Annoying Criticisms

[Bojangles]

I once had a substitute teacher in high school who was also a movie critic. I remember her saying that what makes a movie good is if the main character changes from the beginning to the end. I thought, either 'that's one of the most retarded things I've ever heard', or 'I need to move to LA, STAT, because making movies sounds goddamn easy.'

So what criticisms that you hear do you find annoying? Obviously, I hate ones like "the character didn't change", "I didn't like the character", "they were all one dimensional characters", blahdy blahdy blah.

[doctor7]

That was one of my original complaints about Black Hawk Down actually. Then I got over that train of thought.

[MmzHrrdb]

I cannot stand when people say they don't like a movie, or won't watch a movie just because it's in black and white. That is one of my biggest pet peeves.

[Pickpocket]

The ones I hate is when people review a movie from Woody Allen from the 90s and they are like "Woody Allen's last 15 movies have been terrible but this one is good" then you look up other movies Woody has done and they haven't seen anything since Annie Hall. It's like wow buddy, way to be a conformist moron who thinks Woody Allen hasn't done anything worthy since Hannah and Her Sisters.

I also hate when people review a movie without seeing it all the way through and they write it in the actual review. "This movie was 4 hours long so I got the jist of it here is my retarded opinion of it..." Shut the fuck up you idiots!!! You can't review Lawrence of Arabia if you've only seen 1 and a half hours.

Also anyone who's given Loose Change higher than a 0. What are you, mentally unstable?

[MmzHrrdb]

"Overhyped".

[Edited by Moderator]

[MmzHrrdb]

I also hate when people review a movie without seeing it all the way through and they write it in the actual review. "This movie was 4 hours long so I got the jist of it here is my retarded opinion of it..." Shut the fuck up you idiots!!! You can't review Lawrence of Arabia if you've only seen 1 and a half hours.

I hate it when people take reviews out of context and completely ignore the reasoning behind it. I hate it when people call other people's opinions "retarded". I hate it when people tell other people to "shut the fuck up" for not enjoying a movie they enjoyed.

This post isn't being abusive, it's simply pointing out someone else's abuse.

[cagedwisdom]

Yeah.. Critizising people for reviewing something that they haven't even watched half of isn't justified. You're right.

That'd be like a restaurant reviewer going to the restaurant, ordering food, and whils waiting for the food deciding "screw this shit, I'm leaving!", which of course would be perfectly fine but makes it in no way perfectly fine to review that restaurant. Sheesh.

[MmzHrrdb]

Yeah.. Critizising people for reviewing something that they haven't even watched half of isn't justified. You're right.

I know. I just said that.

That'd be like a restaurant reviewer going to the restaurant, ordering food, and whils waiting for the food deciding "screw this shit, I'm leaving!", which of course would be perfectly fine but makes it in no way perfectly fine to review that restaurant. Sheesh.

Not if the restaurant takes a year to serve you your food.

[Edited by Moderator]

[cagedwisdom]

I know. I just said that.

Yeah, pretending not to notice my sarcasm is clever.

Not if the restaurant takes a year to serve you your food.

If the restaurant takes a year to serve you the food, the only critizism you are in any position to make of it is that it took a year to serve you food. That is not grounds enough to write any sort of a review, what if after waiting a year for the food it turned out to be the best meal ever made? You can't know that, so you really don't have the full picture. Without the full picture, you don't even know what you're reviewing.

[MmzHrrdb]

Yeah, pretending not to notice my sarcasm is clever.

Mmm, I know. Hence me doing it.

If the restaurant takes a year to serve you the food, the only critizism you are in any position to make of it is that it took a year to serve you food.

That was my god damn criticism in the first place. Are you blind? And it's not spelled "critizism" by the way.

That is not grounds enough to write any sort of a review

I had already spent two hours on the film and I didn't impress me on a level where I'd be happy to lie there for another whole hour. Unless a movie delivers more for me, that is just too long. And that sheer fact alone is enough to warrant a review of any movie.

what if after waiting a year for the food it turned out to be the best meal ever made? You can't know that, so you really don't have the full picture. Without the full picture, you don't even know what you're reviewing.

I can know that. Do you want to know why? Because the best movies ever made don't leave me bored for two hours straight. Any movie which does that is automatically disqualified from the whole contest, and while there's a chance the last hour could be better than the first two that's a risk I'm willing to take because I'm just not bothered by it.