Overrated/Underrated Geek Media

[Bedrockgames]

Edit: also, I want to address this ridiculous notion that critics are just a bunch of snobs who don't like popular movies. Go look at Rotten Tomatoes, and you will find that every single one of the fist 20 or so films in the MCU is rated "fresh" by critical consensus, and a number of them are over 90%. Toy Story 1&2 are at 100% positive reviews. If a film is good, it gets good reviews from critics, regardless of whether it is a tentpole film or a franchise blockbuster.

It's true that they also give reviews to a lot of low budget and independent films, but many critics feel that they have a responsibility to bring attention to films that audiences tend to ignore. In fact, many claim that one of the best things about their job is when they help bring attention to a truly new voice. And I applaud them for it.

Critics watch a LOT of movies, and most have studied and written about film their whole lives. Art is subjective, and I disagree with tons of reviews. But on aggregate, they get it right most of the time. It's almost like being an expert has value.

I want to be clear because you were quoting me, that I never said critics are snobs. I like reading film reviews, and I write them myself for genre movies. I wouldn't necessarily call critics experts, but I do think watching lots and lots of films all the time can give them insights. I do think some critics and some types of critics can be snobbish. But most critics I think just really like movies. There is sometimes a notable divide now between audience and critics on certain movies but that is more recent (and I think a lot of critics are coming back to where audiences are anyways)

 

[payn]

I want to be clear because you were quoting me, that I never said critics are snobs. I like reading film reviews, and I write them myself for genre movies. I wouldn't necessarily call critics experts, but I do think watching lots and lots of films all the time can give them insights. I do think some critics and some types of critics can be snobbish. But most critics I think just really like movies. There is sometimes a notable divide now between audience and critics on certain movies but that is more recent (and I think a lot of critics are coming back to where audiences are anyways)

You really need to pick a lane. Either critics are experts or they are not. They are generally snobs or they are not. No idea what you really think with this post.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think it's like any other job - there are going to be good and bad reviews; ones where the critic is analyzing the work, and ones that are just throwaway "Hey, this movie exists". Even Roger Ebert wrote some stuff that was more about him having fun writing about a really bad movie, and he had enough of those to eventually create this gem:

 

[Willie the Duck]

I wouldn't consider any of those three films lowbrow.

And the correct quote is "you're going to need a bigger boat".

Right, but they are genre entertainment*, right? Psycho and The Shining are horror and Jaws is (the first) summer blockbuster.*since the quote was "In general, 'lowbrow' or genre entertainment tends to be more memorable, or at least have scenes that get etched into the collective psyche."

I don't know if that makes the statement correct or not. Looking at Jaws (so, 1975), I don't know if it is more or less lowbrow than The Man Who Would be King or Dog Day Afternoon*, but it definitely is more remembered.
*two films I found in a search of movies the same year that I remember as successful at the time, and of no specific genre other then generically 'adventure' and 'crime.'

 

[Bedrockgames]

You really need to pick a lane. Either critics are experts or they are not. They are generally snobs or they are not. No idea what you really think with this post.

I don't see why my post was such a problem. I don't think critics are generally snobs, some critics can be snobs. I don't think they are experts, it isn't like being a critic automatically makes a person's opinion more valid. I do think critics are often very good writers, and develop skills around how to communicate about movies. And I do think watching as many movies as critics do can give them certain insights and certain blindspots (reviewing movies myself I have definitely experienced both the advantages and disadvantages that some with seeing so many movies). And I think audiences also have insights that critics could pay greater attention to sometimes (especially since audiences are their audience)

 

[TiQuinn]

Right, but they are genre entertainment*, right? Psycho and The Shining are horror and Jaws is (the first) summer blockbuster.*since the quote was "In general, 'lowbrow' or genre entertainment tends to be more memorable, or at least have scenes that get etched into the collective psyche."

I don't know if that makes the statement correct or not. Looking at Jaws (so, 1975), I don't know if it is more or less lowbrow than The Man Who Would be King or Dog Day Afternoon*, but it definitely is more remembered.
*two films I found in a search of movies the same year that I remember as successful at the time, and of no specific genre other then generically 'adventure' and 'crime.'

I guess the thing about terming something genre entertainment is most films can fit this definition. Gangster crime dramas is a genre with its own set of tropes and encompasses a lot of well known classics, but the term is often used reductively.

 

[payn]

I don't see why my post was such a problem. I don't think critics are generally snobs, some critics can be snobs. I don't think they are experts, it isn't like being a critic automatically makes a person's opinion more valid. I do think critics are often very good writers, and develop skills around how to communicate about movies. And I do think watching as many movies as critics do can give them certain insights and certain blindspots (reviewing movies myself I have definitely experienced both the advantages and disadvantages that some with seeing so many movies). And I think audiences also have insights that critics could pay greater attention to sometimes (especially since audiences are their audience)

This is better, The other post was like, "I dont think those things, except I do."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Rotten Tomatoes publishes old reviews.

But yeah, Goodfellas was, and is, the critical darling whereas Dances was very much the more populist pick. Also, Goodfellas is by one of the definitive 70s auteurs, Scorsese, and would fit right into that decade. It’s quite a bit ironic to cite it as an example of critics getting it wrong and 70s movies being bad.

Is there a way to set it so the percentage of views is contemporary (I.E. see what the freshness rating would have been for its year of release). Because while it isn't as high as Goodfellas, it still has something like 87%. I am not saying I am right, but I genuinely want to clarify because I recall this movie being largely praised by critics when it came out. I also remember some critics complaining about it, and I see there is a negative Pauline Kael but I also see positive reviews from other critics at that time. Ebert gave it 4 stars for example, saying it was "...a simple story, magnificently told" (just worth nothing as well that the listed dates don't seem to match, that Kael review is listed as 2022 but since she died in 2001, I am pretty certain that was her review when the movie came out). Is it possible people are misremembering Dances with Wolves as being poorly reviewed? I think everyone kind of agrees, then and now, that Goodfellas got robbed. I just don't know that it was universally regarded as this mediocre film by critics. And to be clear, I can't stand Dances with Wolves so I am not defending it as a movie. I just want to get an accurate handle on how it was received when released

 

[Willie the Duck]

I guess the thing about terming something genre entertainment is most films can fit this definition. Gangster crime dramas is a genre with its own set of tropes and encompasses a lot of well known classics, but the term is often used reductively.

My main point was that Some Dude included two categories in his premise, so he wasn't necessarily calling Jaws, Psycho, and The Shining lowbrow.

Anyways, you're definitely not wrong. Theoretically, all movies should be called genre movies, since 'genre' is just a fancier version of the word 'type.' However, I think we can still divide films into genre and not-genre (perhaps having to eschew edge-cases), as the term is commonly used, at least long enough to examine Some Dude's premise (of which I'm not convinced).

Certainly there are lots of anecdotal examples -- Godfather and Psycho and Alien having memorable scenes. And non-genre movies that stay memorable or have memorable scenes -- well, Forest Gump* comes to mind. Wall Street. The problem is that it's all retroactive cherry picking. There are thousands of genre movies that are forgotten, and probably at least dozens of non-genre films that I'm not thinking of, but if you said them, I'd go, 'oh yeah, that's a classic that is more well known than a __-year old movie has any right to be.' I don't really know how to thought-experiment test this.

 

[Gradine]

Some more hot takes!

Underrated: The Phantom Menace
Overrated: The other two prequels

Underrated: Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Overrated: Breath of the Wild

Underrated: Cats
Overrated: Dogs

Underrated: Hoard of the Dragon Queen
Overrated: Tomb of Annihilation

Underrated: Strixhaven
Overrated: Dragonlance

Underrated: Final Fantasy XVI
Overrated: Final Fantasy XV

Underrated: Soda
Overrated: Coffee

Underrated: Frozen 2
Overrated: Frozen

Underrated: Dungeons & Dragons
Overrated: Dungeons & Dragons