Reviewer gives a movie a bad score because he morally disagrees with the movie

>Reviewer gives a movie a bad score because he morally disagrees with the movie

Other urls found in this thread:

rogerebert.com/reviews/the-raid-redemption-2012
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D

>actor becomes hated because their portrayal of a villain is so good

>Reviewer gives a movie a bad score because it's not diverse enough

>Reviewer inserts link to his blog.

>People who say ''Film is supposed to be entertainment!''
>People who have 2001, Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane, other entry level pleb shit on their top lists
>People who have seen 1 film made before the 50s and think they have taste
>People who like Wes Anderson and think they somehow have taste
>People with most movies on list made in last 20 years
>People who have no foreign language movies listed
>People who think korean cinema is good
>People who have movies from Nolan, Tarantino, Aronofsky, Kubrick, Villeneuve, Snyder on their list
>People who have any comic book movie listed
>People who say comfy/based/kino

>Reviewer gives a movie a bad score because it doesn't have enough conversation between women about topics other than men

>pic
>666
uh oh

What is film supposed to be if not entertainment?

Worst example - Roger Ebert's review of Blue Velvet

Isn't that how reviews work? You write what you thought about it, this isn't racism, you shouldn't be objective.

>Sup Forumscuck gives a movie a bad score because it's too diverse

>Reviewer gives movie a bad score only coz plot was bad, completely ignoring other factors that make it "movie" and not just a novel.

Buncha fucking idiots who think like that.
>top lists
Top lists at all are fucking stupid because the films they pick are always there for really plain or uninteresting reasons. Like having Kubrick as your favorite director because "he captured human emotion in a way no director has since" or some bullshit ass reason.

...

this but unironically

art you fucking pleb

Ebert had a hate boner for Lynch
He was the original LYNCHED

There's no such thing as art. All that you perceive as art is just a product

Art museums are entratainmet...

KET be praised

>Queer gets triggered that someone dislikes cancerous postmodernism shitting on movie quality. Calls everyone Sup Forums

Art is entertainment you pseudointellect

nah its not. Its for communications of ideas and emotions.
It's made to be entertaing so it's more accessable to an audiance. Pure art is pleb filter.

You forgot
>people who watch films

Wait a minute that cat...

Also:
>reviewer uses a question mark or types anything similar to "uh" or "um" in his review

You’re really jaded and nobody cares about your niche bullshit.

FYI

I remember when that dog movie came out last year, Peter Travers and other cucks gave it bad scores not because it was a piece of shit (although it was), but because they were offended that the studio made a dog swim during filming.

@93685710
>Makes a troll post pretending to be a pompous faggot
>Gets many (You)s

He didn't like The Pagemaster either, fucking faggot

then they bitch when their movie doesn't make enough dollars

those are posers and/or greedy dudes

The one who creates art, does it for his entertainment. If it wasn't entertaining enough, he would make it at all, even getting paid is something that may be entertaining.
If others find his art entertaining, then its fine too.
Main purpose for a movie is profit. Entertainment is subjective for a viewer. If movie doesn't earn, it is objective failure.

You're talking to plebs mate

In other words, they didn't like it? Seems like a fair reason to give something a negative review.

Is English your first language?

yes thats a point. Artwork can have a natural entertainment aspect that others can get enjoyment from that perhaps the author was aware of. How many experiences in life was outright unenjoyable? But it is more about Self-Actualization. The artist expressing himself dealing with life, or negative experiences as well through his artwork. To give his life more meaning and direction. And to communicate his ideas and feelings to others.

>This film is very culturally relevant

>Reviewer gives a movie a bad score just because it's getting a lot of good ones

Well, it is. People make up culture, it's relevant to you, you're a people

>People who think they have taste

>he defiled my waifu on screen!

Anyone can relate to this though

film is not art it's as much as art as video games are art

don't kid yourself user

>people who think they're superior for watching obscure flicks they found on letterboxd

Why is this picture so unsettlingly bad. Jesus

Vidya has the capacity to be art and so do movies. The videogame Tetris is the greatest work of art of 1984

Was there ever more of a hack than Ebert? Asking unironically. You should read his review of The Raid. He genuinely comes across as simple.

rogerebert.com/reviews/the-raid-redemption-2012

>Morally disagrees

Can you not speak like a spastic

>people who think sites like letterboxd are for quote unquote "obscure flicks"

>Pseud uses words he doesn't understand

You're probably deathly afraid of MUH CULTURAL MARXISM too

>reviewer gives a movie a bad score because the movie is racist