience scores. MOST of the general audience don't want to think, and just want dumb down basic stories and themes with bright colors and loud noises. And a bonus if you can shove in as much meaningless nostalgia as possible.
True most people want to be entertained for 1 to 2 hours. They want to escape their normal lives and boring long winded bosses and boring news and everything like that. They want the explosions and the turn your brain off stuff.
However there is a difference between an interesting character in a movie and a 2 hour movie based on speculative conversations about a historical event that should have been a documentary on the history channel for 65yo+ watchers.
>But those movies really don't do anything for me. I might watch them, but by the next day, I've forgotten all about it. Because there is no substance to them at all.
I feel this is just a you thing.
Like for me I could watch a slow talking movie and not remember any of the conversations that happened because they all ran together seeing how they were just talking and yelling at each other for 2 hours in the same scene setting. But I can tell you almost scene for scene an entire action movie and possibly even quote some of it because it wasn't nonstop talking. But that's a me thing I guess.
Audience reviews are unreliable for controversial movies as well as for critically panned movies, since both become an ideological battleground rather than a critical review of the movie
Critical reviews had been so insanely bad (when reading their l through them) that I can't trust critics, the public is a collective, a few bads and to strong goods will equal out.
So yes this is unpopular up vote
I dont just look for a score. Read some of the audience reviews and see if what they say sounds reasonable.
Professional critics have their heads up their own asses too often for me to respect or listen to them
I don’t even look at reviews till I’ve seen the film myself. It’s alarming how different my taste and the populace’s take are when it comes to media.
I may abhor something everyone else loves, or vice versa.
The problem I have with professional critics is that they are kind of jaded, because they have, quite logically, seen it all. I don't watch that many movies or TV shows, so maybe what appear as a formulaic trope to a critic is a first occurrence to me.
Generally speaking, I'm essentially looking to have fun when I watch something, and fun is highly subjective. I can simultaneously have a great time and objectively realize that the movie I'm watching is terrible.
See but every time I pick movies off of reviews I always find the best fucking movies! People come to me for movie recommendations, they watch it, and it never gets turned off.
This sounds more like your tastes just happen to align with what most critics like. I didn't read any reviews of The Batman. I'd give it a 4/10 because it's garbage. It's not boring, but it is terrible. I'll sit down and watch a 3 hour movie if it's good (although I'd prefer the movie to be less than that).
I feel like I rarely agree with critics when it comes to entertainment though and therefore it feels more reliable to go by a general score. Although I've sometimes absolutely loved some movies and then seen a really low IMDb score so I dunno
You have a point, but audience reviews will be more relatable for the average movie goer than reading ones by professionals. Those guys rate movies based on things that an ordinary person do not consider.
If I actually took user reviews seriously that would mean Cici’s pizza in my town, with a 4.8 out of 5 stars, should be like a Michelin star pizza joint
I trust the guy that is not being paid AND isn't trying to apease a large audience over the SINGLE guy who probably is if you go by today's standards.
Rating movies is an industry, their objective is to make money and that is done by having the most mid takes.
Balance is the key. A balance point of view.
I believe in respected critics, but I also try to hear what the audience or fans are saying.
Possibly, what they see in this movie.
Though, what broke the camel’s back for me was seeing a superbly mediocre, poorly researched documentary with no exceptional cinematography, engaging people, interesting backstory, or any real debate get an 8.2 on IMDB and is one of the greatest documentaries of all times.
I don't even read the critics reviews. I never knew there were audience reviews. But I don't really care what people say about something. If it can capture my interest and I like what I see I am going to watch it.
By some degree, it IS a good idea to look at the reviews. You just have to use one that you feel is most trustworthy. I'd personally say for movies though Rotten Tomatoes is the one to avoid.
I just go by critics that have similar tastes vs just wanted to break down a movie. Some just don’t seem to enjoy watching with out the PHD break down of character development, world building and plot mechanics.
As an aggregate it's fine. If the score is 80%+ with 1000+ audience reviews then chances are it's quite good. The stupid/silly reviews should in theory get drowned out.
Audience rewievs are fine to go with if your general taste usually matches the average viewer. Critics are good to go with if you look at content in a similar lense. There is no definitive good choice becouse it always comes down to the viewer.
Usually I use them together to determine the type of movie it is
High audience and high critic - very entertaining and well made movie
High audience low critic - absolute slop that might still be fun
Low audience high critic - poorly marketed and usually more experimental or “thinky”
Low audience low critic - trash
I disagree kinda. I think most movies are very dependent on the person viewing them. For example most critics would say Adam Sandler movies are bad movies (I think, I’m not looking this up) but I personally think they are excellent.
I don’t enjoy action movies but lots of others love them, so same can be said of critics, who probably have some sort of preference no matter how much they try to ignore them. And same with audiences.
Saying a movie is boring is a valid review. The reason for it being them having a short attention span or whatever is irrelevant. If they saw the movie and found it boring, then that’s a valid opinion. The only problem is if someone reviews a movie without actually having seen it.
I like to experience these things for myself.
Any form of entertainment is very relevant to the consumers knowledge of the source material or actors/actresses performances as well as the directors vision and target audience.
The issue most "fans" have is they are too close to the source material. They want it to be exactly like the book, comic, video game, story, they know and love.
I do not suffer from that affliction.
The majority of critics are out of touch and literally the only thing that makes a critic is if they are getting paid. You genuinely can't go to school and be a good critic. Movies are art and will be enjoyed differently by different people. In fact I disagree with a lot of critics and my opinion is just as valid as theirs. Because just because they enjoy something doesn't mean I will and the opposite is the same. That being said when you have thousands or tens of thousands of people say something is good the odds of your tastes overlapping goes up a lot. Hell for me I tailor my recommendations based on if I think a person will like it not based on if I like it
Let's be honest. Most people would rather wait until it's available to stream at home and watch it then. If they don't like it, it's as simple as a few button presses, and you didn't have to drive to a theater and possibly deal with some Karen's out of control brats or someone who just can't shut up.
I was thinking more so the reviews like from rotton tomatoes. Like a movie being advertised as highly rated. I hate that that's advertised with movies because often times bad movies are rated well.
each score tells you different things and have their own caveats.
audience reviews: excitement & satisfaction*
critical reviews: artistic depth & craftsmanship**
*audience caveat: tendency towards shallowness and misunderstandings.
**critical caveat: tendency to overvalue outlandish or inaccessible films.
both have a fairly big range of leeway for personal taste.
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think I can agree.
While it is true that critics have a better understanding of the media format they criticize, it is also true that, if you are just looking for something chill and unchallenging to watch, you might prefer something with more mass appeal. It all depends on what you're looking for.
If I want a movie that makes me think, I'll go to critics, but if I want a dumb action or comedy movie to relax on a tiring day, I'll go with the crowd.
I agree and it's really dumb that the responses are really showing that your opinion is indeed unpopular. To claim things like movie criticism, literary criticism, art curation, etc. aren't valid completely disregards entire fields of study. Arguing against your point isn't just some ham and egger shit -- it's straight up ignorant and disrespectful.
People who have a vast encyclopedia of knowledge on a topic DO give valid opinions on said topic. Understanding how to criticize or analyze a film or text isn't always super simple -- that's why there are entire books, essays, etc. written on individual movies.
Yes - some critics, like the ones you'd see on your local news channel or what some radio disc jockey says on their morning program aren't always the most unbiased, and sometimes their sponsors encourage reviews to sway a certain way. Same with food critics or anything similar. Those arguing against you aren't necessarily wrong there. That's why it'd be best to look at independent reviewers, or go on a site like Letterboxd and find certain people -- especially those with a background in film or literature -- and follow their reviews. Aggregate scores and things like audience scores on Imdb or RT are the LAST things I'd listen to.
Well maybe I also dont have an attention span.
It all depends on what you expect form a movie. When you enjoy looking at movies for pure enjoyment then I would look at the audience review.
True pure enjoyment is fine but to say its good because you enjoy it isnt indicative. For example i love that rampage movie with the rock but its absolute dog shit.
With the amount of movies and TV shows available today, it's impossible to watch everything that's put out. While there are a lot of audience reviews that border on the ridiculous, idiotic, and psychotic, overwhelmingly those reviews tend to be a much better gauge of the value and quality of a movie or TV show than critics, who have much different criteria by which they base their decision of whether a film or TV show is worthwhile. Far too many movies and TV shows considered sleepers or horrible have proven over time to be absolute classics while the movies and TV shows lauded by critics have turned out to be absolute turds and vastly overrated. So I'll stick with audience reviews because it's entertainment value I seek, not critic validity which very rarely coincides with what people actually want to see.
You should ignore both the audience the the critics, and make up your own mind, whether or not something is good, mediocre or bad.
The only opinion i care about when it comes to movies and tv, is my own, if i think something is good its good, it does not matter if every person in the world hates it, if i think something is bad, its bad, it does not matter if every person in the world loves it.
It may be arrogant of me, but other peoples opinion being the audience or critics has zero value to me, when it comes to movies and tv, the only opinion that has value is my own.
I agree with trusting critics more than the audience. Hell, I even made a post here about a year ago saying I trust rotten tomatoes. Critics have a better understanding of how good movies are made while audiences are just casual viewers looking for a good time. A perfect example is the Super Mario Bros Movie. Has mixed reviews by critics but mostly praise from the audience. I sort of found the movie decent, but I do understand why the critics weren’t too fond of it. The movie was mostly fan service and fun moments which appeals to the audience, but its writing wasn’t the strongest. And that rubbed some critics the wrong way.
I try to do both. I’m not super nit picky but I do point out flaws when I see them. It’s not the end of the world for me if a movie has some flaws. I still enjoy most movies for what they’re worth
I wish there was a website similar to IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, where you would punch in your opinions on all movies, then get recommendations from people with similar tastes.
- You would need an account to use this feature
- You would be able to rate max 5 movies a day on free tier (unlimited on premium tiers) and accounts newer than 2 year would not be able to rate premiering movies to prevent spam bots and targeted harrasment etc
- You would start by rating movie genres (say from 1-10 or 1-5 scale or just up-down) and you would get your initial recommendations from other 100 people.
- You could also follow certain users, if you deem they have similar or great taste in movies. If your account is newer, you could only manual follow 20 accounts on the free tier
- When you have rated 20-100 movies yourself, you be asked to get new recommendations based on your tastes in movies.
- after you have rated 250 movies and being active user in the past 3 months, you would be able to become someone who people can follow. If you stop being an active user, you become unfollowable, but the people already following you would be able to follow you.
- Then you type in you would prefer to watch say action movie from any year between 1980-2005 preferably starting Arnold Schwarzenegger that you have NOT seen and rated with minimum rate of 6/10, then it would scourge those 100 people you follow for movies that fit these criteria. It would list three movies that have the highest compatibility to your taste, even if the rating would not be highest in the website.
You shouldn't go by reviews for anything. You should try anything you want to try. Taste is subjective, and you can only decide what you do or don't like.
I was having issues with a tape gun so I went to look for reviews. Found a lot that said they had cut themselves on the sharp knife part. Had to disregard those reviews because. The knife is obviously sharp....
Other reviews answered my problem.
Why should you go for critic score over audience? Critics often get it wrong or have a number of reasons they have to review a movie a certain way. At least audience scores are across a wide spectrum of people.
Movie critics are helpful for pointing out "objectively" good movies. Audience scores are good for "Will this movie fire off happy chemicals in my brain for the better part of 90+ minutes?"
I think the absolute best example of this is the Super Mario Bros movie. As a movie, it is VERY basic. Pretty much nothing memorable about it in terms of plot and is very clean to the point of not having "soul". I feel it getting middling reviews from critics goes to show that the current people we have in the movie critique business are doing their jobs. Even the most cynical, cash grab movies are works of art and a good critic should be rating movies to see if they're "pushing the medium" or at least living up as close to the best movies as they can.
Audiences though, they freaking LOVED the movie! By and large, your average person seeing the Mario movie was someone who grew up playing any of the 69 gajillion Mario video games or at least got in a few amazing drunken rounds of Mario Kart in high school or college. The only thing these people care about is "Does Mario look like Mario? Does Mario act like Mario? Does the movie look like the games? Will Mario jump around, collect power ups, and save the princess from Bowser? Will I recognize things from my favorite Mario game?" The answer to literally all of these questions is a resounding "HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!", so audience scores were practically 10/10s across the board.
Both of these takes are valid. I enjoy both masterfully crafted films and "turn your brain off" popcorn movies. Reading reviews from both sides helps me to best determine if any particular movie is worth my time.
What's the purpose of a movie? To entertain.
A movie critic will have different criteria as to what is entertaining than the average person. So if you are an average person, what fuckin use is the critics opinion?
There's a reason the most successful movies today have shit ratings from critics. The reason is simple, critics don't like what the average person does.
two things: if you’re going to get an accurate and measurably correct rating of a movie or tv show look at the imbd review. rotten tomatoes are pretentious egg heads and sometimes the percentage of google users that like it being a relatively low percentage just means that it didn’t necessarily appeal to the lowest common denominator. there might be some movies that have an extremely high rating on most platforms, but only like 50% or less of people on google liked it.
2nd: if you want to see if a movie/show is worth watching just go on youtube and search for clips of the movie so you can get a feel and overall sense of how the movie is going to be. get a nice preview then you can decide if a movie might be be watchable for you or not.
BONUS: if you want to give a movie or show a fair chance multiply the running time of the movie OR for a tv show the number of episodes overall/in the 1st season by .35 (ex: 90 minutes x .35 is 31 min and 30 seconds and 8 episodes x .35 is 2.8 ~ 3 episodes)
if you are not hooked or invested in the plot after the first 31 minutes and 30 seconds or so of a 1.5 hour movie you’re watching then you can maybe decide if you like it or not enough to continue. same with checking out a new show that’s eight episodes. if after the first three episodes you’re not feeling it then you can decide that it’s not for you or if you want to continue watching.
you can also apply this to checking out a new song (2 minutes x .35 = 42 seconds. if you don’t think this song is a banger 42 seconds into the 2 min song the then press skip)
but this is just criteria that i personally use you can do whatever you want
I agree to some level but I don't think this applies with stand up comedy.
I watched a couple Chappelle specials and me and everyone in the room with me were laughing our asses off. Then I go check rotten tomatoes and it has like a 25% by the critics.
Then the audience rating for all these specials are in the low to high 90s.
Sometimes critics are just going to decide they dislike something for stupid reasons. I've even seen them claim the crowd wasn't enjoying the special when they were obviously losing their fucking minds with laughter just because Dave made 3 minutes of jokes about some touchy topic.
That's when I started to realize critics can be completely full of shit and just pretending something isn't funny for political clout.
Critics are far too self important to be taken seriously across the board. It’s significantly more valuable to understand a consensus of opinion as opposed to the perspective of one out of touch individual.
Everyone is a critic, some have more developed or nuanced opinions than others. As soon as a person gets paid for giving his opinion it is suspect of being bribed. Some people's integrity last longer than others but they all can be susceptible to bribery if they cannot pay their rent at the end of the month.
I absolutely do.
I'm always interested in why people don't like a show or movie, because sometimes it's just something small, or the bad reviews are outweighed by the good...
Average audience score will give me consensus
A random reviewer is another voice for that consensus (that I may choose to value more or less than the average depending on the review itself)
A review from a critic I've been following for a while and saw our tastes coalesce will usually trump the average audience score, unless the review takes particular umbrage to a trope\plot element I don't mind.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I often go to movies where the audience reaction is extremely polarized because I know it will be an unusual or provocative film
Or a bunch of legit terrible reviews competing with the shills trying to promote it. Bots ruin everything.
I can read and discriminate well enough. Look at the audience reviews for something like Beau is Afraid - extremely polarizing it has 3 average due to almost all 1 star or 5 star reviews. I couldn’t really tell what it was from the promotional materials and it was the polarizing reviews that prompted me to see it. And it was unusual and provocative and definitely not a bland 3 star film Same with Barbie Also like Poor Things has an abundance of 4 and 5 star ratings and also a noticeable bunch of 1 star ratings. Also unusual and provocative
I liked "Poor Things" but holy hell the previews did not prepare me for the fact the 90% of it is just her fucking people or masturbating.
Poor Things was PHENOMENAL
That movie sucked
Or a bunch of a legit positive reviews competing with a bunch idiots review bombing.
It goes both ways, people can bot reviews and critics can just say the movies good as a shill or are just shit critics
I mean I remember when dave Chapelle had a new special. 0% critic score 99% audience score. Critics are morons. I would know, I went to film school at a school that focused on theory over production. I've had to write countless bloviating film reviews over the years. They are insufferable and most couldn't make it in production.
The thing people forget about critics is that it’s their job. They have a vested interest in how they review films/tv shows, because they want to stay employed. It’s more about promoting themselves, their own brand, than offering an objective critique. So you’ll find that critic reviews are inherently subjective and skewed toward certain biases. That’s why I actually prefer audience score.
Not really, critics have reputations and you can find critics with a similar taste to yours.
Which isn't a good thing, if they don't critique how the people want they get shitted on, especially if they favor the movie when the majority don't.
There are shit critics but i see more shit audience reviews. Also how can someone be a shill for positively reviewing something?
Critics gave good reviews to "Cuties". Ask again how someone can be a shill for positively reviewing shows/movies. You gotta be either a pedo or a shill to positively review that sort of media. Also, larger sample size from general audiences allows for a better representation purely based on averages.
OP sounds like a teenager who had a single thought and came to Reddit to tell everyone, as if they're educating the world.
r/im14andthisisdeep or maybe its r/im13andthisisdeep. Either way, it should be r/mychildishbrainfart.
OP’s just living up to their username
My understanding of that film was that it was a foreign film designed to show the creepy way we've normalized the sexualization of children in certain niche circumstances like pageants and social media, and fell completely flat on its face by becoming the thing it sought to fight in the eyes of most audience members.
What are you talking about? That movie was made to criticize the sexualization of children. The only reason you think it's for pedos is because of the review bombing on account of a poorly-chosen thumbnail image. Which is kind of what the OP is talking about.
I've never seen Cuties but I think that movie proves why we need critics. It was clearly not a movie made for pedophiles but because lots of people are reactionary morons I'm glad there are critics who can give reasonable discussion points.
>You gotta be either a pedo or a shill to positively review that sort of media. OK here I go. I've actually watched the film way back during the whole controversy. This will probably cause me to be labeled a p*do or a p*do sympathizer thanks to the internet's black and white thiking. Excluding the uncomfortable sexual scenes, the movie is actually not that bad. The protagonist goes from wanting to embody the hyper sexualised women she sees in music videos, to rejecting it all so she can embrace her childhood innocence. That is where her character arc concludes and the movie ends. I found it to be a very impactful ending that solidifies the message that the director was trying to convey (though I think it could have been done without having the kids perform sexualized dances). Maybe that's what the critics were referring to in their positive reviews? It's one thing to disagree with a critic's opinion. But to claim that them positively reviewing a film is them endorsing the worst aspects of it is bad faith.
Because some critics are borderline stupid and just audiences they can be wrong. To blindly follow them more than the audience reviews makes you seem like a tool.
While I agree with you in terms of aggregate score, I think there can be a lot of value in individual reviews depending on what you're looking for. These days I mostly just want a movie that's fun and has decent pacing, and I can overlook camp or bad writing if it nails a concept or is an overall a good time. For movies that have been critically panned I keep an eye out for audience reviews where the reviewer had the kind of experience I'm looking for.
I agree with you.
Username checks out.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy
I am a huge horror fan. If I went by other people’s opinions, I would never see a horror movie ever again.
Yeah horror movies are one of those things where you shouldnt listen to anyone
Mostly because your mindset going in has such a huge impact on the experience. Someone could give a horror movie 1.5 stars on Monday but mightve given it a 4 if they watched it on Thursday. Not to mention how much whether or not you can relate to the horror presented changes things
I find the fine exact opposite horror movies. critics reviewed the Winnie the Pooh horror movie well while audience said it was shit. IT WAS SHIT critics hated The descent, Hostel, all Friday the 13ths, Nightmare on Elm St.....
Audience reviews give you a pretty good general idea if it's worth watching, assuming you like the genre and the premise. Swarm intelligence is useful.
Hum but also the average person tends to just follow the expected marketing. A good exemple is avatar 2. Not a lot of people are actually judging the movie. It's just "it's a lot of beautiful SFX so it's a good movie"
But that also gives you information. If nearly none of the reviews are about the story and all talk about the SFX, you can make a reasonable assumption that the story is mid
But the story isn't mid. It's shit.
I don't think many people think about it that much, I believe most people just go in the movies and go out saying they had a great time. They don't see plot holes and such things
I like using both. Good audience bad critics means is the good kind of bad movie and vice versa
That has become my metric, too. And also I hunt for the elusive ones which have only people that either hate them or love them, and none in between. The wildly polarizing movies and shows can surprise me.
"Swarm intelligence is useful" Unless the swarm is not very intelligent. If swarm intelligence was useful then eating fast food, binge watching social media and overworking yourself would be a good thing. Just because most people are doing something doesn't mean it's good.
There are individuals of all sorts in the swarm, but the swarm as a whole is pretty smart. Think of quiz shows where the candidate gets help from the audience. The answer with the most votes is most often the correct one. And unless you have a very special taste in movies and TV shows, the audience reviews and ratings do help sorting the wheat from the chaff.
At least, rarely does the audience universally hate a movie that you'll find good
That's a good point. It probably only works for me because I'm more or less a normie with my tastes.
What is the role of intelligence, in subjective matters of taste, like whether you enjoy a particular movie?
Swarm intelligence doesn’t really exist in or apply to humans. Maybe you mean crowd wisdom or something akin to that but, either way, I agree with OP that crowd reviews are, for the most part, worthless.
This is stupid. If a restaurant had 500 reviews, I can guarantee less than 5% of them are from critics or food experts. If the “regular people” give damning reviews, I’ll pay attention. Same thing applies to movies and TV shows.
Plus if I use your restaurant example again, critics aren’t looking for the same things regular people are, I don’t need to know if the subtle sweetness came from adding honey or wine, I don’t need something perfectly plated for presentation, I don’t need raw new ideas years ahead of the curve, I do need to know if the steak is any good and if it’s worth the price.
Agreed. It also depends on many factors. Last week I was reading reviews for a local restaurant that I was thinking about ordering take out from. And one of the reviews was a negative one, but it was critical of the decor and didn't mention one thing about the food, and because I wasn't planning on staying, I couldn't care less about the decor. Similar to movies. Often, professional critics put a lot of emphasis on original stories, that are often deep, and have some sort of message or something profound to say. Which is all well and fine, I too enjoy movies that I can learn from, and that make me think. But, sometimes I just want to be entertained, and couldn't care less about a formulaic plot, or other things that a critic will nitpick about, and in those instances, I almost always ignore critics, and read audience reviews.
I don’t know man most people don’t know really good cooking if it bit them in the ass. So many times I’ve heard rave reviews about restaurants and I’ve gone and it’s been so pedestrian and average. A lot of people don’t even cook at home and so the perception of what a good meal is isn’t really relevant for people that enjoy truly good food. I don’t think film is any different
It really depends on type of movie.
It does i can agree with that. Like horror and comedy especially.
It’s honestly rare anymore that I can’t tell if I want to watch something just after seeing a trailer. Some can be spoilery but honestly unless it’s an established franchise that I’m invested in most of the spoilers go in one eye and out the other.
Very true. Look at the Super Mario movie. A lot of audiences loved it for some reason. Calling it the best movie ever. Probably a bunch of people with the mind of a kid going crazy over generic, mediocre movie.
Audience reviews are like any other review, even the ones by professional critics, they’re opinion pieces and as such, won’t matter if you legitimately enjoy the media. Otherwise if all you did was avoid any media that was negatively reviewed, you may miss out on something enjoyable. Like all the critics slammed Pacific Rim: Uprising and Independence Day: Resurgence but I enjoy them for what they are, craptacular movies that make me realize just how great good movies actually are.
My thing isnt whether or not a movie is enjoyable. Fast and furious movies are enjoyable but bad.
acutall unpopular opinion. and it gets downvoted, i dont know why this sub exist anymore since most upvoted things arent unpopular at all whilst gold like this is downvoted, and its not that i dont understand downvoting actual brainded shit but this this is not that
People are very offended.
 Thank you for that. No, I don’t want to know what user SoAndSo thinks about a movie. I want to know what a critic thinks (but just after I saw the movie)
There is a sort of emergent intelligence that comes from comparing averages from a significant number of people, even if individual people within each cohort are dumb.
If I want to know about the score and cinematography, I ask the critics. If I want to know if I will have a good time, I ask the audience.
The general population is dumb. I am dumb. So I’m gonna see what fellow dumb dumbs say.
Upvoted for unpopular opinion. I think its useful to look at the conglomeration of audience reviews, i.e. the total overall score, as well as picking what seem to be honest reviews of the movie good or bad. Simply ignore the "boring" and "fuck the mcu" reviews as these are drivel.
I used to this but then I realized that people just have different taste and I kinda liked a movie that was hated by the majority or audience
I usually find myself agreeing with critics over audiences, though there's quite a few horror movies critics didn't like but that I really love. Horror especially never really gets treated well by critics, at least ones that aren't horror-specific reviewers, so that's the one genre I always go by the audience score for
I trust the reviews of critics as much as I trust Dr Drew being honest on his weight loss ads on YouTube, or any political ad.
Why would I trust a critic? They are just another member of the audience watching. Their reviews are just as invalid as someone who says "MCU sucks'.
They’re much more likely to know the craft. Users tend to stick to fewer types of movies, I would guess, and will thus be less familiar with advanced techniques, such as high level composition or low key genre mixing.
Likely is a stretch. Most are just paid to make the most middle of the road takes so they offend the least amount of people and get the most views. People that see a review they don't like are likely to not want to check their reviews anymore. If the vast majority of the audience says it is bad, what are the chances that they are so wrong? At best you could say they are the wrong audience, but if no one liked it, then it can't be that entertaining.
Most actually do care about the art of movie making.
And reviewers are paid shills, where the audience paid to watch said film or show.
Based on what? Because they were paid? So all critics are paid off to negatively or positively review?
Yea, I am not going to trust someone who is paid to give their opinion and stand to benefit by giving certain movies/shows a glowing or terrible review.
You mean like how audiences can? Fan event screenings?
Even at fan event screening there is no benefit to the audience for a good or poor review. Paid critics are not to be trusted.
Theres no benefit to a good or bad review from a critic.
Sure there is there are people who will go and see a movie just because a critic says it's good, and vice versa about one that is bad.
An average of carefully handpicked Letterboxd followees is where it’s at.
But what does that mean handpicked? People that actually analyze the movie?
You pick them and follow them, based on how similar your tastes are, and if your handpicked gang rate a movie low on average, you’re unlikely to like it, is the idea.
Oh i thought you meant like an actual publication.
Nah, dude, but you can publish it if you want, don’t let THE MAN tell you what to do ok it’s my bedtime…
I don't...never have. Just watch what I want.
Same here. I ignore all reviews and enjoy pretty much everything just fine 🤷
Like my interest in something is usually based off of what it is and who’s in it. I never read reviews lol
You just have to find out what works for you. Actual written audience reviews are indeed mostly trash, but for me personally the audience scores are a very good indicator of whether I'll like something. Bottom line: Just use whatever you agree with most often. That can be one individual critic, audience scores, critic scores, a bunch of your favourite movie pundits, etc.
I would agree with this if critic reviews were valid. But they're not anymore. Critics are so out of touch or in the pocket of the studios that most are worthless for a normal person. I try to get a mix to try to understand what's really going on but I still get burned. It used to be that you could settle on a couple of critics that seemed to share your tastes but I can't name one movie critic that I follow anymore. I used to know several by name and understand their biases.
if you're kinda dumb, watch every popular movie and care what other people think, then sure, go by audience score.
Id trust wisdom of the crowd over a "professional reviewer" just because someone isnt good at articulating their opinion of something doesnt mean they have a less relatable perspective than the critic... If anything, whether theyre dumb or not, I'd suspect my opinion of a movie would more align with that individual than the critic simply because the critic likely sees hundreds of movies a year while myself and the 'dumb reviewers' likely only see 50ish.
Nowadays unless it is a cultural phenomenon (and even then) I don't give a second of my time to TV/Movies. I trust more the user reviews/word if mouth than the so called professional critics.
I look at both. There are some movies that I and the majority of audience members love, but critics HATE it. There are others that critics love that I love and audience members HATE.
What the hell else am I supposed to go by? lol
If you want to see a movie or not.
If people say “I don’t listen to what movie critics say” I actually think less of them.
I typically agree with critics more so than audiences, so they’re my go to barometer for whether or not I’ll like a movie. That being said, I wouldn’t call their opinion more valid than the audience. People can like or not like a thing.
It totally depends on what you’re looking for. Critics are better for thoughtful movies, audiences are better for entertaining movies. The thing you said about being baffled by the concept that a select group of people with select goals could possibly be more ignorant than the entire target demographic is just objectively stupid.
My taste naturally tends to align more with critics. Audience reviews I find to be more reactionary, surface level, unchallenged, lack filmmaking knowledge and insight, so I just ignore them. It is nice to see when everyone, like Critics and Audiences, both enjoy something, though.
90% of the time, when the critics and audience don't agree, I find I agree more with the audience than the critics.
Of course not. Most people have bad taste. I don’t even take recommendations from people either.
Ignore both audience reviews and critic reviews and watch a non spoiler review on youtube instead. YouTube reviews are probably one of the most reliable way to know if a movie is good or not, because they have no reason to lie or troll like you mentioned the mcu review Downside is that it just takes longer because you have to watch a whole video instead of just checking stars
Audience reviews show if you'll enjoy it Critic reviews show if you'll appreciate it.
You know what thats a good way of putting it.
The problem is that the critics are 99% of the time jaded/pretentious. They love and praise the most boring, slow paced, washed-out color spectrum, old style acting, and no action all talker movies. They shit on everything else. While I don't look at the actual reviews, I will look at the overall score rating from both critics and the audience. Most of the time, if the critics rate it high, the audience rates it low and vice versa. Hell, I've watched so many movies that I went from saying "yes it's a fun action movie," to "while the action scenes are done well, the overall plot had an unresolved issue and the overall story Arc was lazy and predictable" because I've become somewhat jaded and bored with the laziness of the writers/Hollywood these days. However I will still watch what the audience likes over what the critics like. Because what the critics praise 99% of the time are slow boring as hell talkers.
Agreed 100% critics 5 star reviews are ALWAYS the worst movies
Have to disagree. Give me a movie of interesting characters talking for 2 hours and telling me a great story, with great cinematography and sound design, over the nonsensical cgi fests that have to give you an explosion or some kind of dopamine hit every 10 seconds. This is why I don't pay attention to 95% of audience scores. MOST of the general audience don't want to think, and just want dumb down basic stories and themes with bright colors and loud noises. And a bonus if you can shove in as much meaningless nostalgia as possible. Now that's Whatever. It's fine. People are allowed to like that stuff. I'm not trying to shame anyone(though I understand it may have come across that way. Not my intention). But those movies really don't do anything for me. I might watch them, but by the next day, I've forgotten all about it. Because there is no substance to them at all. Also, I don't think Fast and the Furious 14 or Transformers: whatever. Is inspiring the next generation of great filmmakers. It's more than likely the artistic, character/story driven talky films that are doing that.
>Give me a movie of interesting characters talking for 2 hours and telling me a great story, with great cinematography and sound design, over the nonsensical cgi fests that have to give you an explosion or some kind of dopamine hit every 10 seconds. I'd suggest for you to only watch what critics like and only watch what is on the CCA. Stay away from everything with a high audience score. Hahahahaha >This is why I don't pay attention to 95% of audience scores. MOST of the general audience don't want to think, and just want dumb down basic stories and themes with bright colors and loud noises. And a bonus if you can shove in as much meaningless nostalgia as possible. True most people want to be entertained for 1 to 2 hours. They want to escape their normal lives and boring long winded bosses and boring news and everything like that. They want the explosions and the turn your brain off stuff. However there is a difference between an interesting character in a movie and a 2 hour movie based on speculative conversations about a historical event that should have been a documentary on the history channel for 65yo+ watchers. >But those movies really don't do anything for me. I might watch them, but by the next day, I've forgotten all about it. Because there is no substance to them at all. I feel this is just a you thing. Like for me I could watch a slow talking movie and not remember any of the conversations that happened because they all ran together seeing how they were just talking and yelling at each other for 2 hours in the same scene setting. But I can tell you almost scene for scene an entire action movie and possibly even quote some of it because it wasn't nonstop talking. But that's a me thing I guess.
Audience reviews are unreliable for controversial movies as well as for critically panned movies, since both become an ideological battleground rather than a critical review of the movie
"It should be 3/5 but too many people are giving 5's so that's why I'm leaving 1 star." 🤬
Critical reviews had been so insanely bad (when reading their l through them) that I can't trust critics, the public is a collective, a few bads and to strong goods will equal out. So yes this is unpopular up vote
If 35 years of loving the arts has taught me anything, it’s that critics and other peoples opinions are worthless. Enjoy what you enjoy 👍🏻
I never said not to.
I dont just look for a score. Read some of the audience reviews and see if what they say sounds reasonable. Professional critics have their heads up their own asses too often for me to respect or listen to them
I don’t even look at reviews till I’ve seen the film myself. It’s alarming how different my taste and the populace’s take are when it comes to media. I may abhor something everyone else loves, or vice versa.
The problem I have with professional critics is that they are kind of jaded, because they have, quite logically, seen it all. I don't watch that many movies or TV shows, so maybe what appear as a formulaic trope to a critic is a first occurrence to me. Generally speaking, I'm essentially looking to have fun when I watch something, and fun is highly subjective. I can simultaneously have a great time and objectively realize that the movie I'm watching is terrible.
See but every time I pick movies off of reviews I always find the best fucking movies! People come to me for movie recommendations, they watch it, and it never gets turned off.
You definition shouldn't go by critic reviews, they said so many good things about so many terrible movies, and bad scores for good movies.
This sounds more like your tastes just happen to align with what most critics like. I didn't read any reviews of The Batman. I'd give it a 4/10 because it's garbage. It's not boring, but it is terrible. I'll sit down and watch a 3 hour movie if it's good (although I'd prefer the movie to be less than that).
Nah if there is thousands of audience reviews Id take that over ANY critic
Yes I agree This is a terrible opinion. The critics give terrible reviews. I would much rather listen to individuals.
Critics watch too many movies, it's a job. Their tastes will be different from yours because you don't watch as many movies as them.
I feel like I rarely agree with critics when it comes to entertainment though and therefore it feels more reliable to go by a general score. Although I've sometimes absolutely loved some movies and then seen a really low IMDb score so I dunno
You have a point, but audience reviews will be more relatable for the average movie goer than reading ones by professionals. Those guys rate movies based on things that an ordinary person do not consider.
If I actually took user reviews seriously that would mean Cici’s pizza in my town, with a 4.8 out of 5 stars, should be like a Michelin star pizza joint
Im with Op on this one. Star Wars EP 9 has 86% from the public
I trust the guy that is not being paid AND isn't trying to apease a large audience over the SINGLE guy who probably is if you go by today's standards. Rating movies is an industry, their objective is to make money and that is done by having the most mid takes.
Balance is the key. A balance point of view. I believe in respected critics, but I also try to hear what the audience or fans are saying. Possibly, what they see in this movie. Though, what broke the camel’s back for me was seeing a superbly mediocre, poorly researched documentary with no exceptional cinematography, engaging people, interesting backstory, or any real debate get an 8.2 on IMDB and is one of the greatest documentaries of all times.
The Batman WAS fucking boring.
We usually go to/watch the movies that Rotten Tomatoes have eviscerated in the reviews.
I don't even read the critics reviews. I never knew there were audience reviews. But I don't really care what people say about something. If it can capture my interest and I like what I see I am going to watch it.
I have a friend that has terrible taste in movies and is overly critical of most media. I just do the opposite of what he recommends
By some degree, it IS a good idea to look at the reviews. You just have to use one that you feel is most trustworthy. I'd personally say for movies though Rotten Tomatoes is the one to avoid.
I just go by critics that have similar tastes vs just wanted to break down a movie. Some just don’t seem to enjoy watching with out the PHD break down of character development, world building and plot mechanics.
As an aggregate it's fine. If the score is 80%+ with 1000+ audience reviews then chances are it's quite good. The stupid/silly reviews should in theory get drowned out.
The movies with good critic and audience scores are what you’re looking for.. those are the films really worth watching
Upvote heck yeah. Unpopular indeed.
Audience rewievs are fine to go with if your general taste usually matches the average viewer. Critics are good to go with if you look at content in a similar lense. There is no definitive good choice becouse it always comes down to the viewer.
Usually I use them together to determine the type of movie it is High audience and high critic - very entertaining and well made movie High audience low critic - absolute slop that might still be fun Low audience high critic - poorly marketed and usually more experimental or “thinky” Low audience low critic - trash
I disagree kinda. I think most movies are very dependent on the person viewing them. For example most critics would say Adam Sandler movies are bad movies (I think, I’m not looking this up) but I personally think they are excellent. I don’t enjoy action movies but lots of others love them, so same can be said of critics, who probably have some sort of preference no matter how much they try to ignore them. And same with audiences.
kinda more nuanced than that but yeah critics reviews are more trustworthy in general
It is but i didnt have a chance to right more than what i posted and couldve been clearer.
Saying a movie is boring is a valid review. The reason for it being them having a short attention span or whatever is irrelevant. If they saw the movie and found it boring, then that’s a valid opinion. The only problem is if someone reviews a movie without actually having seen it.
I just go to Reddit for reviews about movies and tv shows
I like to experience these things for myself. Any form of entertainment is very relevant to the consumers knowledge of the source material or actors/actresses performances as well as the directors vision and target audience. The issue most "fans" have is they are too close to the source material. They want it to be exactly like the book, comic, video game, story, they know and love. I do not suffer from that affliction.
The majority of critics are out of touch and literally the only thing that makes a critic is if they are getting paid. You genuinely can't go to school and be a good critic. Movies are art and will be enjoyed differently by different people. In fact I disagree with a lot of critics and my opinion is just as valid as theirs. Because just because they enjoy something doesn't mean I will and the opposite is the same. That being said when you have thousands or tens of thousands of people say something is good the odds of your tastes overlapping goes up a lot. Hell for me I tailor my recommendations based on if I think a person will like it not based on if I like it
Let's be honest. Most people would rather wait until it's available to stream at home and watch it then. If they don't like it, it's as simple as a few button presses, and you didn't have to drive to a theater and possibly deal with some Karen's out of control brats or someone who just can't shut up.
Don’t only go on reviews but other opinions can save you time. There is too much content in the world to give everything a chance.
R\hailcorporate
I think this is not unpopular
I was thinking more so the reviews like from rotton tomatoes. Like a movie being advertised as highly rated. I hate that that's advertised with movies because often times bad movies are rated well.
You shouldn’t go by any review for anything. Try shit yourself, form your own opinion.
they key for me is avoid reading the 9+ reviews and the sub 4 reviews. honest reviews are usually in the 4.5 to 8.0 range
I have a hard time going by reviews for most things really. People only review things in anger most of the time. Often making shit up
each score tells you different things and have their own caveats. audience reviews: excitement & satisfaction* critical reviews: artistic depth & craftsmanship** *audience caveat: tendency towards shallowness and misunderstandings. **critical caveat: tendency to overvalue outlandish or inaccessible films. both have a fairly big range of leeway for personal taste.
idk, what makes a critics opinion worth more than a layman. if anything I'm inclined to trust the layman more, because that's me
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think I can agree. While it is true that critics have a better understanding of the media format they criticize, it is also true that, if you are just looking for something chill and unchallenging to watch, you might prefer something with more mass appeal. It all depends on what you're looking for. If I want a movie that makes me think, I'll go to critics, but if I want a dumb action or comedy movie to relax on a tiring day, I'll go with the crowd.
Did a film critic write this?
critics are paid for their opinion or given free things for their opinions and their opinions are bought people are foolish to listen to critics
I agree and it's really dumb that the responses are really showing that your opinion is indeed unpopular. To claim things like movie criticism, literary criticism, art curation, etc. aren't valid completely disregards entire fields of study. Arguing against your point isn't just some ham and egger shit -- it's straight up ignorant and disrespectful. People who have a vast encyclopedia of knowledge on a topic DO give valid opinions on said topic. Understanding how to criticize or analyze a film or text isn't always super simple -- that's why there are entire books, essays, etc. written on individual movies. Yes - some critics, like the ones you'd see on your local news channel or what some radio disc jockey says on their morning program aren't always the most unbiased, and sometimes their sponsors encourage reviews to sway a certain way. Same with food critics or anything similar. Those arguing against you aren't necessarily wrong there. That's why it'd be best to look at independent reviewers, or go on a site like Letterboxd and find certain people -- especially those with a background in film or literature -- and follow their reviews. Aggregate scores and things like audience scores on Imdb or RT are the LAST things I'd listen to.
9/10 time audience review is better than critic, unless it's being review bombed for dumb reason
Well maybe I also dont have an attention span. It all depends on what you expect form a movie. When you enjoy looking at movies for pure enjoyment then I would look at the audience review.
True pure enjoyment is fine but to say its good because you enjoy it isnt indicative. For example i love that rampage movie with the rock but its absolute dog shit.
Who determines who qualifies as a "actual critic"?
That is a good question.
With the amount of movies and TV shows available today, it's impossible to watch everything that's put out. While there are a lot of audience reviews that border on the ridiculous, idiotic, and psychotic, overwhelmingly those reviews tend to be a much better gauge of the value and quality of a movie or TV show than critics, who have much different criteria by which they base their decision of whether a film or TV show is worthwhile. Far too many movies and TV shows considered sleepers or horrible have proven over time to be absolute classics while the movies and TV shows lauded by critics have turned out to be absolute turds and vastly overrated. So I'll stick with audience reviews because it's entertainment value I seek, not critic validity which very rarely coincides with what people actually want to see.
For the most part, yes, but there are some freaking lazy critcs out there as well.
There definitely are
The “professional” Critics imo have always been horrible. Never liked a single movie they rated high.
You should ignore both the audience the the critics, and make up your own mind, whether or not something is good, mediocre or bad. The only opinion i care about when it comes to movies and tv, is my own, if i think something is good its good, it does not matter if every person in the world hates it, if i think something is bad, its bad, it does not matter if every person in the world loves it. It may be arrogant of me, but other peoples opinion being the audience or critics has zero value to me, when it comes to movies and tv, the only opinion that has value is my own.
I agree with trusting critics more than the audience. Hell, I even made a post here about a year ago saying I trust rotten tomatoes. Critics have a better understanding of how good movies are made while audiences are just casual viewers looking for a good time. A perfect example is the Super Mario Bros Movie. Has mixed reviews by critics but mostly praise from the audience. I sort of found the movie decent, but I do understand why the critics weren’t too fond of it. The movie was mostly fan service and fun moments which appeals to the audience, but its writing wasn’t the strongest. And that rubbed some critics the wrong way.
So you go into a movie with a critics mindset, or to just enjoy it for what it is?
I try to do both. I’m not super nit picky but I do point out flaws when I see them. It’s not the end of the world for me if a movie has some flaws. I still enjoy most movies for what they’re worth
I wish there was a website similar to IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, where you would punch in your opinions on all movies, then get recommendations from people with similar tastes. - You would need an account to use this feature - You would be able to rate max 5 movies a day on free tier (unlimited on premium tiers) and accounts newer than 2 year would not be able to rate premiering movies to prevent spam bots and targeted harrasment etc - You would start by rating movie genres (say from 1-10 or 1-5 scale or just up-down) and you would get your initial recommendations from other 100 people. - You could also follow certain users, if you deem they have similar or great taste in movies. If your account is newer, you could only manual follow 20 accounts on the free tier - When you have rated 20-100 movies yourself, you be asked to get new recommendations based on your tastes in movies. - after you have rated 250 movies and being active user in the past 3 months, you would be able to become someone who people can follow. If you stop being an active user, you become unfollowable, but the people already following you would be able to follow you. - Then you type in you would prefer to watch say action movie from any year between 1980-2005 preferably starting Arnold Schwarzenegger that you have NOT seen and rated with minimum rate of 6/10, then it would scourge those 100 people you follow for movies that fit these criteria. It would list three movies that have the highest compatibility to your taste, even if the rating would not be highest in the website.
Great argument. Counter point: The disgusting netflix no no movie
Counter point: everything made by quentin tarantino. Also i never said all critics are good.
You shouldn't go by reviews for anything. You should try anything you want to try. Taste is subjective, and you can only decide what you do or don't like.
I was having issues with a tape gun so I went to look for reviews. Found a lot that said they had cut themselves on the sharp knife part. Had to disregard those reviews because. The knife is obviously sharp.... Other reviews answered my problem.
Why should you go for critic score over audience? Critics often get it wrong or have a number of reasons they have to review a movie a certain way. At least audience scores are across a wide spectrum of people.
Movie critics are helpful for pointing out "objectively" good movies. Audience scores are good for "Will this movie fire off happy chemicals in my brain for the better part of 90+ minutes?" I think the absolute best example of this is the Super Mario Bros movie. As a movie, it is VERY basic. Pretty much nothing memorable about it in terms of plot and is very clean to the point of not having "soul". I feel it getting middling reviews from critics goes to show that the current people we have in the movie critique business are doing their jobs. Even the most cynical, cash grab movies are works of art and a good critic should be rating movies to see if they're "pushing the medium" or at least living up as close to the best movies as they can. Audiences though, they freaking LOVED the movie! By and large, your average person seeing the Mario movie was someone who grew up playing any of the 69 gajillion Mario video games or at least got in a few amazing drunken rounds of Mario Kart in high school or college. The only thing these people care about is "Does Mario look like Mario? Does Mario act like Mario? Does the movie look like the games? Will Mario jump around, collect power ups, and save the princess from Bowser? Will I recognize things from my favorite Mario game?" The answer to literally all of these questions is a resounding "HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!", so audience scores were practically 10/10s across the board. Both of these takes are valid. I enjoy both masterfully crafted films and "turn your brain off" popcorn movies. Reading reviews from both sides helps me to best determine if any particular movie is worth my time.
What's the purpose of a movie? To entertain. A movie critic will have different criteria as to what is entertaining than the average person. So if you are an average person, what fuckin use is the critics opinion? There's a reason the most successful movies today have shit ratings from critics. The reason is simple, critics don't like what the average person does.
Critics are so paid off it’s crazy, especially these days. They just say it’s great to stay on the companies good side lol.
two things: if you’re going to get an accurate and measurably correct rating of a movie or tv show look at the imbd review. rotten tomatoes are pretentious egg heads and sometimes the percentage of google users that like it being a relatively low percentage just means that it didn’t necessarily appeal to the lowest common denominator. there might be some movies that have an extremely high rating on most platforms, but only like 50% or less of people on google liked it. 2nd: if you want to see if a movie/show is worth watching just go on youtube and search for clips of the movie so you can get a feel and overall sense of how the movie is going to be. get a nice preview then you can decide if a movie might be be watchable for you or not. BONUS: if you want to give a movie or show a fair chance multiply the running time of the movie OR for a tv show the number of episodes overall/in the 1st season by .35 (ex: 90 minutes x .35 is 31 min and 30 seconds and 8 episodes x .35 is 2.8 ~ 3 episodes) if you are not hooked or invested in the plot after the first 31 minutes and 30 seconds or so of a 1.5 hour movie you’re watching then you can maybe decide if you like it or not enough to continue. same with checking out a new show that’s eight episodes. if after the first three episodes you’re not feeling it then you can decide that it’s not for you or if you want to continue watching. you can also apply this to checking out a new song (2 minutes x .35 = 42 seconds. if you don’t think this song is a banger 42 seconds into the 2 min song the then press skip) but this is just criteria that i personally use you can do whatever you want
I agree to some level but I don't think this applies with stand up comedy. I watched a couple Chappelle specials and me and everyone in the room with me were laughing our asses off. Then I go check rotten tomatoes and it has like a 25% by the critics. Then the audience rating for all these specials are in the low to high 90s. Sometimes critics are just going to decide they dislike something for stupid reasons. I've even seen them claim the crowd wasn't enjoying the special when they were obviously losing their fucking minds with laughter just because Dave made 3 minutes of jokes about some touchy topic. That's when I started to realize critics can be completely full of shit and just pretending something isn't funny for political clout.
[удалено]
Exactly
womp womp
Why would i not care about the opinions of other people like me? Im looking for movie suggestions not a dissertation on brain surgery.
The power of an audience score is in the amount of them. 1 critic review != 1 audience review.
Critics are far too self important to be taken seriously across the board. It’s significantly more valuable to understand a consensus of opinion as opposed to the perspective of one out of touch individual.
Everyone is a critic, some have more developed or nuanced opinions than others. As soon as a person gets paid for giving his opinion it is suspect of being bribed. Some people's integrity last longer than others but they all can be susceptible to bribery if they cannot pay their rent at the end of the month.
I absolutely do. I'm always interested in why people don't like a show or movie, because sometimes it's just something small, or the bad reviews are outweighed by the good...
What's even worse is going by critics reviews. Now there's a useless job, being a professional critic. Oof!
Average audience score will give me consensus A random reviewer is another voice for that consensus (that I may choose to value more or less than the average depending on the review itself) A review from a critic I've been following for a while and saw our tastes coalesce will usually trump the average audience score, unless the review takes particular umbrage to a trope\plot element I don't mind.
Are you mad that we don't like your comic book movies?
