Pants

This was posted today yesterday by DVD Savant Glenn Erikson: If this is true then why does DVDTalk already have a review of Out of the Past up? Why does Savant (the only good critic on the site) have to hold his reviews while other critics scoop him?

I'm tired of waiting for Savant reviews because of these stupid WB rules, but if DVD Talk is going to enforce it selectivly then why bother at all?

GeoffK

Simply an oversight. The titles actually come out 7/6. So Glenn has the wrong info, which I'll make sure he get's the correct info...

Aint Hypocrisy my friend, just an honest mistake. If you look at the volume of titles we deal with, one wrong street date is such a small item.


and for your comment:

I think it's further proof that you're here to just to complain and make enemies than give real feedback.

Adam Tyner

:silently sheds a tear:

Although I wouldn't put myself in that group, I think DVD Talk has, by any reasonable standard, several outstanding reviewers. I'd certainly put Stuart Galbraith in the same category as DVD Savant, and I think Holly Ordway, Randy Miller, Aaron Beierle, Jason Bovberg, and John Sinnott, just to name a few, are about as good as anyone writing DVD reviews nowadays.

das Monkey

And the winner for "Most Misspellings of the Word Hypocrisy in 2004" goes to ...

das

P.S. You <i>are</i> in "that group."

Adam Tyner

Awwww... :sniffles: That wasn't meant to be self-deprecatory fishing for praise. I feel that I'm pretty good at what I do, but I also think I have a comfortable niche and would be kind of shaky if I tried to stray too far away from it. Dissecting flaws comes much more naturally to me than delivering praise, and my sense of humor attaches itself better to a review like <i>My Baby's Daddy</i> than it would to, oh, I dunno, <i>Casablanca</i>. I wouldn't put myself in the same class as the other reviewers I mentioned because I don't think I'm as insightful or as well-rounded, but I'd like to think the reviews I write are pretty entertaining, even if I rarely wind up recommending anything with any enthusiasm.

Rival11

Tyner, all ass kissing aside (well, why would there be any anyway?) I have agreed with a lot of your reviews - just thought I'd give ya some credit.

das Monkey

On the flipside, let's see the <b>Savant</b> tackle <b>Good Burger</b>* . Different types of films require different types of reviews, and I'd argue that there's as much value to a solid but entertaining review of <b>Blood Sisters of Lesbian Sin</b> as an in-depth analysis of <b>The Leopard</b>. Part of what makes the review section of this site so strong is that there is that variety of style and talent. Don't sell yourself Scorcho.

das

P.S. (off topic) I recently asked J. August Richards about his performance in <b>Good Burger</b>. Aside from prolonged laughter, he had no comment.

* Why do I get the feeling he'd still do a great job

Pants

I will amend my above accusation that Savant is the only good critic on the site by adding that I also like cine-shlock-arama.

The rest of the critics offer nothing but plot synopsis and technical evaluations. There's no in depth analysis of underlying themes or any examination of the artistic relevence of the film. Here's the typical DVD review:

"Well the movie starts with a guy named Mike who drives a car and then he meets a girl and they do something but the girl has a secret. It all wraps up in 90 minutes so I can't really complain. Edge enhancement was minor, the sound rocked my living room and scared my cat, and the commentary borred me because I'm shallow and I only like to listen to anecdotes about how the leads were dating at the time. Overall I give it an A-"

Adam Tyner

They're DVD reviews, not a thesis paper. A good DVD review should summarize the plot, detail the reviewer's opinions about the movie (did he or she like it? Why or why not?), and then delve into the technical aspects of the DVD. If a reviewer chooses to go more in-depth, that's his or her decision, but I think your expectations for a DVD review are unrealistic. DVD Talk aside, what DVD sites routinely meet the standards you've set?

GeoffK

Grow up.

Pants

Oh come on Geoff, you must have found at least part of it funny.

Pointyskull

I write for another site (currently 560+ reviews, thank you), and you're right that most reviews "should summarize the plot, detail the reviewer's opinions about the movie (did he or she like it? Why or why not?), and then delve into the technical aspects of the DVD".

I don't know what else someone might expect.

Not every title has "artistic relevance", so you look like a doofus trying to overexplain the hidden themes of Soccer Dog. Aren't the majority of films simply entertainment? Does Rundown address man's inhumanity to man, or is it just a big noisy action movie?

My underlying goal is describe if a DVD is one that might appeal to you - which requires a brief description of plot and whether or not the whole thing holds together until the credits roll.

I'm just trying to help feed the decision making process - or better yet - turn someone on to a film they not otherwise have heard of.

Josh H

As Adam said, This is DVD Talk. These are first and foremost reviews of the DVD, not of the films on them. I rarely read film reviews, as I don't care about others opinions, but in the rare instances I do I usually read them while the movie is in the theater or on a movie site.

With DVD talk reviews, I want to hear about the A/V quality, whether the extras are interesting etc. Not get the reviewers opinion on the quality of the film, I just skip over that part of the reviews.

Hokeyboy

I have only a few "hard-and-fast" rules when writing my reviews:

1. Do a thorough job analyzing the disc on a technical basis. Simply writing "this looks OK for a disc of this age" and not explaining why is unacceptable. Even a basic monaural Dolby Digital soundtrack should og into the quality of the dialog, reproduction of the score, etc. Extras should be analyzed for quality and not just listed as a roll-call.

Most of the DVD Talk reviewers are excellent at this.

2. I don't provide a storyline synopsis or in-depth analysis of the plot. I present the basics of the film's narrative, any historical context that might bolster my feelings of the film, and then I proceed to praise (or rip apart) everything I think about the movie.

Most of the DVD Talk reviewers are excellent at this.

3. I talk a lot about myself. Tons. The only way I can properly describe my reaction to a film is to go into why, for example, the fact that I never got Cheetos in my bag lunch in the 3rd grade is paramount in my analysis of why Some Like It Hot is akin to something you might remove from an elephant's colon with a plunger.

Most of the DVD Talk reviewers think I'm nuts for doing this. That and my ever-puzzling "Go Chico" references and my bizarre communications with a fictional middle-management flunkie named "Jeff Schwartz".

As far as Savant being "the only good critic on the site"... well, at first I joined Adam in the corner, weeping and beating my breast with melancholic fervor and self-righteous heartache. And then I looked at the amazing staff of writers we have on-site (for all of our glibness, writing hundreds upon hundreds of reviews over the course of months/years tends to grate upon your creative prowess, yet this group still manages to impress me with their wit and perspicacity) and the variety of DVDs we review, with a breadth and span of subject matter defies any other R1 site on the Internet. And then I giggle impishly and nurse my wounded heart with a frosty mug of Ovaltine.

AgtFox

DVD reviews can be a very hard thing to do (I used to be a DVD Talk Reviewer). In fact, I enjoyed doing Theatrical reviews more than DVD reviews because I tend to like to review the content of the disc and not the technology of the disc. In some of my DVD reviews (Batman Beyond: Uncut and Escaflowne: The Movie come to mind, being my most read DVD reviews), I expanded in the Movie section of my review. With theatrical ones I did I loved the ability to expound upon the movie itself and not be bound by having to worry about the technical aspects of a DVD.

Reviewing DVDs just isn't easy, but I think the group here is doing a pretty good job. Nowadays I write videogame reviews and find them much less confining than I was feeling while doing DVD reviews.

Gil Jawetz

Harrumph. As the writer of the <b>Out of the Past</b> review in question (which I have to assume is a poorly written review, at least according to Pants) I have to say that I knew nothing about a particular time requirement for posting the review. Frankly, it wouldn't normally affect me since my reviews aren't usually done until two weeks <i>after</i> the disc comes out but in this case I was excited and I finished up early (that sounds yucky). Besides, it's funny that the <b>Out of the Past</b> review sparked this thread. I thought that was actually a particularly in depth write-up.

ETA: Where's my love?!?!

Hokeyboy

Gil, you know you're Go Chico'ed in perpetuity.

Bill Geiger

I dunno Adam, your reviews seem to go on and on...

As far as there only be one good reviewer, I think that is insane. There is one reviewer that I know even before clicking the review he is going to have it listed a "rent it." PQ gets 4 stars, audio 4 stars rewatching 3 stars and still a "rent it." I still don't understand that. Overall, I enjoy the reviews here!

Ranger

Edit: One more.

Gil Jawetz

Thanks, Mr. Schwartz!

Bandoman

Well, if that isn't an "in depth analysis of underlying themes [and]examination of the artistic relevence of the film" I don't know what is.