this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2026
630 points (92.5% liked)

memes

18818 readers
1225 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mr_noxx@lemmy.ml 90 points 5 days ago (7 children)

It's kind of weird, but I find that the higher a film is rated by film critics and websites, the less I tend to enjoy it.

[–] Broadfern@lemmy.world 76 points 5 days ago (2 children)

A lot of film critique industry is based upon fart-sniffing snobbery.

It’s like a game of one-upsmanship on how much “meaning” you can ~~invent~~ derive from dull, self-important drudgery and the more masochistic your movie-watching experience, the more “refined” you are.

Source: had to study media crit and industry a lot in school.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 16 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

It's like the

modern artmoney laundering

Industry...but at 25 frames per second!

(Or some arbitrary frame rate to stir further controversy)

[–] TheMinions@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

I prefer art to run at 60 FPS.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

you can really taste the extra perseconds

[–] ink@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

you can’t just say perseconds

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

Pretty sure they just did.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 3 points 4 days ago

That's the stuff, 144 if I can get away with it! 😜

Maybe not for films tho hahaha

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I can't remember the name of the film but there is one film released relatively recently that's just a series of photographs. Set to music.

It's literally slower than one frame per second.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Is it a Terrence Malick film?

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Respectfully of course, that sounds quite literally like it's a really long slideshow? 🤔

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

but what if i like the way quentin tarantinos ass fart? what therefore then?

[–] brown567@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

you make an adulterously valid point

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 44 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's why I find it important to look at both critic and user reviews. If they agree, they're probably right. If they disagree things get interesting.

If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it's probably technically good but boring. If critics disliked it, but audiences liked it, it's probably kinda bad but exciting.

Both are also affected by social media, especially user scores, so if "the Internet" hates/loves something if can be unfairly inflated/deflated.

New, but not brand new, films also usually have a more accurate score. I enjoyed The Godfather, so I would rate it positively, but if I didn't like it I'm probably not rating it at all. I saw it X years ago and unless it was absolutely terrible or I have a vivid memory of disliking it, I'm just going to ignore it.

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

If critics liked it, but audiences disliked it, it's probably technically good but boring.

Or it's something fresh instead of the same junk that critics had seen hundreds of times (literally), whereas most of the public can't be arsed with original but marginal concepts.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 25 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I imagine if all you do is watch films, you get tired of common stuff. You've seen it before. But if you only watch films sometimes, some of that is still interesting to you.

Kind of like how some video game nerds will be only "only double soj 2x blan Blah is viable" but like other builds do fine for everything except some optional mega bosses

[–] NannerBanner@literature.cafe 4 points 4 days ago

Full time critics must be weird to talk with for any length of time. I know my own work bleeds into my perceptions and interests, and can't help but think that critics have their judging hats on for routine, everyday affairs. Imagine your partner sitting in the passenger seat, idly commenting on the lighting of a city park as you drive past (I don't have to imagine, lol, because my partner does amateur film work as a side gig and he loves to talk about his cameras).

[–] RaoulDuke25@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 days ago

There's a reason McDonald's is popular.

For me, I do enjoy a movie that's deep or well written or has great cinematography, even if it's a bit boring. I also like movies that have entertainment value. Both can exist.

Only gripe I have is shitty popular movies prevent smaller indie movies from being shown at my small town theater.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago

Film critics are like friends: you need to choose a few that share your taste, and stick with them. For me it's Moviebob, Redletter Media and Patrick H Willems. They appreciate whacky shit as much as I do.

[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

That's called being a contrarian

[–] BootLoop@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

The inverse of Rotten Tomatoes is a good measurement of how I'd enjoy a movie.