chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (03/07/86)
> > If a reviewers opinions consistently disagree > >with the average movie viewers is that reviewer really providing a service by > >reviewing movies? > My general feeling is that a reviewer should say how he/she felt about it, > and that's it. This provides the following service: > readers/viewers/listeners read/watch/listen the reviews of several different > critics. They go to see films and compare their reaction to that of the > reviewers. When they find a reviewer who seems to agree with their opinions > a majority of the time, they start reading this person's reviews regularly. > Reviewers who they don't agree with have their opinions ignored or > discounted. Well, I sort of mostly agree with Moriarty, kinda. I've been doing a LOT of research into what makes a good review for my fanzine OtherRealms. I've just published an article called 'How to Write a Review' in the latest issue aimed primarily at book reviews, but many of the comments are just as valid for movie reviews. I think it is MORE important that a reviewer discuss WHY they liked or disliked a work than whether or not they liked it (or not). You need to help your reader understand the limits of your objectivity (reviewing is objectively a subjective operation) so that they can compare that with their own limits and decide whether or not to agree with your review. A strong key in this is consistency -- anyone who reviews a number of works needs to define a common ground between themselves and their readers, and make sure the reader knows when that common ground is left. If you normally hate SF movies or hate rock music soundtracks or are having an affair with Sly stallone or hate graphic violence or sex or whatever the reader needs to know it because these prejudices affect your overall review. If your reader loves rock and you don't, you'd probably pan Tommy while they'd love it, and it is up to you to help the reader understand these limitations. As far as I'm concerned, a reviewer that I disagree with consistently is just as useful as one I agree with completely. There is a certain critic on a certain syndicated movie review program that I KNOW if he pans a certain class of movie I'm going to enjoy it. I also know that if he pans other movies (where we tend to agree) they need to be avoideds. But the fact that he hates some movies that I tend to like is quite useful to me, since I can still use him as a reliable filtering mechanism. that, of course, is all a reviewer is -- a way for readers or viewers to decide whether to invest the time and money in the complete item. The worst reviewers are the ones that review for their own benefit and not the readers, since they are out for ego gratification and not to get information out to the people that need it. chuq -- :From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.ARPA FidoNet: 125/84 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!chuq Somehow, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore...