[ SECRET POST #3060 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3060 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


02.



__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #437.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

06. http://i.imgur.com/mQcg84E.png

[(Anonymous)]

It could also be that the critics have bad taste, and knowing the critics, I'd say that's more likely.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it was a good movie even though I personally was not scared while watching. Great cinematography and music.

[(Anonymous)]

More than likely is that you want different things from movies than the critics. Different strokes and all.

[dethtoll]

Yeah, this. Critics tend to go for things that have a veneer of arthouse to them; the average viewing audience simply isn't interested in that and would rather have more straightforward films. Nothing wrong with that, though.

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't say a "veneer of arthouse". I think what they really look for is something substantive, above and beyond typically cinematic fare. They see so many films that yet-another-slasher-flick or by-the-numbers-explodarama no longer hold any particular interest to them. They've seen it a thousand times before.

Critics tend to favour the sort of films which are benefited by rewatching, because they contain enough substance to mull over. It's about thematic depth more than arthousity.

[cloud_riven]

Pretty much. Like with games, and even tv recaps, I tend to try to find reviewers whose ideas of what makes an entertaining movie line up with mine. A general mass of who-the-fucks I rarely agree with isn't going to tell me much other than who to lookup for a hatereading session.

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't say bad, just that your tastes don't align with the critics, and that's perfectly normal.

[comma_chameleon]

I quite enjoyed it. It wasn't your typical slasher/gore horror film and I liked it for that.

Could there have been things done differently that I feel would have improved it? Absolutely. But it kept my interest while watching it, which is more than a lot of movies do.

[making_excuses]

Critics, especially those over 25/30 was educated in film/television studies in a completely different way than what the new guard of film/tv students are. We are taught about the history of film, but also about how much effort and skill it takes to make a blockbuster. We are taught about genres and sub genres and different rules for different genres. The "old" guard was taught that classical films are the best and that the films that are really great are the ones that are classical or strives to be in one of the genres that we have today inspired by that. Also there are "rules" to story telling and cinematography and miss-en-scene that you "have" to follow to make a great film, and some film critics tends to get a bit too hung up in that and not in how the film actually is experienced. And I will stop writing now, because this is turning into a novel.

So yes you probably don't align up to film critics when it comes to judging films. But that does not mean you have bad taste in film, no one can have a bad taste in film as such. Just different tastes in film.

also from experience my classmates that want to review films are the ones who have the most elitis film taste ever so that might also explain it.

[dethtoll]

You summed it up much more expertly than I did.

[making_excuses]

I am happy my degree is useful for something.

[(Anonymous)]

But then again, nowadays the definition of 'critics' isn't so cut-and-dry. Not only are younger writers coming up the ranks but many reviewers are also just random people with a YouTube channel. Most of the time, though, you will get something like a critical consensus even with such varied folks writing reviews; that was the case for this particular film, for example.

[cushlamochree]

I mean, critics are just a bunch of people, really.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, you don't have bad taste. I know some people who went to see this movie and they thought it was pretty dumb. It's not just you.

[cloud_riven]

Nah. My dad does this thing where he'll only watch movies that get good ratings (ie: "cinco stars from a source I can't even name. We should watch this 8|"), and then complains afterwards about what a shitty movie it was, and how could it get cinco stars when it wasn't even worth uno star.

He kinda has shit taste though.

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't seen it but I don't think your opinion is that unusual because I've heard a couple people coming out of the movie saying that it wasn't as good as the reviews lead them to believe.

I sometimes use reviews as a gauge on whether or not I should see something I'm on the fence about, but I never feel like I should agree with them entirely. Same thing with awards. I've HATED a lot of movies and performances that were extremely rewarded so I just can't take that stuff seriously when it's all subjective.