Comment

Kinda why Siskel and Ebert was popular back in the day. Siskel approached criticism as being about trying to encourage film makers to make better movies. Ebert was about indicating whether he thought the audience would like the movie. So they would debate. One of them or both would often be wrong. But from the discussion you could get an idea about whether it’s a movie you might enjoy.

There just isn’t anything like that now. You’re going either hear someone tell you it’s the best thing ever, or it’s the worst thing ever. Someone will review it as if it’s supposed to be art while someone else will tell you if it’s got good action scenes in it. These will all be ones or zeros that are added up to produce a rotten tomato number. We don’t even really know what perspective someone is reviewing something from.

You’re right, it’s all subjective so there’s no way to know whether you’ll like a movie until you’ve watched it yourself.

source

Sort:hotnew top

grrgyle@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Actually reminded me of Ebert’s review of The One. He roasted it while accurately predicting that a basic person like me would love it.

If you just saw 1.5/5 you’d think wow what a stinker and miss out on this incredible brainless vibe piece sitting at the border of 90-00 dripping in pre-cringe cool, just before everything would get way too gritty and serious.

source
- SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Yeah it depends on what you want from a movie. My favourite Siskel and Ebert review was for the third Inidana Jones movie. Siskel didn’t like it because there wasn’t enough depth to the father and son relationship. Ebert recommended it because, well you got to an Indiana Jones movie for the action, and the action scenes were good.
  
  So I’m Ebert’s side on that one, because yeah I’m going there to see Indy on horseback go up against a tank. Sure maybe the father and son relationship didn’t have a lot of depth, but that was because their conversations kept getting interrupted by action scenes. Which is what I’m there to see.
  
  So it’s not that Siskel was wrong, I just don’t care about what he was criticizing on that one. If it were more of an arthouse drama kind of thing, then I would care about his criticism. But the discussion indicates the father-son parts of the movie weren’t bad, just there wasn’t a lot. Too me there was enough of that for an action movie, so it’s a good movie.
  
  Hearing the different perspectives meant you could decide which one you care about most and gave a better indication of whether you will like the move.
  
  90% on rotten tomatoes? I don’t know what that means.
  
  source
grrgyle@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
I was specifically thinking about Siskel and Ebert while reading this post yeah. I actually loved their reviews.

Funnily enough I very frequently disagreed with their opinions, but between the two of them they explained so well what made the movie appealing or not, that I was able to make up my own mind based on the text of the review even if the “rating” was not one I agreed with.

And then of course the more you read a reviewer and get to know where your opinions line up and where they differ, the more useful their reviews become. Same thing with IRL friends ofc.

source
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
How can you be wrong about an opinion?

source
- cmbabul@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  It’s not that Siskel’s opinion or critique of the film was wrong, but his contention that his average audience member would dislike the movie for the same reasons he disliked it were at least for this poster incorrect.
  
  source
  - PapaStevesy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Based on the info from the comment in question, I’m guessing you meant Ebert? But yeah, that tracks! Though they did say they were sometimes both wrong. I can see how one’s opinion of whether or not other people will like something could be proven wrong, but not an opinion of what makes a good movie, that’s entirely subjective.
    
    source
    cmbabul@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Yeah I got mixed up bit you got what I meant, and they both could easily be wrong! Art is always an ongoing subjective conversation between artist and audience and then subsequently audience to audience
    
    source