Quote from: kosmos1214;1094128Next lets talk about specific channels and sources to avoid.

#1 is cinamasins and related channels

#2 Movie bob aka bob chipman

#3 Mothersbasment , digibro and padantic romantic

1: Cinema Sins. More like Cinema lies. That and The Game Theorist are tops on my hate list of fake reviewers.

2: More and more reviewers seem to be leaning this or that way as it creeps into their reviews. Others have some notable bad behavior or are just grating or eletist to the point its not a review anymore its creeping into a holier than thou screed. Linkara and Channel Awesome to name a few that have had issues.

3: Yeah MothersBasement has some serious issues and just makes stuff up out of the blue to further their hate screeds. His ongoing screed against Sword Art Online only seemed to end when he locked onto Goblin Slayer.

Non-professional reviews have been iffy for a long time now unfortunately.

No love for Red Letter Media?

I often enjoy watching their reviews of the movie more than the movie itself.

I don't always agree with everything but I think their content is pretty balanced, their points are well supported, they love movies so much it practically oozes through the screen, and they're funny and engaging.

Critics often like movies that are artistic - many of them have a deep knowledge of film and they respond to movies that directly appeal to them.  When a critic starts talking about how the camera-work evokes Alfred Hitchcock, etc, that's not usually something that 'regular viewers' will be aware of or care about.  Where this tends to be most apparent is with action movies.  Action movies thrive on spectacle over substance (at least, many do).  Critics tend to dismiss visuals as relatively unimportant compared to other elements.  

Audiences tend to enjoy movies they see - they self-select for movies that interest them.  Until recently, it was rare to see a movie with an audience score lower than a critic's score.  Critics tend to be more...critical....than general audiences.  Unfortunately, there has been an attempt to manipulate the audience scores by people who haven't seen particular movies.  That means that it's harder to trust audience scores because you no longer know which way they're biased.  When they were consistently POSITIVELY biased, you could cut off 20% and assume that's how good it would be on a 10 point scale.  Now you have to add PLUS OR MINUS 20%, so it could range from absolute garbage to excellent depending on who is gaming the system.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1094344No love for Red Letter Media?

I often enjoy watching their reviews of the movie more than the movie itself.

I don't always agree with everything but I think their content is pretty balanced, their points are well supported, they love movies so much it practically oozes through the screen, and they're funny and engaging.

Honestly not one I'm familiar with I do watch a little cinifix and enjoy them but they tend to only cover stuff after its years old.

Quote from: Omega;10942931: Cinema Sins. More like Cinema lies. That and The Game Theorist are tops on my hate list of fake reviewers.

2: More and more reviewers seem to be leaning this or that way as it creeps into their reviews. Others have some notable bad behavior or are just grating or eletist to the point its not a review anymore its creeping into a holier than thou screed. Linkara and Channel Awesome to name a few that have had issues.

3: Yeah MothersBasement has some serious issues and just makes stuff up out of the blue to further their hate screeds. His ongoing screed against Sword Art Online only seemed to end when he locked onto Goblin Slayer.

Non-professional reviews have been iffy for a long time now unfortunately.

With non professional reviews I tend to find that its not that bad as long as you pay attension to make sure they don't turn in to a shit stain.


And I left it out but mother's basement is quite a bit worse mb will deliberately misrepresent arguments in contrary to his own opinion and work to actively hide the argument he disagrees with.
There is a little youtuber I found and watch a little of called Uniquenameosaurus he makes very little high quality content (like ye olde youtube) and he made a set of videos about why you should pirate anime explaining the problems with the increasing streaming monopoly. MB took issue with this made a response and misrepresenting the argument made and when poked admitted he was actively trying to hide the video.(I also recommend Uniquenameosaurus)
https://www.youtube.com/user/Uniquenameosaurus/videos

There are also a few I forgot to recommend
Chibireviews
Mostly ep by ep review of seasonal anime but he knows his stuff he made me aware of the kadokawa issues that hit Kemono Friends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18eMkWJCNos

watthewut
Makes rather interesting videos mostly for the fact they do very interesting contradictory opinions to meany common ones.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPKQ5y7vzE_QwN5z4tILsRg/videos

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1094346Critics often like movies that are artistic - many of them have a deep knowledge of film and they respond to movies that directly appeal to them.  When a critic starts talking about how the camera-work evokes Alfred Hitchcock, etc, that's not usually something that 'regular viewers' will be aware of or care about.  Where this tends to be most apparent is with action movies.  Action movies thrive on spectacle over substance (at least, many do).  Critics tend to dismiss visuals as relatively unimportant compared to other elements.  

Audiences tend to enjoy movies they see - they self-select for movies that interest them.  Until recently, it was rare to see a movie with an audience score lower than a critic's score.  Critics tend to be more...critical....than general audiences.  Unfortunately, there has been an attempt to manipulate the audience scores by people who haven't seen particular movies.  That means that it's harder to trust audience scores because you no longer know which way they're biased.  When they were consistently POSITIVELY biased, you could cut off 20% and assume that's how good it would be on a 10 point scale.  Now you have to add PLUS OR MINUS 20%, so it could range from absolute garbage to excellent depending on who is gaming the system.

I think it depends on the piece in question a good example I can think of is neoranga to describe it in short is a adventure story that turns in to a philosophical story about the nature of god. Now I would say its a good show but I would point out that the philosophical end defiantly makes it not a show for everyone.
In a similar manor the dirty pair franchise are also fantastic simply by being candy coated fun and I would have them no other way part of reviewing is being able to tell what kind of media you are watching and judge and suggest accordingly. The same is true for technical aspects there are times when they should be brought up and even discussed in detail. I forget that the movie is there was something i watched as a kid that always had 1 seance that bugged me and I never knew why until I saw a review that pointed out they where trying a prospective trick that didn't work. At which point it stopped bothering me because i knew what was off. A good example of the comes from the live action ghost in the shell a huge part of why the LA didn't work is because of perspective changes that didn't work and it explains a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2soHxEN79c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXTnl1FVFBw
I don't normally watch his stuff but it's a very good pair of videos and dose a very good job explaining its ideas. Sadly I don't have something like that for a simple show like dirty pair or noir.

With that I will leave you with yuri and kei 2 girls who leave James bond looking like a lazy slacker in the most retro way I can the most retro way possible an ad from 1999.
[video=youtube;ShKaC4oHKKI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShKaC4oHKKI[/youtube]

The problem with professional critics is that they simply have to watch too many movies. After a couple of years they get more than a little jaded, and they can't see a movie the way the audiences do any more. In fact, I think a lot of them stop enjoying movies period.

That's a problem because they stop being able to appreciate the good qualities of simple basic entertainment. They also tend to only talk about movies with other professional movie reviewers. And so they tend to get blindsided by popular movies that are actually good and/or significant. You have the same problem with the Oscars.

The classic example for me is Star Wars. So many professional reviewers dismissed it as a fairy tale, or mindless escapism. They had seen so many bad sci fi pictures that they reflexively pigeonholed it. But Star Wars was both A) good, and B) a gigantic breakthrough on many fronts, both technical and artistic, and in the way it was merchandised. It is in many ways the first modern movie.

Also, gotta give a shout out for the Dirty Pair. In particular, Dirty Pair TV, which was always the poor cousin to the OAVs and movie, but which holds up surprisingly well on rewatch today.

Quote from: Lurkndog;1094746The problem with professional critics is that they simply have to watch too many movies. After a couple of years they get more than a little jaded, and they can't see a movie the way the audiences do any more. In fact, I think a lot of them stop enjoying movies period.

A lot of professional reviews excessively focus on technical merits. They praise tricks of cinematography like challenging shots, and forget those tricks have no value in themselves. Film, like all other storytelling media, is about story and characters. Everything else is just there to facilitate the two. When you spend too much time among the nuts and bolts of construction, you can lose that.