Isn't that the saying? Today, it's never been more true. Thanks to the internet, everyone can self-publish their thoughts to a worldwide audience. Indeed, this very blog is an outlet for my thoughts and opinions on the media -- primarily television and film.
But should people listen to reviewers? Do reviews serve a purpose?
I'm not a professional reviewer, but I've been writing critiques for well over a decade. I know what I like, I can organize my thoughts coherently (most of the time), and I like to think I publish readable, entertaining and occasionally thought-provoking stuff. It's not as slick or as insightful as some, but considering I have other things going on in my life, and a full-time job, I think I do a decent job for an amateur.
Just recently, I was reading Off The Telly's blog, where American actor Sean Power (who plays Marty in Jack Dee sitcom Lead Balloon) had an e-mail he sent to a reviewer published in the "Right To Reply" post. Power sounded quite upset about Lead Balloon's review and stuck the knife in about online reviewers.
I read the offending review of Lead Balloon (which wasn't that harsh, really), and the derogatory comments about the sitcom's supporting cast and its similarities to Curb Your Enthusiasm were argued quite well. I agreed with most of what the review said, actually.
It seems Mr Power got a bit irritable, though -- perhaps because his character's relevance on the show was ridiculed -- so he decided to write in about it. It's a shame he got a bit abusive, though. At the end of the day, a review is just one person's opinion...
Something Power mentions in his reply is how critics have no right to pick fault with things on television, because they can't do a better job. Yeah, that's an old argument, but it never fails to get me pondering it a bit...
I can't think of any reviewer (amateur or professional) who could clearly do a better job than the people they appraise. Could Jonathan Ross even remember to take the lens cap off a camera? And, for all his entertaining vitriol on the matter, I'd like to see Mark Kermode direct a multi-million dollar franchise like Pirates Of The Caribbean, and improve on Gore Verbinski's films.
But reviewers aren't there to do someone else's job, anyway. They're there to analyse final products with a discerning, informed, unbiased eye. Yes, they're glorified audience members (in a sense) --people who put into words what millions of people think when they see a bad, mediocre or wonderful piece of work.
Yes, some reviewers are better than others at writing, and only a few ever become recognized authorities or gain the respect from the creators they evaluate – but that's life. The vast majority of reviews, particularly these days, are from people just voicing an opinion – blogging to the breeze. If reviewer John Phillips at Off The Telly doesn't like Lead Balloon, he's allowed to voice his views – particularly in the case of BBC output, which we pay for...
Personally, I've always liked reading reviews. They've been my invaluable movie-going barometer for years now. Empire and Total Film magazines have save me from many bad film experiences. I particularly love well-argued reviews that I don't even agree with! I've even grown to like a few films because a well-written review made me see things at a deeper level.
Mark Kermode's Five Live podcast is also wonderful, particularly when he derides a perfectly acceptable piece of entertainment on quite high-brow grounds. Sometimes, even he sways me with his opinions on films and actors. I've recently begun to agree with the good doctor that, yes, Siiir Anthony Hopkins is... well, a bit flat, isn't he?
But do reviews, whatever their written quality, have an overall effect on things? People who don’t read reviews have still heard through "the grapevine" that Bionic Woman isn't very good, that Heroes' second season is a big disappointment, and that Battlestar Galactica is actually an excellent drama. A mix of reviews seem to accumulate online and a general consensus soaks through to wider audiences. Rotten Tomatoes turned that fact into an essential website!
For me, I've been persuaded to watch/avoid things based on reviews far too often to discount them as the burbling of embittered film school dropouts. Sure, people like that exist out there, but many reviewers deliver exactly what the industry needs to hear: plain-speaking, articulate, passionate audience feedback.
As a 28-year-old screenwriter trying to catch a break, raised on television, and nurturing a love pf film since I saw Snow White as a toddler, I think my opinions are just as valid as the next...
It's up to readers how much they choose to value them.
But should people listen to reviewers? Do reviews serve a purpose?
I'm not a professional reviewer, but I've been writing critiques for well over a decade. I know what I like, I can organize my thoughts coherently (most of the time), and I like to think I publish readable, entertaining and occasionally thought-provoking stuff. It's not as slick or as insightful as some, but considering I have other things going on in my life, and a full-time job, I think I do a decent job for an amateur.
Just recently, I was reading Off The Telly's blog, where American actor Sean Power (who plays Marty in Jack Dee sitcom Lead Balloon) had an e-mail he sent to a reviewer published in the "Right To Reply" post. Power sounded quite upset about Lead Balloon's review and stuck the knife in about online reviewers.
I read the offending review of Lead Balloon (which wasn't that harsh, really), and the derogatory comments about the sitcom's supporting cast and its similarities to Curb Your Enthusiasm were argued quite well. I agreed with most of what the review said, actually.
It seems Mr Power got a bit irritable, though -- perhaps because his character's relevance on the show was ridiculed -- so he decided to write in about it. It's a shame he got a bit abusive, though. At the end of the day, a review is just one person's opinion...
Something Power mentions in his reply is how critics have no right to pick fault with things on television, because they can't do a better job. Yeah, that's an old argument, but it never fails to get me pondering it a bit...
I can't think of any reviewer (amateur or professional) who could clearly do a better job than the people they appraise. Could Jonathan Ross even remember to take the lens cap off a camera? And, for all his entertaining vitriol on the matter, I'd like to see Mark Kermode direct a multi-million dollar franchise like Pirates Of The Caribbean, and improve on Gore Verbinski's films.
But reviewers aren't there to do someone else's job, anyway. They're there to analyse final products with a discerning, informed, unbiased eye. Yes, they're glorified audience members (in a sense) --people who put into words what millions of people think when they see a bad, mediocre or wonderful piece of work.
Yes, some reviewers are better than others at writing, and only a few ever become recognized authorities or gain the respect from the creators they evaluate – but that's life. The vast majority of reviews, particularly these days, are from people just voicing an opinion – blogging to the breeze. If reviewer John Phillips at Off The Telly doesn't like Lead Balloon, he's allowed to voice his views – particularly in the case of BBC output, which we pay for...
Personally, I've always liked reading reviews. They've been my invaluable movie-going barometer for years now. Empire and Total Film magazines have save me from many bad film experiences. I particularly love well-argued reviews that I don't even agree with! I've even grown to like a few films because a well-written review made me see things at a deeper level.
Mark Kermode's Five Live podcast is also wonderful, particularly when he derides a perfectly acceptable piece of entertainment on quite high-brow grounds. Sometimes, even he sways me with his opinions on films and actors. I've recently begun to agree with the good doctor that, yes, Siiir Anthony Hopkins is... well, a bit flat, isn't he?
But do reviews, whatever their written quality, have an overall effect on things? People who don’t read reviews have still heard through "the grapevine" that Bionic Woman isn't very good, that Heroes' second season is a big disappointment, and that Battlestar Galactica is actually an excellent drama. A mix of reviews seem to accumulate online and a general consensus soaks through to wider audiences. Rotten Tomatoes turned that fact into an essential website!
For me, I've been persuaded to watch/avoid things based on reviews far too often to discount them as the burbling of embittered film school dropouts. Sure, people like that exist out there, but many reviewers deliver exactly what the industry needs to hear: plain-speaking, articulate, passionate audience feedback.
As a 28-year-old screenwriter trying to catch a break, raised on television, and nurturing a love pf film since I saw Snow White as a toddler, I think my opinions are just as valid as the next...
It's up to readers how much they choose to value them.
