How do you 'use' film reviews?

[joeyrock]

I was thinking about this after coming back from the cinema yesterday. What do I read/listen/watch reviews of films I already know I'm going to see regardless? Jeff talks about not wanting to know anything about a movie or see a trailer. I want that too, but it's not so clean cut for me.

I'm getting old now (all of 26) and have seen a lot of movies. For me there seems to be two types of film watching experiences. I used to go to the cinema much more when I was a kid, so it's more of an event now than it used to be. I want to squeeze as much fun out the experience regardless of the quality of the film. The same applies when I've brought a DVD/BR.

If a film is a mediocre I can still enjoy the sheer act of watching a new movie. But to do that I need to know exactly what I'm going to see. If I'm surprised by unexpected badness, that's like finding Corn Flakes in the box of Frosties. If I expect a film to be crapish, and it is, that's okay. My time hasn't been wasted. Corn Flakes are perfectly edible.

Then there are movies that are a complete surprise and offer a brilliant experience. But that brilliance can be sullied by knowing too much before hand. It's tricky to work out which way a film is going to go, reviews are important for me.

[jabber]

I know what you mean. There are some movies that I want to experience completely raw, having seen as little beforehand as possible. The new Star Trek film is a good example of that. I'm also a huge Spider-Man fan so I avoided all pre-release media regarding those films. These are the kinds of movies that, good or bad, I will enjoy the experience of seeing them. The discussion with friends after viewing will be worth the price of admission. If the new Star Trek movie meets or exceeds our expectations, we'll relish the recounting of our favorite moments. If it falls short, we'll have great fun trashing the poor thing while we guzzle a beer at the bar.

Then there are the movies that have the potential to be great but usually are fairly mediocre, like summer blockbusters for example. Before I drop $14 on a ticket, I want to know if the majority of people whose opinions I trust have enjoyed it. Most of these kinds of movies end up being good Netflix fodder but had I paid for a cinema ticket, I might have been much more disappointed in the experience. Transformers is a good example. Most of my trusted sources gave it a "meh" so I waited for the DVD and after seeing it, I'm glad I did. I enjoyed it much more at home than I would have in a theater having paid full price for a ticket. All my friends loved Iron Man so I saw it at the theater and loved it. I consider reviews the most for movies like these. My interest in the movie may be casual and if I hear favorable murmurs, I'll go see it.

Finally, there are movies like Election, The Usual Suspects, Napoleon Dynamite and Sunshine. These are movies I knew nothing about but was so surprised and delighted by how wonderful they were that the experience of seeing them in the theater has stayed with me even today.

[stubadub]

If it is a movie that I'm not too familiar with, I'll read enough from several reviews to get a general synopsis while trying to avoid spoilers if possible.

For films that I know I'm going to see I won't read more than the barest of general impressions and try to avoid detail altogether. I just want to know what the reviewers i normally follow think of the film in the most general sense, thumbs up or thumbs down. After I've seen it I will return to these same reviews to see how their opinions differed from my own, and at that point I try to target spoiler filled reviews specifically. I avoided watchmen reviews for weeks, but now have spent most of the last week reading those same reviews.

[pruben]

I know I can't trust reviews. Someone gives one star other five. All reviews are subjective reviews. Everyone who reviews movies thinks different.
I use reviews to understand the movie. I compare different reviews and see what was liked and disliked. A few times it changes my mind about whether or not I'm going to see a movie.

[masherscf]

You can trust reviews. The trouble is that you have to establish a base-line for each reviewer. You need to find a reviewer that closely matches your taste. Read reviews for movies you've already seen and take note when you agree with the reviewer. The more times you agree with that person, the more you should trust their review. Random reviews are worthless.

I actually avoid reading reviews for movies before I've seen them unless I honestly can't make up my mind. I also pay more attention to positive reviews than bad ones since the things that make a movie good are more universal and things that people don't like tend ti point toward personal taste. And, positive opinions are sometimes harder to give than negative ones. Just look at comments on Digg.

For example, Jeff Cannata has never given a positive opinion of a movie that I haven't liked. However, I find his negative opinion of "The Mummy" unfair and confusing. So, I trust Jeff when he says a movie is good, but not when he says it's bad.

I have a better track record with Roger Ebert who almost always agrees with my opiniion. He loved "The Mummy." However, I still get burned even by Roger. He loved "Glen Gary, Glen Ross' and I hated it.

So, pay your ticket...take your chances.

[7h0m45]

if i want to see a movie, i'm going to see a movie. I never read full reviews before previewing a movie, if TRS reviews a movie thats not out yet i will skip that part until after i see it.

but if a movie that was not on my radar or something i was not very interested in seeing is getting amazing reviews from a majority of people, i will check it out.

[terryscss]

I don't read a ton of reviews, I may read one I stumble upon, but I don't seek them out. It may be weird, but I don't really watch TRS as a review show, I sorta think of them as my friends talking about something I may or may not dig. I don't trust everything any of them say to be true for me, my tastes are pretty specific and I like a lot of stuff most people hate, but I love to hear their conversation. I enjoy watching their reviews much more when I have seen the movie they're talking about, but I don't avoid them if I haven't caught the flick yet.

[cucumberboy]

Sometimes the reviews in for example the newspapers are all pretty unanimous over a movie's quality and maybe I'm boring, but I tend to agree with those reviews and so I usually read those before I watch the movie because they hardly ever reveal any spoilers.

TRS is a unique source of reviews in that I enjoy it more after I've seen the movie and I try to watch the film before in the extent I can. However, here in the polar regions we get the movies a while after it's released in the US so I usually find myself watching the TRS review first. But that totally works to. If the show wasn't such great entertainment I wouldn't watch it in the first place.

[darksyns]

I don't use em at all plain and simple.

I've always found reviews tend to skew my perception of the film one way or another. So now I go in with no expectations and usually am satisfied.

[esophagus]

You can trust reviews. The trouble is that you have to establish a base-line for each reviewer. You need to find a reviewer that closely matches your taste. Read reviews for movies you've already seen and take note when you agree with the reviewer. The more times you agree with that person, the more you should trust their review. Random reviews are worthless.

I actually avoid reading reviews for movies before I've seen them unless I honestly can't make up my mind. I also pay more attention to positive reviews than bad ones since the things that make a movie good are more universal and things that people don't like tend ti point toward personal taste. And, positive opinions are sometimes harder to give than negative ones. Just look at comments on Digg.

For example, Jeff Cannata has never given a positive opinion of a movie that I haven't liked. However, I find his negative opinion of "The Mummy" unfair and confusing. So, I trust Jeff when he says a movie is good, but not when he says it's bad.

I have a better track record with Roger Ebert who almost always agrees with my opiniion. He loved "The Mummy." However, I still get burned even by Roger. He loved "Glen Gary, Glen Ross' and I hated it.

So, pay your ticket...take your chances.
This. If Dan likes a film its almost guaranteed I'll like it. We don't, however, always share the same criticisms, largely do to a lot of his "looking at this from a filmmakers standpoint" criticisms.

In other news, Masher is a cyborg. This is the only way to not like Glengarry Glenn Ross.

[tsmith15]

The farthest I go is check the imdb rating or the rotten tomatoes %, because anything more than that and it adversely affects my expectations. I base it entirely off how I feel watching the first (and only) trailer I see for a movie.

[heyseuss]

I used to use a pipe, but now I heat my reviews up in a spoon.

[rabidbadger]

I woulda missed SO many good movies if not for reviews. Example... I NEVER would have known about "blood simple" (coen bros first movie) if not for Roger and Ebert. Saw it in the theater, fell in love with Coen bros. ever since.

Film classes at the local university helped me find, and understand, older movies, too.

[masherscf]

In other news, Masher is a cyborg. This is the only way to not like Glengarry Glenn Ross.

It put me to sleep, dude. I remember a bunch of foul-mouth assholes chewing the scenery trying to out badass each other. People I couldn't care about. Wasn't that the subtitle, "Foul mouthed assholes?"

This. If Dan likes a film its almost guaranteed I'll like it. We don't, however, always share the same criticisms, largely do to a lot of his "looking at this from a filmmakers standpoint" criticisms.
.

This is actually my major criticism of Dan. He critiques films the same way I critique photography. He watches film in order to inform his own film making. Everything he says is stop on. But, he enjoys film on a different level then most people do. You need to ignore Dan's recommendation, but listen to his evaluation nevertheless. Sometimes what he says is really quite brilliant.

For example, I may have enjoyed "Watchman" more than Dan. But, his reason's for not enjoying it as much as the others are the same reasons I have for not enjoying it more than I did.

[terryscss]

This is actually my major criticism of Dan. He critiques films the same way I critique photography. He watches film in order to inform his own film making. Everything he says is stop on. But, he enjoys film on a different level then most people do. You need to ignore Dan's recommendation, but listen to his evaluation nevertheless. Sometimes what he says is really quite brilliant.

I think that's why dan is my "favorite," as someone who wants to pursue filmmaking, he tells me the kind of stuff I should be looking for. I love that I can get that from a show like TRS, where I also get reviews from a fan's pov.