• MissJinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Critics don’t judge entertainment they judge “art”. Artistic films are not made to entertain, they are made for concept or to “get a message across”. A Critics opinion is not for the public, it’s for pretencious “artists”

      • Delphia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re being downvoted but in a way you’re right.

        You cant be a food reviewer and review a pepperoni pizza as “the worst soup I ever had”. You need to review things as what they set out to achieve.

        • blargerer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most film critics do judge on entertainment value though. The difference is that film critics are watching like 200 movies a year (or more) so a lot more stuff is going to seem like tired retreads to them.

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I also think there’s a certain…let’s slide into whiskey, for a minute. Whiskey affectionados, the ones who know when to spell it with or without an E, own their own glencairn glasses and such, tend to dislike Crown Royal effectively because it’s a basic bitch whiskey. There’s way more exciting whiskies out there than Crown. Crown Royal sells a LOT of whiskey, a lot of it to people who don’t even recognize it as whiskey. In their mind, “it’s Crown Royal.”

        So the whiskey critic who went to booze school and got a master’s degree in liquoroloy will pan it, and folks who just want something easy to drink over rocks or to booze up a diet coke will read the expert review and say “This man is obviously a rock chewing idiot.”