Thorough Movie Reviews Revisited
by Steve West on August 27, 2007
Are you one of the group of people, like myself, who insist that they are not influenced by movie critics and make your film choices based on whim, fancy, instinct or some other method completely unrelated to some "professional's" opinion? Perhaps you should visit this website where you can rate (not review) movies yourself, and compare the result with a series of national reviewers to see whose opinion most closely matches yours. Maybe that particular reviewer deserves a second look since you two seem to be on similar movie viewing wavelengths. Sadly, Scott Hardie is not one of the listed reviewers.
Four Replies to Thorough Movie Reviews Revisited
Matthew Preston | August 27, 2007
91% agreeable to Rotten Tomatoes here.
Steve West | August 28, 2007
Mine was 87% Rotten Tomatoes.
Amy Austin | August 28, 2007
I guess Rotten Tomatoes is the way to go... 85% here.
Web Junkie
Steve West scours the Web searching for interest or absurdity and then shakes his head ruefully when he finds it. Read more »
Unspoken Cultural Differences
Various hand gestures mean different things, depending on where in the world you happen to be. This guide to unspoken communication may be invaluable to those globetrotters out there. Go »Vacation Week
We took the girls to the National Zoo in Washington D.C., a part of the Smithsonian network of attractions. Home of the famous pandas, the National Zoo is incredibly diverse and seemingly comprehensive. Go »I'd Pick The Kitty
This is supposedly a real newspaper clipping although I can find no reference to which paper it is and is therefore suspicious. I choose to believe it is real so I can enjoy the joke more. Go »Oscars 2012
Now that I can make no further changes to my picks, I'd like to hear about the categories people wrestled with most. I struggled most with costume, documentary and even adapted screenplay. Goodl luck everyone! Go »Who Edits Wikipedia?
Without trying to seem overly paranoid, I've always been just a little suspicious of Wikipedia entries since they can be easily manipulated. A student has created a program that tracks just who is making changes to Wikipedia; adding exaggerated claims or deleting sections with negative connotations. Go »
Scott Hardie | August 27, 2007
That's because nobody agrees with me. :-)
After I watched National Treasure for the first time this weekend, I looked it up online and was struck by how many people were angry with critics for disliking it. "We know what a good movie is, and we don't need them to tell us what a good movie is!" was the general sentiment.
Critics, most of them anyway, don't follow some arcane formula that if the movie does A B C things right it's good and X Y Z things wrong it's bad. They merely tell you their opinion of the movie, and are paid to do so because they're well-educated or they write entertaining commentary or some other reason that makes them compelling.
The point is, they didn't turn up their noses at National Treasure because it had plot holes and phony characters and lame stunts, as if it was a fun movie and those things made it bad in principle; they honestly disliked it for what it was. Their opinion is no more valid than yours just because theirs is published. If you frequently disagree with a critic, she or he would be the first to tell you to find another critic, which makes this site a good thing.