Who cares? You don't have to read those reviews if you don't want to.
You don't have to like every review or reviewer.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Is a reviewer who scores the film more on its supposed impact rather than its quality of work a good / professional reviewer ?
- Thread starter OtherWorldly
- Start date
Who cares? You don't have to read those reviews if you don't want to.
You don't have to like every review or reviewer.
Is it alright for a professional to analyze and critique a movie for its themes and overall message? Yeah its actually kind of the whole point of the profession. Film reviewers aren't part of the pr firms for the movie They should breakdown and explore the themes and deeper subtext of a film and give there opinion on the quality of the film as a whole not just on the surface level of stuff like plot and quality of acting. People use their world view and experiences to decide what they like and what they don't all the time so why shouldn't reviewers of any profession do the same.
A movie can be good or bad and still have an impact in some way. There is no simple check list to review when it comes to media. For example, a music album can be wonderfully produced and great musicianship while being steeped in hate full lyrics.
I have a hard time believing that this movie sets out to glamorize the Joker character in any way
Which, it ought be pointed out, was criticized by reviewers for its potential impact on society and fears that I may revive the Klan. Which, well, ended up happening.
Yeah, nothing wrong with voicing opinions about impact. But the question was whether that specifically is a review of the movie or more an opinion of the presumed societal impact of the movie.
OP
OP
Lets hope that reflects the reviewers view on its cinematic qualities and not approval of its racist message.
oh god the OP is misrepresenting these reviews HARD and it's grossing me out.
From the review:
A few words about the acting:
This is a perfectly acceptable review of a film. It tells you what it looks like, what it feels like and how its main star performs (as well as nods to several key costars). To "No review of the movie itself," is simply dishonest
A quick paragraph from the review about tone, writing and the look of the film
Actual verdict: This movie is a messy exploitative mess and a lot rides on your existing connection to the DC Comic universe, regardless of how this was sold as a standalone R Rated Actathon by Joaquin Phoenix. It's almost as if the OP read only up to the parts that made them knee-jerk and start an Era thread.
But hey maybe they were right about the wrap's review:
From the review:
A few words about the acting:
A few words about the writing and tone of the film
A few words about the look of the film
This is a perfectly acceptable review of a film. It tells you what it looks like, what it feels like and how its main star performs (as well as nods to several key costars). To "No review of the movie itself," is simply dishonest
A quick paragraph from the review about tone, writing and the look of the film
A quick blurb about the screenplay
Oh hey look they even discuss costume design
Actual verdict: This movie is a messy exploitative mess and a lot rides on your existing connection to the DC Comic universe, regardless of how this was sold as a standalone R Rated Actathon by Joaquin Phoenix. It's almost as if the OP read only up to the parts that made them knee-jerk and start an Era thread.
But hey maybe they were right about the wrap's review:
Hm! an immediate contextualization of a contemporary film in the canon of 'portrait of a deranged mind' seems like exactly what a professional reviewer does, all the time! And they don't lead with 'ignore that this is a joker movie' whatever that means.
Yes. I 100% expect most to when it comes to dark subject matters like mental illness and its connection to mass violence. Maybe it's because I live in 2019 where such topics come up at least 3 times a week in national news and this movie seems to have something to say about all of that; and I should actually celebrate critics who aren't immune to the political imprint left behind by art, instead of wringing my hands about the unstated standards of what qualifies a 'good, professional' reviewer.
OP
OP
most reviewers say the message sucks, most scored it on the cinematic level
And yet thanks for proving the point the art quality was not part of the score in their verdict but the messaging that they perceived was. That is the entire point.
It's a film. It has artistic merit. Message and themes are a key part of art. A review is based on perception from experiencing a work of art. What don't you understand?
Every single review mentions whether or not the reviewer thought the movie looked good, or that the acting was good, or that the supporting cast lent itself well to a good/bad screenplay.
That you didn't grasp those and jumped immediately to 'they didn't talk about the quality of the movie' says more about you than the 3 reviewers in question. You've just got a giant chip on your shoulder because they brought in the tone and impact of the film in dark, violent times that their audiences actually inhabit in real life and whether or not a film named "Joker" gets away from being compared to anything else in the DCEU (which it would have done it if was titled "Sad Man Has Bad Week" and set it in Chicago, perhaps).
Is this movie really trying to make a connection between mental illness and mass violence?
That would be kind of dumb since the current science suggests there's very little, if any, correlation.
That would be kind of dumb since the current science suggests there's very little, if any, correlation.
The "art quality" does not boil down to "this is a nice shot, so therefore movie is good."
That is not critique. That is a report card. "You get an A in your acting class." Artistic merit is informed by the film's own thesis, what it explores and how it is contextualized by the culture that created it.
There are no standards to what a review should be about anyway. I like how this leads to a lot of different opinions about things and I like talking and hearing about it. But since everyone is reviewing stuff differently, scores are completely meaningless and yes that includes rotten tomatoes.
Some of the best films are the worst looking and vice versa. I recently watched It: Chapter Two and it was shot really well, had some great acting, but it made me feel nothing. Art isn't measured on technical aspects alone, and it never should be.
OP
OP
this is the first reviewers chosen qoute as their verdict in RT
Second review verdict chosen by the reviewer on RT
Third review verdict chosen by the reviewer on Rt. Calls Phoenix performance "fake" to match the movie tone
Also those reviews didn't even include a score for fun factor how am I supposed to know if it's good if there isn't a picture of a cartoon guy with his head exploding
It comes across as though you just want to defend this film you haven't seen yet. Maybe wait for it to come out? They could all be right on the money.
Nerds are pretty shit about actual criticism of the media they consume
OP
OP
my opinion when I do see it will be happening when I do see it but this is about those trying to sell me the see it and Not see it message. this would also be on a case with a movie with a terribly made movie but reviewed high because of its impact
Yes this is RT summarizing 3 negative reviews. It happens. What's the problem and what does this have to do with your assessment on whether or not these reviewers are 'good and professional?'
Its totally fine and the whole damn point, accepting these biases and engaing in introspection is why people read those rather than just giving it five starts and bailing out.
Only gamers want a consumer product review of the media they consume, and I hate how this group's logic has translated to shit rottentomatoes.
Only gamers want a consumer product review of the media they consume, and I hate how this group's logic has translated to shit rottentomatoes.
Considering the context in which a work of art exists is part of being a critic, yes.
Sometimes I wish folks would just cut to the chase and say "I wish critics would first and foremost consider the impact on my precious Tomatometer/Metascore that I use to validate my preconceptions." It'd be easier that way.
Sometimes I wish folks would just cut to the chase and say "I wish critics would first and foremost consider the impact on my precious Tomatometer/Metascore that I use to validate my preconceptions." It'd be easier that way.
It should be about what the movie made the reviewer feel while watching. How it juts against societal and historical context can sure contribute.
edit: Though this is more about a reviewer factoring in how they perceive others will be affected by the movie, right? I'd rather just hear about their personal experience.
edit: Though this is more about a reviewer factoring in how they perceive others will be affected by the movie, right? I'd rather just hear about their personal experience.
Last edited:
the message and implication of a movie are intrinsic to its quality.
if you like such a movie anyways then you clearly find some value in what it's saying, or else don't think critically about all aspects of the movie.
I don't have an opinion on joker because i have not seen it or read any exhaustive summaries, so don't take anything I just said as a judgement of people who like the movie.
however, the premise of this thread is ridiculous.
if you like such a movie anyways then you clearly find some value in what it's saying, or else don't think critically about all aspects of the movie.
I don't have an opinion on joker because i have not seen it or read any exhaustive summaries, so don't take anything I just said as a judgement of people who like the movie.
however, the premise of this thread is ridiculous.
Definitely Rotten and only 5/10, not worth your money, wait for the BR to hit bargain bin at Target.
If that reviewer isn't also a sociologist, I couldn't care less what they think a films impact on society will be.
Breaking news: Don't get inside that taxi, you never know what the driver is thinking!
In this alternate universe 2019 what would be the 43 year old film that Taxi Driver was pastiching?
Given that there's obviously countless reviews written in other ways, I tend to welcome more analysis and looks at broader cultural impact.
But the actual reviews absolutely do discuss the "film itself" in the way you want them to. You didn't make a claim about RT quotes, you made a claim about the review itself, and that claim is not supported at all by the reviews you posted.
First, I generally disagree with your thesis that primarily discussing a film based on it's cultural impact/relevance shouldn't count as a review. Second, you're really reaching to discredit these particular reviews. Third, your synopsis of, say, the Time review is just wildly inaccurate to the point where I question whether you actually read the review. Hell, even in the little snippet you posted it says "the movie doesn't have a plot", how is that possibly not a critique of the film itself?
It depends. You can tell with the Joker film that even critics made up their minds before watching it. This type of bias isn't neutral within critics and believers of certain things can be stubborn enough to say X isn't good because of those predetermined beliefs. So instead of critics being a lense into a perpective, they sort of become arbiters of right and wrong, and I think when that decision making spills into their work then they lose value as a critic.