The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Why are all critics always so pessamistic before a film comes out, and negative when a film is out, I know theyre called critics because they are supposed to criticise, but why cant they give a balanced report on a film pointing out the good and the bad.
On the gaurdian film pages on NTL Interactive they had a look ahead to next years films and they said "Star Wars Episode II - Unlikely to win any awards" which would have been fine if they also said that it is still most likely the most anticipated film of 2002, but no they just said its not going to win any awards.
When Episode I came out everyone was complaining about Jar Jar, and the weak plot, but they didnt mention the amazing action scenes, great music score, or even the fact that the film was a set up for episodes 2 and 3. And jar jar was in the film to make it appeal to kids, my 9 year old brother thought jar jar was cool, adults who have seen star wars may not have liked him, but they would have been going to see the film anyway, and kids who saw jar jar and wanted to see the film wouldnt have neccesarily gone to see it otherwise. How can you complain that a U rated film is too childish, it meant to be for kids, and adults alike, and anyway the original star wars films had the droids, so jar jar shouldnt seem so bad.
Pearl Harbour - critics labelled it as a turkey as soon as it was out, having just recently seen it on DVD I can say it wasnt that bad, the ending was a bit iffy being neither a tragic ending or a happy one, and the japanese perspective should not have been shown uless the made it balanced which it certainly wasnt. The acting wasnt bad, the accents were a little iffy and the dyslexia thing unimportant but it was bearable. It didnt seem like a "Blockbuster" but was certainly a good film that merits watching if not for the bombing scenes alone.
However, the bias isnt always negative, look at lord of the rings, I have to admit it was an excellent film with great performances from all especially Sir Ian Mckellen, but what about the open ending? How can critics claim it to be a 10/10 film when there is no solid conclusion. Much like return of the Jedi it leaves you anticipating the next film, so as a series it may merit a 10/10, but as a standalone film it should not have garnered such a score.
So why cant we have impartial reviewers in the media, breaking a film down and telling both the good and the bad, Im a media studies student, and feel that if theres one thing you can never do is say something is either perfect or without merit, theres always good and bad points, and if you cant put these in your review your not a good reviewer.
So when will we get Proper Reviewers as opposed to Critics.
On the gaurdian film pages on NTL Interactive they had a look ahead to next years films and they said "Star Wars Episode II - Unlikely to win any awards" which would have been fine if they also said that it is still most likely the most anticipated film of 2002, but no they just said its not going to win any awards.
When Episode I came out everyone was complaining about Jar Jar, and the weak plot, but they didnt mention the amazing action scenes, great music score, or even the fact that the film was a set up for episodes 2 and 3. And jar jar was in the film to make it appeal to kids, my 9 year old brother thought jar jar was cool, adults who have seen star wars may not have liked him, but they would have been going to see the film anyway, and kids who saw jar jar and wanted to see the film wouldnt have neccesarily gone to see it otherwise. How can you complain that a U rated film is too childish, it meant to be for kids, and adults alike, and anyway the original star wars films had the droids, so jar jar shouldnt seem so bad.
Pearl Harbour - critics labelled it as a turkey as soon as it was out, having just recently seen it on DVD I can say it wasnt that bad, the ending was a bit iffy being neither a tragic ending or a happy one, and the japanese perspective should not have been shown uless the made it balanced which it certainly wasnt. The acting wasnt bad, the accents were a little iffy and the dyslexia thing unimportant but it was bearable. It didnt seem like a "Blockbuster" but was certainly a good film that merits watching if not for the bombing scenes alone.
However, the bias isnt always negative, look at lord of the rings, I have to admit it was an excellent film with great performances from all especially Sir Ian Mckellen, but what about the open ending? How can critics claim it to be a 10/10 film when there is no solid conclusion. Much like return of the Jedi it leaves you anticipating the next film, so as a series it may merit a 10/10, but as a standalone film it should not have garnered such a score.
So why cant we have impartial reviewers in the media, breaking a film down and telling both the good and the bad, Im a media studies student, and feel that if theres one thing you can never do is say something is either perfect or without merit, theres always good and bad points, and if you cant put these in your review your not a good reviewer.
So when will we get Proper Reviewers as opposed to Critics.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Why are all critics always so pessamistic before a film comes out, and negative when a film is out, I know theyre called critics because they are supposed to criticise, but why cant they give a balanced report on a film pointing out the good and the bad.
On the gaurdian film pages on NTL Interactive they had a look ahead to next years films and they said "Star Wars Episode II - Unlikely to win any awards" which would have been fine if they also said that it is still most likely the most anticipated film of 2002, but no they just said its not going to win any awards.
When Episode I came out everyone was complaining about Jar Jar, and the weak plot, but they didnt mention the amazing action scenes, great music score, or even the fact that the film was a set up for episodes 2 and 3. And jar jar was in the film to make it appeal to kids, my 9 year old brother thought jar jar was cool, adults who have seen star wars may not have liked him, but they would have been going to see the film anyway, and kids who saw jar jar and wanted to see the film wouldnt have neccesarily gone to see it otherwise. How can you complain that a U rated film is too childish, it meant to be for kids, and adults alike, and anyway the original star wars films had the droids, so jar jar shouldnt seem so bad.
Pearl Harbour - critics labelled it as a turkey as soon as it was out, having just recently seen it on DVD I can say it wasnt that bad, the ending was a bit iffy being neither a tragic ending or a happy one, and the japanese perspective should not have been shown uless the made it balanced which it certainly wasnt. The acting wasnt bad, the accents were a little iffy and the dyslexia thing unimportant but it was bearable. It didnt seem like a "Blockbuster" but was certainly a good film that merits watching if not for the bombing scenes alone.
However, the bias isnt always negative, look at lord of the rings, I have to admit it was an excellent film with great performances from all especially Sir Ian Mckellen, but what about the open ending? How can critics claim it to be a 10/10 film when there is no solid conclusion. Much like return of the Jedi it leaves you anticipating the next film, so as a series it may merit a 10/10, but as a standalone film it should not have garnered such a score.
So why cant we have impartial reviewers in the media, breaking a film down and telling both the good and the bad, Im a media studies student, and feel that if theres one thing you can never do is say something is either perfect or without merit, theres always good and bad points, and if you cant put these in your review your not a good reviewer.
So when will we get Proper Reviewers as opposed to Critics.
On the gaurdian film pages on NTL Interactive they had a look ahead to next years films and they said "Star Wars Episode II - Unlikely to win any awards" which would have been fine if they also said that it is still most likely the most anticipated film of 2002, but no they just said its not going to win any awards.
When Episode I came out everyone was complaining about Jar Jar, and the weak plot, but they didnt mention the amazing action scenes, great music score, or even the fact that the film was a set up for episodes 2 and 3. And jar jar was in the film to make it appeal to kids, my 9 year old brother thought jar jar was cool, adults who have seen star wars may not have liked him, but they would have been going to see the film anyway, and kids who saw jar jar and wanted to see the film wouldnt have neccesarily gone to see it otherwise. How can you complain that a U rated film is too childish, it meant to be for kids, and adults alike, and anyway the original star wars films had the droids, so jar jar shouldnt seem so bad.
Pearl Harbour - critics labelled it as a turkey as soon as it was out, having just recently seen it on DVD I can say it wasnt that bad, the ending was a bit iffy being neither a tragic ending or a happy one, and the japanese perspective should not have been shown uless the made it balanced which it certainly wasnt. The acting wasnt bad, the accents were a little iffy and the dyslexia thing unimportant but it was bearable. It didnt seem like a "Blockbuster" but was certainly a good film that merits watching if not for the bombing scenes alone.
However, the bias isnt always negative, look at lord of the rings, I have to admit it was an excellent film with great performances from all especially Sir Ian Mckellen, but what about the open ending? How can critics claim it to be a 10/10 film when there is no solid conclusion. Much like return of the Jedi it leaves you anticipating the next film, so as a series it may merit a 10/10, but as a standalone film it should not have garnered such a score.
So why cant we have impartial reviewers in the media, breaking a film down and telling both the good and the bad, Im a media studies student, and feel that if theres one thing you can never do is say something is either perfect or without merit, theres always good and bad points, and if you cant put these in your review your not a good reviewer.
So when will we get Proper Reviewers as opposed to Critics.