Do You Listen to Reviews?

[livius drusus]

Shea's thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1174) has got me wondering. Do you have a critic (or several critics) you trust to gauge your tastes? Does the collective review judgement have an impact on your decision to see a movie or read a book or go to a restaurant? Does it depend on the medium, perhaps?

I don't think there's any one movie critic I rely on utterly, but generally I've found the Salon reviewers and I agree. If I want to see a movie for whatever reason, I'll usually see it no matter who says what. However, if I don't get around to it for a while and the buzz is widely negative, I might do the whole wait until it comes out on video thing instead of motivate to see it before it leaves theaters.

Book reviews are pretty much the same way, but I definitely use restaurant reviews as guides.

:popcorn2:

[RedShift]

For movies I think Rotten Tomatos is good because you can see very easily what the spectrum of opinion is and whether there is a consensus one way or the other.

I will see a film whatever the reviews if I really want to, but good reviews can persuade me to see a film I might not have otherwise. I see alot of films (at the movies but also DVDs and videos) to see my favourite actors and alot of them do alot of complete rubbish so bad reviews don't put me off in that case.

[Godless Wonder]

For movies, I sometimes read the reviews on imdb.com, and it's not so much that you rely on specific viewers, but you can tell sometimes by the writing, the things they like and don't, and they way that several people will talk about the same thing in different ways, you can kind of get a feel. Before the internet, I used to watch Siskel and Ebert, and generally my tastes lined up much more with Siskel's than with Ebert's. I was sort of looking forward to seeing National Treasure, for instance, but Ebert, and the new Siskel, whatever his name is, were on Jay Leno last night, and they didn't make me want to see it, and their reasons lined up with reasons I have had for disliking other films. So my expectations for National Treasure have been significantly lowered, not that they were that high to begin with.

For music, I'll read random reviews, but I don't have any specific reviewers that I trust. Generally I try to see to what whatever random reviewer I'm reading will compare things, and if the comparison is to something I'm familiar with, and try to make some inference based on that comparison.

Here's an example from a few minutes ago. There's an '80s metal band called "Metal Church" (somewhat well known) that's playing tonight at a bar not far from where I live. So, googling around, I can find a few people (not exactly "reviewers" I suppose) talking about Metal Church, and I can see that at least one person mentions that they like several bands that I like, and among this list is Metal Church. So, I'm thinking I'll probably go see them. (Well, the fact that it's not as if I have something better to do plays into this decision as well.)

I don't read reviews of wine.

[wildernesse]

I usually read the Flagpole (www.flagpole.com) reviews of movies, since those movies are the ones actually in town. Actually, they're just a paragraph, so not much of a review. Flick Skinny usually makes me laugh (edited to add link (http://fairmountfair.com/flagpole/weekly/comic.php?COMIC=flickskinny_b&ISSUE=2004-12-01) to this week's one about Alexander). I tend to read other reviews after I watch a movie, since I get really annoyed by spoilers of any sort in reviews. So, I guess that means that I don't pay attention to reviews.

I generally just watch previews and decide what I want to see--also, I listen to NPR movie reviews if they come on. Since it isn't all that out of the ordinary for us to go to the movies more than once a week, it's easier to get a feel for what we want to go back to see.

I am a sucker for "The Year's Best" kind of lists, so I read the NYTimes' movie critics lists, and that's turned me on to some really good rentals that I've loved (Hedwig and the Angry Inch, for one). I never read book reviews--they don't usually tell me if I'll like the book or not, because any review that would tell me that would probably be incoherent. Kind of like me when I try to describe books I like.

As for restaurants, I read the Flagpole to hear of new restaurants in town, too. I don't know how much I trust the guy writing them--he used to never put the address of the place in the review, how annoying is that. But I have used the NY Times travel section to find places to eat when we travel--like the Early Girl Eatery (http://www.earlygirleatery.com/) in Asheville. I tend to dig through Bon Appetit and Southern Living as well for places to eat--although I have to watch the prices. But when we travel, we try to eat at local places rather than chains, so those mags are good places to look.

[Dingfod]

The user reviews on movies.yahoo.com can be entertaining as hell all by themselves.

[dave_a]

I don't use reviews for movies, books, games or anything else for the most part. Now, if a game gets consistently horrid reviews on technical merits I might stay away, but that is about all the further I use professional reviews.

On Amazon.com I might use reader review score averages to help me decide between 2 competing products and with netflix I sometimes will use viewer review scores to sort my queue.

LadyShea mentioned she hated VanHelsing, but I enjoyed it. Dawn of the Dead was another movie the critics hated, but I loved it.

The trend you may notice above is that I sometimes pay attention to review scores from real people if they are averaged out and there are a lot of people who's score is included in the average, but I don't pay any attention to professional reviewers ever.

For restaurants I can't even imagine paying attention to a review. I mean if the place has dead mice in the food I might care, but why would I care if some critic didn't care for the place? I tend to like greasy holes in the wall so my tastes don't really line up with any professional critic.

Personally I think professional critics are losers desperate to find some excuse to justify their existence.

[Adora]

Yes, I do, but I do it with a reviewer/s I trust.

In particular, David Stratton of At The Movies (previously "The Movie Show" on SBS). Apart from the occasional disagreement, he has my taste in movies. Also, Peter Thompson from Channel 9's Sunday program made it clear when he first started doing reviews that he wouldn't review a movie he didn't think was worth seeing. And I generally agree with most of his reviews as well.

[HarryLime]

I absolutely use reviews in selecting movies. I'm a film geek, so I don't let them make up my mind for me, but it's nice to get an overview before shelling out $7.50. I tend to read Ebert as well as those in The Onion's AV Club section, not so much because I agree with them all the time, but because they generally put forth some rational thought, and make their arguments well. So even if I don't agree with their take, I still learn something.

Will

[lisarea]

Personally I think professional critics are losers desperate to find some excuse to justify their existence.

Or people you envy because they scored a sweet fucking gig.

I used to write 'kinda' reviews. I don't count them, really, because they were for Amazon, so they were generally geared toward selling books. They were more like recommendations and summaries of the style, tone, and subject. When a publisher would send me a book that really sucked, I just wouldn't review it at all (although there was one that was just so comically bad that I wrote a very thinly veiled negative review in which I recommended it based on it having certain qualities it wasn't intended to have). But for the most part, the 'reviews' I wrote were really mostly overviews--just something to let the customer know generally what to expect, so they could make a relatively informed decision about whether they'd like it.

I generally think of others' reviews, even real reviews, in basically the same way. I use reviews to glean objective information, for the most part. I know that Roger Ebert, for example, likes him some smarmy shit. So I don't pay much attention to his recommendations of movies based on the fact that they're heartwarming or something like that. And overall, I'm almost as likely to be motivated to see a movie or read a book based on a mediocre review as a good one.

In other words, I usually just read reviews to see if it sounds like the kind of thing I'd like.

[Presence of the Passenger]

Movies: Ebert & Roeper at the Movies. BUT....being a filmmaker, I really rely on my peers, and of course my gut.

Books: I read what I want to read because it's what I want. I don't think I've ever read a book review in my life, and probably won't. I mean jesus, the books themselves have enough to read. Only a select few can suggest a book to me, and I'll read it. Buy me a book I didn't ask for, and see how much dust it collects.

Music: I am a music snob. The music myself, my significant other at the time, or my musician firends find is what I listen to. NO COUNTRY MUSIC!

Games: Used to subscribe to this very low-budget, freaking hilarious mag called Computer Gaming Monthly. Then it was bought out, and became one of the top mags on the market. I cancelled my 5-year pre-paid subscription when they got rid of my favorite articles, shortened the mail page, and effed up my subscription. Now, I mostly go by friends, though I am heavily addicted to Counter-Strike, so not many games keep my attention. Wait, I have an X-box? Almost forgot.

Restaurants: If I'm in a town I don't know, I'll read reviews. Otherwise I'll hopefully be with someone who lives there. If I'm on a coast, SUSHI; Nebraska, STEAK; The Netherlands, BOILED EEL. Come on people, it wasn't that bad. But, you get the drift; if they are known for some form of agriculture, then I'm prolly safe in betting it'll be the best I ever had.

Wine: My nose and mouth.

[livius drusus]

For movies I think Rotten Tomatos is good because you can see very easily what the spectrum of opinion is and whether there is a consensus one way or the other.

The only online movie reviews I've ever read with any kind of consistency is Mr. Cranky, and that's for laughs, not advice. I've come across RT many times in Google but I've never settled in for a good read.

I will see a film whatever the reviews if I really want to, but good reviews can persuade me to see a film I might not have otherwise.

That's definitely true for me too. :yup:

[Dingfod]

Restaurants: If I'm in a town I don't know, I'll read reviews. Otherwise I'll hopefully be with someone who lives there. If I'm on a coast, SUSHI; Nebraska, STEAK; The Netherlands, BOILED EEL.What if you are Down Under? Sheep testicles?

[HelenM]

For movies, I sometimes read the reviews on imdb.com, and it's not so much that you rely on specific viewers, but you can tell sometimes by the writing, the things they like and don't, and they way that several people will talk about the same thing in different ways, you can kind of get a feel. Before the internet, I used to watch Siskel and Ebert, and generally my tastes lined up much more with Siskel's than with Ebert's. I was sort of looking forward to seeing National Treasure, for instance, but Ebert, and the new Siskel, whatever his name is, were on Jay Leno last night, and they didn't make me want to see it, and their reasons lined up with reasons I have had for disliking other films. So my expectations for National Treasure have been significantly lowered, not that they were that high to begin with.

I enjoyed National Treasure. I had read the reviews and I knew they were so-so. But I enjoyed it nevertheless. To me the ending wasn't totally predictable and so that helped hold my interest. Plus, I like treasure hunts...what can I say? :)

I generally do read the reviews of movies before I go and do pay some attention to them. I don't think bad reviews would put me off a movie I really wanted to see but they probably would put me off one I was curious about but not committed to going to see. And I've used bad reviews to get out of going to see something my kids wanted to go see but I wasn't keen to take them to, because I didn't really want to see it :D (In those cases I let them rent the movie when it comes out on DVD - since that doesn't necessitate me watching it too). I don't get around to seeing every movie which I'm interested in but if the reviews are good, I'll rent it later.

So, the movie reviews do influence my viewing choices, definitely.

Helen

[SharonDee]

I don't read reviews to help me decide whether to watch a movie. Word of mouth and/or intriguing previews do that.

I do read them, however, after I have seen a movie to compare their opinions of it to my own. Besides, them fuckers are notorious for including spoilers in their reviews.

[wildernesse]

A couple of us have mentioned that we gauge our interest in movies by "buzz" or word of mouth. Today, in the NY Times, there is an article about a new marketing strategy--using volunteers to create buzz about lots of different products. I found it interesting and creepy.

Here's the link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/magazine/05BUZZ.html). Registration is req'd.

[Dingfod]

There were accusations of paid user reviews for Xmas with the Kranks on movies.yahoo.com, the first four or five user reviews gave it an A+ saying they never laughed so hard, then the next dozen or so reviews said it was the worst movie ever, and critics agreed, giving a Rotten Tomatoes score of only 4% which is the worst movie they've ever covered. New marketing strategy indeed, one that sucks.

I've an office mate that I wouldn't take his advice on movies or restaurants, ever. I took his advice on both a couple of times before I realized that either this guy didn't know what they hell was good, or was pulling my leg, giving me a review the opposite of what he really experienced. No kidding, the steakhouse-type place he recommended was bad, and out of business now, despite being located right next to the biggest mall in Tulsa. I don't even remember the movie he recommended, I just remember that it was so bad I've put it out of my mind. Dude, where's my car?, maybe?

I use movie reviews to get an idea of what I might like to see, but I pay more attention to what the movie is about than the reviewers overall rating. I never just use one source either. Word of mouth, except for my friend there, is generally an indication. Then again, my coworkers recommend shit movies like Bad Boys 2.

Some of the best books I've ever read I found about by reading book reviews in the newspaper. My brother that works for a major NY publisher has sent me some pretty good ones too, stuff he thinks I'd enjoy, like Tim Cahill's books Jaguar's Ripped My Flesh and Pecked to Death by Ducks.

BTW, Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is coming next May. I'm sure my youngest daughter and I will see it even if the reviewers pan it.

[HelenM]

BTW, Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is coming next May. I'm sure my youngest daughter and I will see it even if the reviewers pan it.

Yes, we just saw the trailer for that. I expect we'll go regardless of what the reviewers say, also.

Helen

[Ymir's blood]

A review can be useful if the writer's biases match your own. If they dislike movie X because it didn't follow the book, and that isn't important to you, then the negative review shouldn't deter you. It helps to review the reviewer and check what they've said about things that you've already seen or read. If their opinions generally fall in line with yours, it may safe to heed their views. Playing it safe won't always get you the best results though. Sometimes it is best just go ahead and buy a ticket. How bad could it really be, anyway?

[livius drusus]

Here's an example from a few minutes ago. There's an '80s metal band called "Metal Church" (somewhat well known) that's playing tonight at a bar not far from where I live. So, googling around, I can find a few people (not exactly "reviewers" I suppose) talking about Metal Church, and I can see that at least one person mentions that they like several bands that I like, and among this list is Metal Church. So, I'm thinking I'll probably go see them. (Well, the fact that it's not as if I have something better to do plays into this decision as well.)

I think it qualifies as checking reviews. That's what buzz is, I guess: amateur reviews shared and traded and spread around. So did you go? Were they to your liking?

I don't read reviews of wine.

How come?

[livius drusus]

I tend to read other reviews after I watch a movie, since I get really annoyed by spoilers of any sort in reviews. So, I guess that means that I don't pay attention to reviews.

I do read them, however, after I have seen a movie to compare their opinions of it to my own. Besides, them fuckers are notorious for including spoilers in their reviews.

I have a built-in total lack of caring about spoilers, so I honestly never notice whether a review contains them unless the critic notes "spoilers below" or something. Does this happen often? Often enough that people with spoiler aversion would prefer not to read any movie reviews at all?

I am a sucker for "The Year's Best" kind of lists, so I read the NYTimes' movie critics lists, and that's turned me on to some really good rentals that I've loved (Hedwig and the Angry Inch, for one).

I love those lists too. I find them very handy to counter standing-in-a-book/video/music store-staring-blanky syndrome.

[Godless Wonder]

I don't read reviews of wine.

How come? Because I like pretty much all red wines that don't just have something obviously wrong with them, having gone bad or something. I think my taste-memory is not refined enough to tell much difference. Once I had a couple of different bottles of wine, both kinds that I had had before and was more or less familiar with, one had about a glass left in it, the other was unopened. I was pretty sure I liked one better than the other. Well, I had a glass of each, and I was wrong, it was exactly opposite of what I expected, though the difference was about as subtle as the difference between pepsi and coke, and I can drink either pepse or coke. So, if I can't even trust myself to know what I like, how can I trust someone else to tell me what I'd like? Especially since conveying the idea of taste through words, especially differences in taste that are typically pretty subtle, is pretty much impossible. So it comes down to the fact that unless I'm drinking two red wines side by side, I really can hardly tell the difference between many of them, and even if I do drink them side by side the differences are very subtle, subtle enough that I don't care. So wine reviews don't matter to me.

OTOH, maybe I've really never had any really good wine. But, I expect any spectacularly good wine that made me go: "Oh, now I get it!" about wine, would probably cost so much that it still wouldn't be worth it to me.

[Adora]

A couple of us have mentioned that we gauge our interest in movies by "buzz" or word of mouth. Today, in the NY Times, there is an article about a new marketing strategy--using volunteers to create buzz about lots of different products. I found it interesting and creepy.
Here's the link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/05/magazine/05BUZZ.html). Registration is req'd.

It's not exactly "new". They've been doing this for over 20 years. I remember reading about them specifically targeting the youth market with it in the early 90s and calling it "Marketing Cool". Works really well too.

[godfry n. glad]

Yeah...sorta.

Y'know, it kinda depends on the situation. If the reviewer is live, single, cute and inviting me to join her, I could give a ratzpatoot what the picture was.

Otherwise I like descriptions; I tend to cull through reviewers, but haven't yet settled on one that I find dependable. For my tastes, that is. From descriptions, I can generally determine whether I might like the picture or not. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

Even my friends have given me what turned out to be bum steers.

godfry

[Presence of the Passenger]

What if you are Down Under? Sheep testicles?

Goanna.

[lisarea]

It's not exactly "new". They've been doing this for over 20 years. I remember reading about them specifically targeting the youth market with it in the early 90s and calling it "Marketing Cool". Works really well too.

Well, it may not be new, but it does appear to be plumbing new depths. I remember reading that one ridiculous treatise about sneezers a few years ago--what the hell was that called?--and thinking it was absurd and terrifying, but I guess, too, you could trace it back to that weirdassed "populist" shit George Gilder used to throw around back when people listened to him. I dunno. But it is getting worse, and fast.

This is the THIRD TIME (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=108105) I personally have caught someone registering at II specifically to hawk some lameassed Court TV bullshit. I'm wondering how many times someone else found it first.

That kind of hamhanded crap might work for a while, but once people realize that there are people among us that crass and whorish, it won't be long before that dumb bitch at a funeral recommending puffy-eye treatments or J. Random Asshole on a discussion board talking about something new and cool manage to destroy that last shred of the benefit of the doubt they prey upon.

Good fucking grief, I hate that shit.

PS: Yo, wildernesse, I totally cadged your link. I actually happened to have it open at the time. So thanks.

[wildernesse]

I tend to read other reviews after I watch a movie, since I get really annoyed by spoilers of any sort in reviews. So, I guess that means that I don't pay attention to reviews.

I do read them, however, after I have seen a movie to compare their opinions of it to my own. Besides, them fuckers are notorious for including spoilers in their reviews.

I have a built-in total lack of caring about spoilers, so I honestly never notice whether a review contains them unless the critic notes "spoilers below" or something. Does this happen often? Often enough that people with spoiler aversion would prefer not to read any movie reviews at all?

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I just found an annoying example of a review that does exactly what I hate. (NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/arts/television/05heff.html) reg. req'd) This review is of the series Alias, whose new season starts tonight. The first half of the article talks about how stupid and boring comic books are and tv series that are like comic books or soap operas, both of which apparently describe Alias. I can see her point (re: soap opera tricks), but Alias is a pretty enjoyable show IMO. Better than most of the "family comedy" crap on the networks.

The next part of the article begins as a minor blow by blow of the show that will air tonight--it's a tv show! We don't need to know what goes on in a SPY show! I didn't read most of it, because I didn't want to know. How can you enjoy the show when you know what's going on? Why even watch? Excepting Law & Order, which is somehow very formulaic and yet really, really watchable and I've seen them all--the reason I watch tv is to be entertained. I'm not entertained by knowing what is going to happen--being able to be surprised by plot twists or the appearence of characters or the missions is the point of watching. AAAHHH!

Maybe I'm watching to be entertained and not because it's an example of comic book as television or whatever. ARg.