• 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.”