• jsheradin@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    Historically I never had the patience but I’ve watched a ton of movies over the past couple years (easily 300+) and initially I agreed with audience rating. Although I’m far from an insufferable cinephile and really don’t care about underlying theory and whatnot, I definitely find myself agreeing more with critic rating now. Of course there’s plenty of exceptions where I disagreed with both. Movies can be fun or awful for you regardless of what anyone else thinks.

    That being said, I think Roger Ebert’s reviews usually nail it. That man was a connoisseur of weird enjoyable movies and quick to call out corporate crap.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’ve been with this in video games too.

      I spot it with Ubisoft. The entire audience is primed to the idea Ubisoft = Open World = Slop which is sometimes true but many levels of disingenuous. Ubi has some pretty good writers that have made some enjoyable characters, though they’re often muddled by the need to build 80 hours of content. So when a Ubisoft game gets good reviews (not often) everyone feels it was paid off and that it’s laden with microtransactions. Meanwhile I’ll be like “If I literally wanted to burn money on this game I wouldn’t even know which menu it’s in…”

    • Karjalan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      As much as certain people like to proclaim reviewers are paid shills or sycophants, especially whenever a movie with diversity cast does well… The audience metric is nigh on useless half of the time.

      Look at that Melania movies critic and audience score. Then see a genuinely great movie with some non white person cast in a main role get review bombed to hell and back by the same people