Incorporating both is the better perspective. Don’t let examining media critically stop you from liking what you like.
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2026
566 points (98.6% liked)
memes
20289 readers
1275 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No 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
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The same goes the other way around: don't let your enjoyment of something stop you from examining it critically, or, worse, (try to) stop others from doing so - which happens quite often, unfortunately.
Had a friend say this exact thing recently, completely baffled me. I didn't like the movie we watched and was pointing things out, he was agreeing with most of it until he said something like: "yeah but overall I enjoyed the movie so I shouldn't complain about it."
load more comments
(4 replies)
I used to be a huge turd for years thinking "these plebians liking will Farrell movies are so dumb, it's a horrible movie with no plot".
Turns out you can enjoy two different things completely fine in life. I was just being an arrogant fuckwit
load more comments
(2 replies)
Gourmet vs Gourmand
Life's better when you can enjoy complex things for their complexity and simple things for their simplicity =)
Bingo. I always try to think "What is it trying to be and can I take enjoyment from that?"
I'll even enjoy a "bad" movie if it seems like everyone involved was having a blast making it. I just shift my perspective to "What if this were my friends from highschool showing me a movie they made?" and I end up being a lot less judgy.
Life's too short to be too picky to be entertained.
Neither perspective is good if they are to be applied generalized. There are flawed movies I enjoy, there are supposedly perfect movies I don't enjoy. There are movies I enjoy because they challenge me and movies I don't enjoy because they don't. There are a lot of movies that I've already seen even on a first watch (looking at you, Marvel after Phase III) and dislike because of that and there are movies I watch because I've seen them before.
Often (not always, remember we try not to generalize) it comes down to what is expected, what is delivered and when there is something delivered you didn't expect, how well was the twist executed.
Having craftsmanship be a factor in one's rating of a movie is equally valid as how much you enjoyed it, as may be individual factors like historical plausibility, scientific accuracy or fidelity to the source material, if those things apply.
That's why I prefer to talk about movies instead of assign numerical ratings.
I totally share that perspective. My controversial example is always fury road because it fits those criteria so well. It delivers exactly what it says on the tin. If you come expecting something else you're gonna have a lousy time. But if you come excited about what it has to deliver, you'll start noticing that it is engineered to near perfection with that one objective in mind.
load more comments
(1 replies)
All the positive reviews have a suspiciously similar, gushing writing style.
Hmm.
I mean, not a single other current movie/show on their front page has 99% audience score.
Even if Melanoma was secretly good and "the critics were trying to bury it" they would be suspicious.
It'll be a shit load of bots, and then the same reactionary people that make everything politically partisan and mass review bomb anything "woke"
People that didn't see it and don't care about "how well it does" won't review it at all, so there's no counter votes because... Literally no one seeing it.
Russian and Israeli bots
It depends entirely on the movie.
Like one of my all time favourite movies is Pacific Rim, because it's goal is simply to be a bad ass and fun movie where robots fight giant monsters and it succeeds at that incredible.
It doesn't pretend there's some big important ehtic dilemma or it's characters are particularly deep or go through big arcs, but it doesn't ignore any of that either, it gives just another character to make the film work and be good without distracting from the robots.
But then on the other hand a film like good will hunting has no giant monsters but has a great character arc that is the driving force of the movie and is also good.
As I said of Pacific Rim in another comment:
A giant robot hits a giant monster with a boat, it doesn't get better than that!
But then another personal favorite of mine is 12 Angry Men. Black & white, most of the movie takes place in a single room, but still fantastic
I think people should rate things consistently, and both of those criteria in the post are fairly subjective. Like, they could both vary based on your mood.
Here's my 3-star rating system, which is less subjective:
*** I would happily watch this movie again, or I have already enjoyed it multiple times.
** It wasn't bad, but I don't see myself watching it again.
* I would refuse to watch this again, or I turned it off because I couldn't watch it once.
Of course, it's not perfect. Movies like Dear Zachary would be forced to be 2 stars. But for the most part, since star reviews are to help people decide what to watch, if the criteria is whether or not people would want to watch it a lot, I think the intentions line up with the implementation better.
Good system. I really like the practical call to action.
- must watch
- watch
- don’t watch
You could even extend it with half stars to a 6 star system equivalent.
Lots of rating systems gain an inflation of the hightest grades.
I'm a fan of:
** - Watch
-
- Dont watch
It's all about intent.
If a film is trying to be a pseudo-intellectual fuck-fest and fails to do so it should be called out on it. Shutter Island I think tries it and fails. It's like Scorsese saw Memento, thought "I can do that", but he couldn't.
If a film is just dumb fun like M3GAN, then that's OK. More than fine. The worst thing you can do there is be boring. Michael Bay made robots fighting boring. Colin Trevorrow made dinosaurs boring. If you're going to be dumb then at least be fun.
Hell, even Tron Ares is OK if you go into it expecting a two hour long music video. If you go into it expecting good acting, a script, a story, or anything other than Trent Reznor assaulting your eardrums to a light show, you're going to be disappointed.
You know what film failed to challenge even a second grade understanding of anything? Blues Brothers. You know what film really nails being two solid hours of entertainment? Blues Brothers.
At no point in either movie do you ever wonder what is going to happen to the protagonist, how they're going to get out of a predicament, or think about the world we live in. Even if you wanted to, you wouldn't, because you're jamming out to Aretha Franklin absolutely killing it.
I love dark introspective movies with layers of nuance that make me stare in to infinity for a while had thinking about what I saw. I also love dumb fun entertainment. There's a wide gap between those two extremes where quality just falls in to a mediocre valley of boring. And right at the middle there's another peak where truly rare films manage to strike a balance between stupid fun and introspective. It's like horseshoes, close counts because you almost never hit the peg. Mandy comes to mind. So does the first Iron Man.
load more comments
(1 replies)
i think a film's quality is multidimensional and shouldn't be reduced to a single number.
so i literally don't rate films unless all aspects of it are consistently good or bad.
I'm going to be honest, the number one way to get a good rating from me is to put a giant monster in your movie and have it fight other giant monsters OR a giant robot.
My number one complaint about movies with kaiju and/or mecha, which can prevent them from getting five stars, is that there are usually too many scenes with people talking and advancing the plot, and not enough scenes of wanton destruction where the kaiju/mecha are brawling.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Why can't it be both? Too many people think that nuanced movies can't be fun. It's even dumber when they think a movie must not be nuanced just because it is fun. (Like anyone who talks about super hero movies like the entire genre is one bad movie.)
I apply both of these to all movies in tandem. A movie can be both "enjoyable to watch" and "having artistic merit" to varying degrees.
I really dislike when critics and audiences are unable to separate them. There are real, professional critics who seem to only judge movies by how much they enjoyed them, and I think that's fucked because they laud a lot of "bad" movies. Then there's others who seem to care exclusively about the perceived level of artistry - and usually they only like movies with a narrow range of themes and tones.
It's perfectly possible to enjoy chewing gum for the brain even though one gets no nutritional value from it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
thats horrifying, how do i get them out?
I'm the first when watching an american political movie, i'm the second when watching a dumb horror movie.
One is not a cinephile, and the other is a fantastic exaggeration of what a cinephile is.
"This comment lacked perspective and nuance. A dreadful affair, 0/10."
Right has the far better perspective. Thats the one I try to take into all movies sight unseen.
Movies made for Left tend to make themselves known within the first 15 minutes or so, and then he can come out and offer literary critique
And you'd be wrong.
Neither has the better perspective, they're both part of the experience.
Some movies are just fun watches, some movies are incredibly insightful, some combine both.
Right has the far better perspective.
You can have a world where both The English Patient and Paddington 2 are considered good movies
Seriously how did they make a movie about a talking bear so goddamn good?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Neither? If you're going to rate every movie 5/5 then there's no point in rating movies. Just watch them and enjoy them.
Sometimes a movie is neither fun, nor has anything valuable to say
How dare you call out Pixels like that.
I recently watched a movie that was absolutely excellent, a masterclass in telling a story without having an overt plot and use of symbolism and behavioral patterns and changes to depict a deeply human situation. Did I have fun? No, it was uncomfortable as hell as it's the story of a relationship in which both parties are bad for each other with one pushing for more and more and the other increasingly pulling back and not into it. It reminded me of many of my worst insecurities and my worst relationships, especially those with people with bpd that wasn't under control.
Movie is the Duke of Burgundy if anyone is interested, cw bugs and bdsm.
And I think it's worth comparing it to another movie recently shown to me by the same friend: Tokyo Godfathers. It's a fun and artistically valuable movie, and while it's often uncomfortable, it has points to its discomfort whether in the form of social commentary or to enable the characters to grow. I don't think I've ever seen a better depiction of the type of homeless people who are neither transiently homeless nor severely mentally ill. It's also an interesting insight into Christianity and Christian symbolism in Japanese culture. It's ultimately about how even fuck ups who've crashed out of society have goodness in them. And it manages to be fun and exciting the entire time. I highly recommend it
load more comments
(4 replies)
inside me are no cinephiles
Two compelling critiques of the latest Zootopia film.
The right.
I look at it this way, don't let some asshole tell you how you should feel. You build up bias toward it, you're going to go in with that bias. Watch a movie because you want an experience.
load more comments
(3 replies)
most cinephiles i've met take it as a personal attack when anyone simply hates the movies they adore. i don't voluntarily hang around with these people
You ain't gone deep enough into cinephile hell. I'll spit in the face of whoever likes the same movie as me and then I'll go home and cry myself to sleep for not having a uniquely refined taste.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Why the fuck would I want to be challenged as a viewer?
Life is already challenging enough.
Film is a great way to show you an experience that may expand your perspective. The viewer is usually challenged by this as they have to empathise with a person outside of their comfort zone.
A good example is when a character first comes off as bad and you have to really feel his situation and empathise with him to understand why he made the choices he did and two people might walk away thinking different things about if he was right or wrong. This is a lot more involved than non challenging films where the intentions are out in the open.
Theyre fun if you're in the mood but theres nothing wrong with chucking on something mindless, entertaining and enjoying.
Both of them are rating Sophie's Choice btw.
view more: next ›