|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 2, 2017 13:13:51 GMT
If they get that burned out, time to hang up the jacket and sit with a pipe and slippers?.. and the men can sit with a can of beer?.. The job is to review the film. Its not to add your own personality to that review, its to review the film, for the average film goer, that hasnt been to see all the films maybe that you have. You have to hang on to that "Wow" factor for as long as possible. Movies are about entertainment, but what is entertaining is down to personal tastes. Good and helpful reviews actually NEED the reviewer to show their personality, as this allows you as the reader to judge if their tastes are similar to your own. Overtime it also allows you to judge if they are someone who will tend to be fair when looking at films they themselves didn't like. People tend, and should, look for reviewers with tastes similar to their own. The job of a reviewer is to give their opinion of a film before anyone spends money on seeing it. For example I've seen a few bad reviews of Wonder Woman (not many, but some). Most of those are simply 'worst film ever' and a low score, which tells me nothing as to why that person didn't like it. (Actually that doesn't even tell me if they've even seen the film). Most of the other reviews that say more tend to boil down to 'Its a DC film therefore must be bad' or 'Wahh! Female lead Superhero film! My fragile male ego is threatened!' There are however some negative reviews where the reviewer has taken a bit more time to explain themselves, which shows they've actually seen the film, and raised a number of points. Now I may disagree with those points overall, and in some cases feel as if the reviewer went in either expecting far more than the film was ever going to deliver or predisposed to give it a bad review and hence are nit-picking. But I'm much more willing to consider what they have to say when or if anyone asks me to 'review' the film myself, especially when they make reasonable points. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 2, 2017 13:59:09 GMT
If they get that burned out, time to hang up the jacket and sit with a pipe and slippers?.. and the men can sit with a can of beer?.. The job is to review the film. Its not to add your own personality to that review, its to review the film, for the average film goer, that hasnt been to see all the films maybe that you have. You have to hang on to that "Wow" factor for as long as possible. Movies are about entertainment, but what is entertaining is down to personal tastes. Good and helpful reviews actually NEED the reviewer to show their personality, as this allows you as the reader to judge if their tastes are similar to your own. Overtime it also allows you to judge if they are someone who will tend to be fair when looking at films they themselves didn't like. People tend, and should, look for reviewers with tastes similar to their own. The job of a reviewer is to give their opinion of a film before anyone spends money on seeing it. For example I've seen a few bad reviews of Wonder Woman (not many, but some). Most of those are simply 'worst film ever' and a low score, which tells me nothing as to why that person didn't like it. (Actually that doesn't even tell me if they've even seen the film). Most of the other reviews that say more tend to boil down to 'Its a DC film therefore must be bad' or 'Wahh! Female lead Superhero film! My fragile male ego is threatened!' There are however some negative reviews where the reviewer has taken a bit more time to explain themselves, which shows they've actually seen the film, and raised a number of points. Now I may disagree with those points overall, and in some cases feel as if the reviewer went in either expecting far more than the film was ever going to deliver or predisposed to give it a bad review and hence are nit-picking. But I'm much more willing to consider what they have to say when or if anyone asks me to 'review' the film myself, especially when they make reasonable points. My thought would be a reviewer needs to address certain factors that make the film good or bad: 1: mechanics. is the cinematography a hot mess? did the director take the artistic choice of filming it in total darkness, or with a hundred high intensity spotlights aimed at the lens at all times? (I'm talking to you, JJ.) does the music track make it impossible for a person with adult hearing loss to hear the dialogue? 2: acting. could kristen stewart do better? do you have a million dollar actor who really doesn't want to be there at any price? 3: writing. Can you tell WTF is going on? do you care? 4: accuracy/believeability if it is about something that happened, does it bear a resemblance to actual events? if it is something that hasn't happened, can you persuade yourself to believe it might happen? those factors determine the quality of the movie. once the reviewer has addressed those, then they may address items of personal taste such as "there weren't enough black jewish gays in Hitler's personal guard to make my SJW sensibilities happy" or "I absofrikkinlutely hate horror movies, and I will get even with my editor for making me watch this movie if it is the last thing I do." |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 3, 2017 0:19:41 GMT
"In and of itself, this film is a pretty serviceable teen number; it's not something adults would be into, but it'll keep kids and teens busy for a few hours. But instead of being billed as 'High School Musical 4, This Time With Mild Sci-Fi Elements', this was billed as 'Jem and the Holograms'. The original television show set a very high bar in terms of writing, characterization, and even how progressive it was for the day; for example, not only did it feature one of the first inter-racial relationships in American kids' programming, it was *Jerrica* who was trying to take ownership of Starlight. The film absolutely failed to clear that bar. Much of what made the original series so progressive in the first place was paved over, but as if to add insult to injury the film tried to pave over the portions that were paved over by throwing out the series' old catch-phrases every few minutes so that we had no choice but to remember what we were supposed to be watching and how pale an imitation it actually was. The film may be good enough in its own right, but if you ask me today's kids could well benefit from seeing the original."
- My final conclusions on "Jem & The Holograms".
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 3, 2017 6:50:03 GMT
If they get that burned out, time to hang up the jacket and sit with a pipe and slippers?.. and the men can sit with a can of beer?.. The job is to review the film. Its not to add your own personality to that review, its to review the film, for the average film goer, that hasnt been to see all the films maybe that you have. You have to hang on to that "Wow" factor for as long as possible. Movies are about entertainment, but what is entertaining is down to personal tastes. Good and helpful reviews actually NEED the reviewer to show their personality, as this allows you as the reader to judge if their tastes are similar to your own. Overtime it also allows you to judge if they are someone who will tend to be fair when looking at films they themselves didn't like. People tend, and should, look for reviewers with tastes similar to their own. The job of a reviewer is to give their opinion of a film before anyone spends money on seeing it. cut for brevity only. My own ideals would be. [alongside what TLW has said, not to disagree, but for discussion...] 1] A Short Non Spoiler description of the film that tells the reader in as few words or as many as are exactly needed as to what the film is all about. Is there a plot, and is it believable, does it matter, and s short fade into paragraph two.. 2] A General review "Works for me" or "This is like being slapped with a large wet oyster" [?..it was the fishes day off...] or "Total trash", or "You have to be under 12 to appreciate this", and why it does what it does, which is again segwaying to paragraph three... 3] the authors own personal views on the film and why it didnt work for him. 4] Why the cast matter.... and this should be down here, not up there... so if for instance Hugh Jackass Grant has spoiled the hell out of the film by playing the same typecast bumbling ijurt from England who relies on his posh voice to carry him, the if that has spoiled the film at stage two above, then its because of bad acting, and that alone can ruin a bad film, but it shouldnt be that way[/b] and therefore the cast review should be down here, because they should all be good actors in the first place. 5] Age range and why, and final score. The final score should be 10/10 for Sci-Fi, OR 10/10 for Historical fiction, OR 10/10 for Romantic, not a 10/10 "One size fits all", because a 10/10 romantic sloppy chick flick is a -10 for hard core sci-fi fans, so the distinction needs to be made that way?.. I also suggest that the review "Team" substitute a personality that is say against all comedy because they dont ave a funny muscle that can make them smile, for someone who can appreciate "slapstick", therefore you dont get a "Childish immature nonsense" review as I saw one response to the lego batman movie... we knew that already, some of us would want a silly film to break the monotony of dark moody barely lit crud that has been hanging about of recent years, so go find us a reviewer that can do that. Again, For discussion... did we miss anything yet?. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 3, 2017 13:52:19 GMT
your #1 is called the "dramatic action" and officially, it is a one sentence description of what happens in the movie.
for example, LOTR is about a small person who has to walk through a bad neighborhood to return jewelry.
note that if you can't possibly make a one sentence summary, the plot is probably far too complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 4, 2017 8:26:37 GMT
What happens when the promised dramatic action is a slow ponderous ramble back and forth between "Pollyfilla" characters up to a single obvious CGI rendition of a rather bad explosion and a bad choreographed fight scene?..
My resemblance there to any film is purely coincidental, but, if you can pick the film I was describing, bonus points...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 4, 2017 14:20:53 GMT
What happens when the promised dramatic action is a slow ponderous ramble back and forth between "Pollyfilla" characters up to a single obvious CGI rendition of a rather bad explosion and a bad choreographed fight scene?.. My resemblance there to any film is purely coincidental, but, if you can pick the film I was describing, bonus points... then an honest reviewer will state that as the dramatic action. "this movie is about a slow ramble leading to an explosion and a fight." |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 9, 2017 6:36:31 GMT
I watched it last night and like LTW sort of enjoyed it, the plot was a bit all over the place and the male lead could not,quite carry the film, but the design elements were strong with shades of the Fifth Element showing.
The marketplace sequence was inventive and Clive Owen was a good baddie.
According to Box Office Mojo the films budget was around 170-180 million dollars, it's taken 210 million dollars doing well in places like China and France (naturally) it needs the make a bit more to be a success but it's not a complete disaster
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 9, 2017 13:01:23 GMT
I watched it last night and like LTW sort of enjoyed it, the plot was a bit all over the place and the male lead could not,quite carry the film, but the design elements were strong with shades of the Fifth Element showing. The marketplace sequence was inventive and Clive Owen was a good baddie. According to Box Office Mojo the films budget was around 170-180 million dollars, it's taken 210 million dollars doing well in places like China and France (naturally) it needs the make a bit more to be a success but it's not a complete disaster The budget doesn't include marketing, so the actual cost to the studio is a few million more than what is officially confirmed. Studios don't and don't have to put the marketing budget for a film into its overall production costs. Only about half the box office takings go back to the studio, the other half goes to distributors and cinema chains. So the actual cost of the film would have been at least $200 million, and the actual income to the studio would be some $105 million. The actual accounting is difficult to accurately work out, usually deliberately since not only does Hollywood go to great lengths to hide how much money they do or don't actually make. But there is also the issues of tax breaks, 'creative accounting' that is the envy of many a bank and also how many people get a slice of the pie. (In the latter case some people will get a percentage of a films takings, such as Robert Downey Jr). But this works as a basic formula to estimate how much money a film really made for its creators. Another rough way to see if a film was a success for the studio would be to ask if the estimated profit would be enough to make another film in the same price range. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 12, 2017 7:22:02 GMT
your #1 is called the "dramatic action" and officially, it is a one sentence description of what happens in the movie. for example, LOTR is about a small person who has to walk through a bad neighborhood to return jewelry. note that if you can't possibly make a one sentence summary, the plot is probably far too complicated. As funny as I find your description of LOTR, I personally prefer the description of the plot to be a little longer and more detailed. The descriptions on the backs of DVDs are about the right length for me (but they're rarely well written). Something of that length would work for me in a review. Not too long and not too short, but just enough to figure out if this might be something for you or not. Other than that, I agree with the things people have listed as essentials for a good review. A short summary to tell you what it's about, a description of how well the story is told, including visual effects, a review of the actors and how well they carry their roles, a summary of what you personally think about the movie and then a recommendation for age and audience type. One pit I would be careful not to fall into when giving my personal opinion is the whole "this story is SOOO predictable" thing. Yes, I might have seen a ton of movies with the same tropes again and again, but just because I can predict what's going to happen based on my experience, that doesn't mean everyone else can. Even if they can, some people like predictability. If they didn't, romantic comedies and typical hero movies would have been dead long ago, so just take it for what it is and answer the one question everyone wants from you: Does it work or does it suck on so many parameters that it's not worth it? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 12, 2017 10:37:22 GMT
Hero movies, all of them, start with a badly shaped hero "who needs to improve", one or two fights later, he has improved. If the hero dies, we wouldnt watch the film. If its a bunch of hero's and just ONE dies, we can accept that. But we can all predict how its going to end. Unless this is all about the hero's eventual demise and the film is their life story and how they got to be who they are. The enjoyment of the film is not about the end, its about how they get there, and how the "ebil" one gets their come-uppance. Side discussion... In all the "You have to let a woman do that part" type calls we get these days, do we see a lot of women "demanding" the part of the bad one?.. Bad guys and girls, you either got it, or you aint. And playing the bad one, is an art form that we all fail to applaud well. In EVERY situation, its the journey through the film that entertains. I was once taught a trick on buying a new book. Read the last page first. If that intrigues you enough to want to know how it all got there, then buy the book. Does it spoil the plot?. HELL NO.... Well not for me anyway, I aint one of them that can have a whole film "Spoilt" by some drunk wandering along the queue shouting "Dumbledore died" kind of thing... I do however have problems with those who are intent on trying to tell you the good parts without soiling the film?.. They are impatient, let me WATCH THE DAMN THING. Keep the "Critique" down to the bare minimum, dont try to tell me to watch for certain parts that you wont spoil for me, because you already did, in your impatience to "Not spoil it for you"?... you have said too much if its more than say 50 words?.. Hows that for an upper limit, 50 words maximum?. Or should it be lower?. More than a "twitverse" post but Much Much Much less than a Dragon post?..  who me?.. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 12, 2017 13:50:27 GMT
your #1 is called the "dramatic action" and officially, it is a one sentence description of what happens in the movie. for example, LOTR is about a small person who has to walk through a bad neighborhood to return jewelry. note that if you can't possibly make a one sentence summary, the plot is probably far too complicated. As funny as I find your description of LOTR, I personally prefer the description of the plot to be a little longer and more detailed. The descriptions on the backs of DVDs are about the right length for me (but they're rarely well written). Something of that length would work for me in a review. Not too long and not too short, but just enough to figure out if this might be something for you or not. Other than that, I agree with the things people have listed as essentials for a good review. A short summary to tell you what it's about, a description of how well the story is told, including visual effects, a review of the actors and how well they carry their roles, a summary of what you personally think about the movie and then a recommendation for age and audience type. One pit I would be careful not to fall into when giving my personal opinion is the whole "this story is SOOO predictable" thing. Yes, I might have seen a ton of movies with the same tropes again and again, but just because I can predict what's going to happen based on my experience, that doesn't mean everyone else can. Even if they can, some people like predictability. If they didn't, romantic comedies and typical hero movies would have been dead long ago, so just take it for what it is and answer the one question everyone wants from you: Does it work or does it suck on so many parameters that it's not worth it? yes, dramatic action is different from a synopsis. a synopsis is a one paragraph description of what what happens except for the "spoiler" part. |
|
who me?..