SnnY's Film Review of the Day

[jimbo12345]

Meh.

It started off promisingly, surprisingly understated. The problem is that it stuck with that pace for the 50 minutes. Then I just got really bored when everyone started dying as quickly and moronically as possible.

It was nice that they had all the stereotypes available but chose not to use them. Although it probably just seemed they decided not to use them because they didn't bother with character development. The exception was the token black guy, but what do I care about darkies.

My final criticism is virus-infected, running zombies are a retarded concept.

I thought it was the plot to some cheap porno. The zombies and retards would have made that cool.

Always a good idea to tell people wtf u r talking about before rating things.

[Busyman™]

Meh.
My final criticism is virus-infected, running zombies are a retarded concept.

I haven't seen Plane Dead yet but 28 Days Later and DOD '07 were quite good.

28 Weeks Later looks great as well.

[SnnY]

Always a good idea to tell people wtf u r talking about before rating things.

No it isn't. You can leave them wondering. Then one day they'll be like watching the film and about half-way through they'll realise, "Hang-on, I've read a review for this film once. Now I've watching most of it with an un-biased opinion I can whole-heartedly agree with the review." It's the best way to do reviews.

[Barbarossa]

Your logic is floorless.

[Jagarga]

i thought reviews were so you could avoid shit films, not watch half of them before aggreeing with you.

[Mr. Mulder]

i watched garfield the movie the other night, it was ok

set Plane Dead downloading just now

[SnnY]

i thought reviews were so you could avoid shit films, not watch half of them before aggreeing with you.

That's asinine. You'd end up not watching anything if you avoided everything that someone thought was crap.

[Busyman™]

There are some movies that you are going to watch anyway. However, the point of a review is usually to advise others whether to watch or don't watch.

Writing a review just to show how spot on you are is rather egotistical.

Since there are so many movies out there, there are many that use reviews to steer clear of shit movies and not waste their time.

As I said, many will watch certain movies anyway. Good reviewers often gain a following by being right about a movie to the moviegoer.

When I read the Washington Post I know to pretty much to ignore Desson Thompson's bad movie reviews since I've liked many of the movies (immensely) that he's shitted on. I have to be on guard for his good reviews too.

A similar thing happens with Cheese's reviews but I have less guard for his good reviews.

It's best to find a reviewer who's movie watching mirrors your own. Personally, I find if he/she is too stringent, is overly analytical about meaningless points, likes romantic comedies a lot, or likes to just see "shit blow up", then I know to take their review with a grain of salt.

[SnnY]

Writing a review just to show how spot on you are is rather egotistical.

That was kinda the point when I started doing the film review of the day thing. I would just post "I like it" because nobody really cares about in-depth critical analysis, they just want my opinion. Then at some point I realised the joke was so subtle that even I didn't get it, so I just gave up and started writing in-depth critical analysisess to boost my fragile ego. And now I'm explaining my joke to you.

[Cheese]

I try to only read reviews after I've seen a film.