Edited by Solomon on 2/11/2016, 4:56 am
For example, "The Last Rites of Ransom Pride" is a western with some negative reviews. People say things like
"I disliked the way it was filmed, the dialogue, and the absurd, meandering, nonsensical narrative that served as the story."
"There are lots of unlikeable characters that were utterly ridiculous in their seriousness, the frequent action scenes are terrible, and the entire movie makes little sense."
"Other than the little bit of back story we get, the characters aren't particularly deep."
"Lizzy Kaplan pretty much keeps one expression on her face for the entire flick..."
"A lot of what follows is intermittently plastered with instant replays of previous scenes and "artsy" shaky cam shots of animal skulls and birds that jerk like they're in a Tool video. These don't really add anything to the film...
"It's not a terribly complicated story either, but Tiller sure takes the scenic route getting us there. It's like he's slowly winding a broken jack in the box. You want the weasel to pop, but you know it never will."
"This movie is visually ugly, with jerky cutaway shots..."
"Coppola shows us how it's done when done well; sorry guys, but you show us what it looks like when done badly."
HOWEVER, NOTE THIS. The last reviewer quoted above also wrote
"In the long run, I guess it's all about personal taste, so I would never tell a person to pass this one by. The fact that people made this movie (presumably with some enthusiasm) is testimony that SOMEONE out there is interested in this type of thing. But it ain't me, Babe."
I argue that it's NOT all about personal taste, and that reviewers often identify precisely criteria of artistic judgment that are sensible. This person didn't allow for misjudgment in making the film, for putting one over, for incompetence of the filmmaker, and for paying customers (including a cable service) that, for one reason or another, do not filter movies on quality or their merits.