| sinha said: How is it different from casual moviegoers who will go see Transformers (61), whereas hardcore film buffs will instead choose to see No Country For Old Men (91)?
(also note that Transformers was PG-13, whereas No Country For Old Men was R for strong graphic violence, which around these parts means it was "more juvenile") |
It's not.
Yes.
There are a number of reviewers who give movies like Transformers high marks for being a good "cornball summer action flick" or similar such designations. There are also good "turn-off-your-brain comedies" and presumably something similar might apply to romantic comedies and other generic Hollywood fare.
The dichotomy is between reviewers who rate all films as art versus reviewers who rate movies for how they serve certain markets. Pitting Action Movie A against Action Movie B, rather than comparing Action Movie A to Indie Art Film B.
The first kind of reviewer is trying to uphold what s/he sees as artistic standards, while the second is trying to provide useful information to movie watchers. Good analogy.
"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event." — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.
