Do reviews matter?

[Lieutenant Kije]

Interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/28/film.do.reviews.matter.ap/index.html

It kind of follows my current thinking on reviews: if you're going to be helpful to a broad audience, it is more important in reviews to first say what a film/book/etc. is or is not--and what the implications of that are--rather than starting out on why it's good or bad.

[42]

That is an interesting article. I generally agree with it. I do think that the face of professional criticism is changing.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I concur. This should be good required reading for anyone who reviews.

[Skar]

I read it and it was good.  I would like to smugly point out that I have already been following most of the principles tagged as favorable in my movie reviews.  And that I have been reviewing movies that are not new since the beginning of the guide.

[Lieutenant Kije]

** Kije puts a little gold star on Skar's forehead

[Skar]

*Skar polishes the gold star often*

[dinodynamo]

As long as you stay consistant with your reviews, I don't really think it matters how you rate movies.

If you consistantly say that John Travolta movies suck, then at least people reading your reviews will know whether or not they agree that John Travolta movies suck.