Reviewers that don't pay attention

[jackfaire]

I have noticed a disturbing trend and perhaps the secret why reviewers don't often agree with the audience.

The most recent example I saw was a reviewer saying that the Houseman played by John Paxton popping up to give Harry Osborn the information on how his dad really died was a deus ex machina character who did not exist prior to this moment.

The reviewer in question was clearly not paying attention as the character actually appeared in all three movies played by the same actor and the only crazy part is he hadn't told Harry the truth in the second movie.

I don't mind if a reviewer has a different opinion than me on a movie hey that is their right but seriously when their opinion is based on incorrect information then it brings their whole opinion into question.

I think the problem is if a reviewer doesn't watch the movie before reviewing it. By sitting there making notes while watching a movie your missing a good portion of it and something like a small character will slip by you unnoticed for two whole movies.

Or the reviewer claimed to have loved a movie that came out prior gushes about how everything in that movie was amazing and then in the next sequal complains about something that is directly from the second movie.

Or saying something like, "And it irritated me they never answered question X" when most of the audience is like, "uhm dude actually at this scene here they thoroughly answered that question"

Anyway the rest of you ever notice this problem?

[Andara Bledin]

You'd think the reviewer would have at least checked IMDb or the like before tossing out some obviously ignorant crap in the review.

I've run into this a few times, where you wonder what movie it was the reviewer saw, 'cause their details bout it sure as hell don't match with the movie the rest of us watched.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Then there always seems to be a handful of reviewers who will hail even the shittiest movie as totally awesome. Again making you wonder if they even watched the same movie. I guess they're quotefishing to get their name on the DVD cover.

[jackfaire]

Then there always seems to be a handful of reviewers who will hail even the shittiest movie as totally awesome.

See I never mind if they like or dislike a movie that I either did or didn't like it's all about getting their facts straight.

They shouldn't say, "The movie never explained this" when the rest of us noticed when Captain Jay gave a 2 sentence line that explained that exact thing.

[bara]

I remember when Man of the House came out with Tommy Lee Jones. I thought this movie was very funny and definitely worth watching, yet all the supposed critics said it was very bad. They were focusing on things like plot, character development.. it was a freaking comedy. It was supposed to be funny and it was.
The problem with critics is thier job is to easy. Ive noticed that people with easy jobs tend to make them more complicated then they need to be in order to help protect thier phoney baloney jobs.

[Gravekeeper]

See I never mind if they like or dislike a movie that I either did or didn't like it's all about getting their facts straight.


I do, because I pick up a movie that's allegedly good, full of wonderful characters with a fantastic plot and its turns out to be awful with a plot and characters only a drunken frat boy recovering from a head injury could possibly percieve as good. Then I wonder wtf is going on in Hollywood that this trash is the yardstick of quality.

I can excuse like or dislike no problem, but not blatant lying as to the quality of a movie because they bought ad on your website or you want your name on the poster. I should extend that one to game reviewers too. ( Gamespot, ugh ).



I remember when Man of the House came out with Tommy Lee Jones. I thought this movie was very funny and definitely worth watching, yet all the supposed critics said it was very bad. They were focusing on things like plot, character development.. it was a freaking comedy. It was supposed to be funny and it was.

Thats another thing, a lot of critics don't differentiate between good/bad and entertaining. A movie can be entertaining without being Academy Award material.

[Andara Bledin]

Thats another thing, a lot of critics don't differentiate between good/bad and entertaining. A movie can be entertaining without being Academy Award material.
This. So much this.

Real Steel wasn't great cinema, but it was damned enjoyable to watch. Oddly, they came out in favor of Puss In Boots, which had no real depth, but was also damned fun to watch. Go figure.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Thats another thing, a lot of critics don't differentiate between good/bad and entertaining. A movie can be entertaining without being Academy Award material.


Neither do I. To me if it was entertaining it's good.

I don't mind their saying it was good or bad because if I can look at their reviews and see that they have generally the same taste as me or not that tells me whether to trust their saying something was good or bad.

But I cannot trust a reviewer who says a movie was bad beause he missed something.

I actually commented on one of the reviewers I was researching. We were talking about Wolverine the origins of movie.

Now in the movie there is a moment between Stryker and Sabertooth where Sabertooth asks why he can't get the adamantium treatment and stryker says, paraphrasing, we have talked about this it would kill you.

Now the thing is the reviewer stated, "Why didn't they save a bunch of time and money from tricking Wolverine and have Sabertooth undergo the procedure"

When I pointed it out to him he wrote back saying he was a student of the comics which I am sorry as a reviewer has nothing to do with whether or not facts appear in movie dialogue. Then compared the two line exchange to a silent fart.

I am sorry this is the reviewer that claims to remember 90% of every movie he watches.

To my mind they did not need a 10 line conversation for what is really a very simple fact and succintly explains why not Sabertooth.

To me that is an injustice to movies. If you don't think the line was enough to explain it fine then in your review say, 'It was explained in these two lines but I don't feel most audience members would catch it'

Honestly I think his basically stating the line would go by unnoticed is a face saving measure. If you miss a line of dialouge that happens in a quiet moment then you should question if your really watching the movie or if your taking notes.

[MrsEclipse]

Oh boy, I have experience with this one.

In addition to collecting merchandise from the original "All Dogs Go to Heaven" movie, my all-time favorite movie, I also collect reviews and synopses that are completely incorrect. My personal favorite, currently used in my area by the Hub but I have seen it on other channels whenever the movie comes on goes like this:


After passing away in a terrible accident and leaving his owners, a goodhearted German shepherd dog is offered a chance at redemption and opportunity to live eternally in Heaven if he can save an impoverished orphan girl's life. Starring Dom DeLuise, Loni Anderson...

I like to call it "Burt who?"

Many reviewers in guide books and such have descriptions a lot like this. If you've seen the movie, you'll know what's wrong. If you haven't, well, here's the Cliff notes

*It wasn't an accident, he was deliberately murdered (you don't have to say murder if it's a kid's channel, but if you know what happened then don't say accident.)
*He was a stray, you never heard a word about owners.
*He wasn't offered a chance at redemption, he broke out of Heaven. He was told flat-out he could never go back.
*He did end up in Heaven for saving an impoverished orphan girl's life, but for most of the movie he was using and manipulating her. He saved her life in like the last five minutes. He didn't intend to make her life better until near the end when he started to care about her.
*Burt Reynolds was the main character. Loni Anderson was in the movie for like ten minutes. Two times, both after the halfway point.

Whenever I come across a reviewer who has one of those points in the description, not the way it really happened, I disregard the review. Which is usually negative. Yeah, the movie has a lot of flaws and probably doesn't deserve five stars. I guess it may even deserve the 1 1/2 star you're giving it.

But when you talk like you're reviewing a movie you watched one time like ten years ago and only kinda remember it, I don't take anything you say seriously.


I go by this philosophy for most movies and reviewers, but this is the most prominent example in my life so I thought I'd share.

[HYHYBT]

*Some* of it may be having to review movies of a type you don't like. Even if you do keep your attention focused (as you ought to if being paid to watch) it seems like that would be all but impossible.

[MrsEclipse]

*Some* of it may be having to review movies of a type you don't like. Even if you do keep your attention focused (as you ought to if being paid to watch) it seems like that would be all but impossible.

That's probably true, but I wouldn't cut them any slack for it.

[KabeRinnaul]

I can't think of any times a movie reviewer has been factually wrong about a movie, but I will say that rather than anyone who gets paid to review the latest releases, the most reliable movie reviewers I know of (both in terms of being well-informed and me liking what they recommend) are Doug Walker (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/) and Howard Tayler (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/).

[jackfaire]

I can't think of any times a movie reviewer has been factually wrong about a movie, but I will say that rather than anyone who gets paid to review the latest releases, the most reliable movie reviewers I know of (both in terms of being well-informed and me liking what they recommend)

Nostalgia Critic, Nostalgia Chick, and Blockbuster Buster are my current faves.

[El Pollo Guerrera]

Then there always seems to be a handful of reviewers who will hail even the shittiest movie as totally awesome. Again making you wonder if they even watched the same movie. I guess they're quotefishing to get their name on the DVD cover.

Ever heard of film critic David Manning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer))?

Nostalgia Critic, Nostalgia Chick, and Blockbuster Buster are my current faves.

Love the Nostalgia Critic. Also love listening to the guys from Spill.com. Their 5 minute video reviews are funny, but they go into greater depth on what they like and don't like in their audio reviews (which tend to run between 25-40 minutes).

[jackfaire]

I saw one reviewer who was confused by most of Van Helsing, didn't like that things were conveniently placed.

Things that were implied or where your average person would figure it out he was confused by however he felt he totally understood something that was never really explained.

[Sleepwalker]

See that in game reviews, too. Most recent one was comparing Skyrim to the latest Zelda. Look, you may be a giant Zelda fan, but when your 'epic' rating comes down to slamming Skyrim because it is not linear... jeez, read the box next time.

[firecat88]

Oh, the weird reviews I've seen. I've seen people complain about movie-musicals having too much singing, I've seen complaints about a lack of realism in animated movies that feature talking animals, and most-recently I saw a huge rant about the fact that the Sailor Moon manga revamp uses the Japanese names instead of the NA dub names (which, in the descriptions for the books, it openly states that, yes, the reprint would have everything in its non-dub state and would be more a direct-as-possible translation of the original than anything).

[HYHYBT]

Oh, the weird reviews I've seen. I've seen people complain about movie-musicals having too much singing, I've seen complaints about a lack of realism in animated movies that feature talking animals...Those both *can* be legitimate complaints. How much of a musical ought to be just singing? It's arguable. And realism can be relative.

[Ginger Tea]

iir Evita was nothing but singing, it was grating to hear them sing talk every line of dialogue, I didn't mind the full on song and dance aspect when it showed up, but god damn "English mother fucker do you speak it!?"

[AdminAssistant]

Typically when a musical is completely (or almost completely) sung, many of the songs will be turned into spoken dialogue for the movie or eliminated. RENT and Sweeney Todd spring to mind. This is slightly more realistic for the film audience, but creates a new problem. Speak the words to a song. Does that sound natural? It was really problematic for RENT, when you've got people who had been doing that musical for over 10 years. Hearing Anthony Rapp try to speak the words, "December 24th, 9 pm, Eastern Standard Time, from here on in I shoot without a script" was just so awkward and clumsy. (Of course, RENT is one of the worst stage-to-film adaptations that's been done in recent history, so there's that.)

[firecat88]

Those both *can* be legitimate complaints. How much of a musical ought to be just singing? It's arguable. And realism can be relative.

As for the musicals, the complaint (sorry for not being clearer. It's a bad habit of mine, apparently O.o) was more along the lines of 'What's with all the singing? And why does everyone know the words? This is stupid.'

As to the second one...I'm sorry, but when it's an animated Disney movie featuring a mostly-animal cast (the movie was, if memory serves, Brother Bear), the last thing I'm expecting from it is a great amount of realism.

[HYHYBT]

Well, yes... I see what you mean.

And yeah, that's different on the musicals. There can be too much singing, but you have to expect some of what makes it fit the category at all! :) But that goes back to not giving a fair review to a genre you hate.

[MrsEclipse]

There are different degrees of realism. When we have a talking animal cast, we can suspend our disbelief that the animals talk, think, and behave like people with animal mannerisms.

It's a little harder to believe that there's a world where everything is exactly like ours, except the dogs are a little smarter, and also the dog catcher can spend $100,000 dollars on a Dog-Catching Cannon that he's legally allowed to drive like a tank around the neighborhood without a permit, when we have no reason to believe his position is anything other than government funded.

Another thing is in reactions; we're more likely to believe that, say, a dog will sniff a strange rock curiously and realize it doesn't come from Earth, and then figure out that there are also aliens in this movie, too. That's okay. However, if the dog sniffs the rock once, then says there are aliens, everyone believes him based on one sniff, the aliens show up and the talking dog immediately trusts the aliens for no adequately explored reason but it's okay because the aliens are good guys, and also there's oxygen on the moon but no one knows because "the astronauts never tried to breath so they didn't know... lol stupid humans..."

If you don't analyze the movie deeply you won't know exactly what's wrong, but for most people it translates into a feeling that the movie had a lack of realism.

[Ginger Tea]

As for the musicals, the complaint (sorry for not being clearer. It's a bad habit of mine, apparently O.o) was more along the lines of 'What's with all the singing? And why does everyone know the words? This is stupid.'


The male lead of Enchanted asked something similar, saying it doesn't happen in real life, then EVERYONE burst into the song the female lead started to sing.

RHPS had a good ballance of singing/acting and to an extent "Sweet Transvestite" barring repatition, works just as well as spoken dialogue.

RE the line fron rent, never seeing the movie or stage production, I can't comment fully, but written down, the line kinda works, perhaps it was just the delivery, that or some lines work best on paper, but should never be spoken, lest the meaning become skewed (no I don't mean paraphrased, still uttered as verbatum).

[jackfaire]

The male lead of Enchanted asked something similar, saying it doesn't happen in real life, then EVERYONE burst into the song the female lead started to sing.


Yeah but that was part of the story. The blurring of reality and Disney Princess land.

Like how she got angry when pre Jasmine Disney princesses rarely if ever get angry.

[AdminAssistant]

RE the line fron rent, never seeing the movie or stage production, I can't comment fully, but written down, the line kinda works, perhaps it was just the delivery, that or some lines work best on paper, but should never be spoken, lest the meaning become skewed (no I don't mean paraphrased, still uttered as verbatum).

It was that they asked someone who had been singing that line for well over 10 years to suddenly speak it and make it sound like natural spoken dialogue. He couldn't do it. That was just an example, there are plenty others. As I said, it's a terrible adaptation of the musical. (Yeah, let's just cut the parts where the protagonist struggles with watching his friends die so that we can have more time for Rosario Dawson to shiver.)

[Kheldarson]

I remember that line in the movie. It was so stilted, like he was trying to deliver a bad poem. >.<

And that was one of the most quoted lines of my group of friends. We'd just do the musical off that line.