DVDizzy Forum

Oh yes, one thing I just realized. Many people often criticize fan reviews like those found in IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes because they are done right AFTER watching the movie in a theater. Like, a few hours after. And most of the time, it's usually them going "OOOOOH MY GOD, THIS IS THE GREATEST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE" or "THIS MOVIE SUCKS BALLS!". That is because they are basing their opinion of the movie on the movie going experience rather than the basis of the film. In other words, if the experience was good or bad the view of the film will change accordingly.

For example, when I went to see "Batman Begins" in 2005 it was a REALLY cold day in New Hampshire (visiting friends at the time), and I made the foolish mistake of going to the movies in sandals, shorts and a t-shirt. I was TREMBLING throughout the movie, and to top it all off the theater's sound system was pretty crappy. So every time Michael Cain or Christopher Bale spoke, all I could hear was MUMBLE MUMBLE MUMBLE or WHISPER WHISPER WHISPER, and the rest of the audience would react to it, and I was in my seat, cold as all hell and trying to make sense of what the characters were saying.

I liked the movie, but I didn't walk out with the same enthusiasm as my friends who were overjoyed by what they saw. Months later I saw the movie on DVD and I freaking loved it. That was because I was all warm and snuggly in my room and I could turn the subtitles on and understood everything said.

Another example is Cars. I love the movie because we made a great social event out of. We got out of the movie theater after midnight and we headed off to have some after dark breakfast and talk the night away about the movie. Now, based on that alone it would mean that Cars is a FANTASTIC piece of film. No, it isn't. I had fun, but then I saw the flaws when I saw it on DVD later that same year.

That's why it's not wise to judge a movie right after watching it because there might be factors that are affecting your view on the movie, and thus aren't being objective in your analysis. Yeah, film critics often go to theaters to watch a movie for review, but note they are often invited to special screens so they can watch the movie and focus on the criticism. Not to mention they are professionals that have done this for years and have gained the ability to look at a movie as a critic first, movie fan later.

One advantage DVD reviewers movie have is that they can sit down, watch the movie multiple times and even pause and rewind it in order to catch flaws and moments that complete the movie. They also have the luxury that they can watch it privately on their home without any outside element disturbing their objective analysis.

So the logic that you should watch the movie first before reviewing it is one that is severely flawed. The movie going experience is that, an experience, meaning that many factors can and WILL play in how the person views the movie. It is a great thing for the movie goer but for the movie reviewer it can be a task to remain objective while many things are pushing his or her emotional reactors.

My movie collection (over 6,000 titles) is based on what I like and not what some "critic" tells me is a good movie or a bad movie.

My first criteria for buying a movie is how many times did I see it in theater. If I didn't see it more than once, chances are it is not in my collection. There are always places for a movie that I only saw once that will make me go out and purchase it for my collection, but then I only look for it used, because I won't pay full price for a new release if I didn't see it more than once in the theater.

Sure there are some Direct-to-Video releases out there that are okay, but more than likely I don't have them in my collection. As well as any made for television movies, even with a release to DVD or Blu-ray, can't entice me to buy them.

I made a big mistake in my years of collecting VHS movies. I bought everything when it came out, and after about ten years I realized that over half of my collection of VHS tapes never had the seal broken on them. They were movies I saw in the theater only once and never really wanted to see again.

When I started buying DVD's is when I decided that my collection was not going to be filled with "junk" movies. It was going to be filled with movies that I like, not movies that I felt I had to buy because everyone else was buying it.

I sold or traded most of my VHS collection (I still have all my Disney films in their clam-shell boxes) to make room for my new collection. So far, so good. I would defy just about anyone from coming into my Home Theater and not be able to find a movie to watch.

When Blu-ray became the 'next-best-thing' I was reluctant to buy into the 'new' form of video, but after seeing some of the HDTV's on the market, I decided to start buying just the product I wanted and bought an early version of a Blu-ray player and was happy to a point. After getting my PS3 and realizing that Blu-ray was not just a fad, it was not going to go down the road of the VHS or Beta films, I then invested in a nice big-screen HDTV and all the tools to make my home theater one that I could be proud of, and enjoy my home movie watching.

We all have our own dislikes and likes and should never let a critic sway our judgment of how well we like or how much we dislike any movie. I always tried to remain as neutral as possible in writing reviews of movies and new release music. It was my job, and I got paid well for it, and have no regrets for writing some of my "presumed bad" reviews. I can take as well as I give when it comes to crilticism of my taste in movies, but no one ever could tell me that I wrote a review without ever having seen the movie except in my own home surroundings.

To this day, I still hold that a movie will not be added to my collection if I haven't seen it in the theater at least two or three times. Just because a film wins an Academy Award or Golden Globe doesn't assure it a place in my collection. I am very selective, and only buy what I will watch. My Top Ten movies of all time would be a lot different than most critics. At the end of the year I always like to see what people call the best movie of the year or the worst movie of the year. Chances are, more often than not, the critics 'choice' for bad movie of the year will never be in my collection, but it is my choice not theirs.

I hope that most of you who collect movies buy them because you will watch them and enjoy them, not just because you were told it was a good movie. That is why I go off on reviews of movies that some one is reviewing just from a home theater experience. If he/she states in the beginning of the review that the review is based on the DVD or Blu-ray release and not combined with their views of it from a theater-going experience I really tend to not believe in.

Er . . . the home video release itself is what was reviewed, not the whole theatrical experience. Which is as it should be. You can't exactly see it in the theaters anymore and the product at hand is the DVD/Blu-ray. And at the same time, any critic's review should be taken with a grain of salt. Not everyone is going to have the same opinion, and I severely doubt that seeing this in the theater would have swayed Luke's and Kelvin's opinions to something more positive and to your liking.

Something that did kinda annoy me about the review though was questioning the taste of the general public for liking this film, which in turn questions my taste for liking it. Not that I'm going to take it personally, it's just conflicting opinions after all. Did it keep me from buying the film? No. Do I let any critic dictate what I should or shouldn't buy? No. Reviews are tools that help us decide what we might and might not enjoy, as they are not the be-all end-all of a film's worth.

Oh, and if I based my buying habits on the number of times I got to see the film in the theater? I'd probably own three whole DVD's. I simply can't afford to see a film I like 2-3 times in the theater, not to mention buying the disc on top of all that!

dvdjunkie wrote: If he/she states in the beginning of the review that the review is based on the DVD or Blu-ray release and not combined with their views of it from a theater-going experience I really tend to not believe in.

Keep in mind that this website's title clues you in on the fact that the reviews are based on DVD/Blu-ray, not theater experiences. In fact, that's why they are typically called <i>DVD</i> reviews, not movie or film reviews! Crazy, huh?

I didn't know that it was Luke/Aaron/Kelvin/anyone else's job to tell you what you should and shouldn't like when it comes to movies. If I had known the position came with so much power, I would be writing more reviews myself!