(Sorry for the novel here but this is a juicy topic upon which I'd like to expound.)
I mean, I don't think a review geared towards the film or it's cultural impact are necessarily good or bad either way.
Things that make a review bad are idiotic thoughts/takes made in trying to defend a perspective that the author has. Take the RoberEbert.com review for example:
Darkness no longer has much to do with feelings of alienation the filmmaker wants to express or purge, as was the case with a film like "
Taxi Driver." It's not about exploring uncomfortable ideas, as was done in "
The King of Comedy." Do you think
Todd Phillips, who co-wrote and directed "Joker," and references those movies so often you might expect that
Martin Scorsese was enlisted as an executive producer here as a way of heading off a plagiarism lawsuit, really cares about income inequality, celebrity worship, and the lack of civility in contemporary society? I don't know him personally but I bet he doesn't give a toss. He's got the pile he made on those "Hangover" movies—which some believe have indeed contributed to the lack of civility in etc.—and can not only buy up all the water that's going to be denied us regular slobs after the big one hits, he can afford the bunker for after the bigger one hits.
Like this is objectively a poorly written paragraph. Good and accomplished writers-- critically acclaimed and recognized by their peers as being talented-- would never allow a paragraph in a review to do this. First allege that Scorcese was brought on so you can plagiarize him? What? Second accusing the director of not giving a shit about society with absolutely no evidence?
This is Tumblr-esque writing at it's absolute worst, and the fact that big name movie websites are allowing this trash to be published-- under the guise of a review no less-- and propagated is sad. (This honestly reads like a college sophomore trying to impress their Lit200 professor.)
Now the point of this paragraph/review could be legit. The purpose/point of it doesn't necessarily render the writing meaningful or meaningless. But the way it's executed, I think, is what makes it pretty damn awful.
The problem that will happen is when people turn to pieces like this (I really bristle at calling it a review so much as a think piece) to formulate their opinion rather than trying to figure out if the movie is worth their time investment. It used to be that there were review-- pieces written or spoken that would discuss the actual quality of the film itself-- and then your follow up pieces afterwards discussing the cultural impact and what you think of the movie afterwards. Because ultimately the quality of cinematography in, say, Blade Runner 2049 merits mention in a piece separate from someone talking about whether BR2049 is something you should watch because of it's dystopian views on lower class workers (I'm making that up to make a point-- I didn't see anyone actually write this.)
Now, I get why websites allow this sort of tripe to be bandied about wearing the mask of a real review-- they need clicks. Never before has it been easier for quality movie reviewers to find their voice and reach an audience, but that doesn't mean that said audience has suddenly grown equally as the amount of people trying to feed that audience. So in an effort to stand out and not go out of business, the quality is going to slide and the outlandishness is going to continue to ramp up.
Edgy is bad. Dark is tired. Wholesome is outdated. Action is dumb. Blah blah blah, everything sucks.
Negativity gets clicks. And that's really what I take away from this wave of "reviews" about The Joker (though there are other movies out there with the same thing.) When these bitchy AV Club commenters-cum-"movie reviewer" start to roll out their Tweet engines and half baked think pieces in the guise of a movie review they're doing a total intellectual disservice to everyone involved. They're failing at first in not actually reviewing the movie, and then they're failing again because ultimately these discussions about cultural impact-- especially in regards to a movie like Joker-- need to be had and can be important and enlightening. But doing it a month before the movie has released and when no more than what, a thousand critics at most?, have seen it doesn't emphasize the importance of the cultural impact. It muddies the entire thing and fucks up the review aspect and drowns out the cultural aspect as well.
And *that* is, what I think, makes a bad review.