Overrated/Underrated Geek Media

[Bedrockgames]

If you have the NYT on subscription they generally have archival reviews (sometime they are available without subscription, it's kind of random), it's one of the few things I respect them for. I think the WaPo and a few others might too but they don't show up in searches easily.

For Dances with Wolves here are three major examples you could find on Google (it's harder with a lot of movies):

Dances with Wolves movie review (1990) | Roger Ebert

They meet at first in the middle of the prairie, holding themselves formally and a little awkwardly, the cavalry officer and Sioux Indians. There should be

www.rogerebert.com

Roger Ebert thinks its great!

The New York Times: Best Pictures

Vincent Canby (for the NYT) thinks it's okay but not great.

Dances With Wolves (1990) - Review by Pauline Kael - Scraps from the loft

Pauline Kael reviews Kevin Costner's Dances with Wolves (1990)

scrapsfromtheloft.com

Pauline Kael (for the New Yorker) thinks it's kind of crap.

Look how well-written and thought-through those reviews are. Actual pieces of actual journalism. Of course that was because people actually got paid and being a film critic for a newspaper then required more than calling yourself one.

For Goodfellas

GoodFellas movie review & film summary (1990) | Roger Ebert

For two days after I saw Martin Scorsese's new film, "GoodFellas," the mood of the characters lingered within me, refusing to leave. It was a mood of guilt

www.rogerebert.com

Roger Ebert thinks its great!

Pauline Kael Reviews "GoodFellas"

Is it a great movie? I don’t think so. But it’s a triumphant piece of filmmaking.

www.newyorker.com

Pauline Kael thinks it's good - literally says it's not great but seems to have a positive opinion.

I couldn't easily find any other actual 1990 ones.

I get that. But there were a lot of critics in lots of newspapers and on television when Dances with Wolves came out. What I am asking is what was the average review at that time. Just sampling three doesn't tell us anything (even if they are notable critics and one is from the NYTs). And I am not saying it wasn't poorly reviewed. That just isn't my memory so I am trying to find out what the case actually was (and I could be totally wrong)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I get that. But there were a lot of critics in lots of newspapers and on television when Dances with Wolves came out. What I am asking is what was the average review at that time. Just sampling three doesn't tell us anything (even if they are notable critics and one is from the NYTs). And I am not saying it wasn't poorly reviewed. That just isn't my memory so I am trying to find out what the case actually was (and I could be totally wrong)

I'm not trying to be rude, but you're asking for something pretty unreasonable, and you seem to think it's trivial.

For someone to find out the actual reviews from the actual time would require literally hours of serious research, by a competent researcher, with proper access to a library of newspapers from 1990, which generally costs money (and may require going to an actual library or the like). There is no "archival reviews" site, and Googling for even 30 seconds would show that.

The best you can do, for free, is look on Wikipedia, where some research will already have been done (albeit it often opens with a modern RT/Metacritic score which is often hugely different to the reception at the time), and is usually reasonable accurate, in the "Reception" section.

From there we find this, which is undated but I suspect at least near-contemporary (though who knows?) - Best Movies of 1990 - CriticsTop10

Seems like critics involved in this voted Goodfellas the #1 movie of 1990, and Dances with Wolves the #2 movie.

Dances With Wolves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Goodfellas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EDIT - If I seem a little miffed, it's because I used to work as a researcher, and people thinking gigantic tasks are trivial was something I encountered a fair bit. But when you're working as one, you at least have access to the tools to potentially do something like this.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're factually wrong to generically suggest critics aren't experts.

Even in newspaper a lot of reviewers are journalists who happen get assigned to the review beat, I'd certainly call most of them experts in journalism, but I would be reluctant to call them all experts in film. I do think many journalists out there are experts in different aspects of film. That said, I don't think a person having expertise in critical theory means their opinion of Mean Streets is more valid than one's own. It is art and what matter's is how it makes people feel in when they are watching it.

I was a stringer for a little while for example (I didn't review but I easily could have). I had zero education in journalism (my education was in History) and zero training in anything related to film. I am sure there are plenty of professional reviewers who have no expertise but are very good at reviewing movies

The issue that I think is confusing you here is that film critics in newspapers, on TV shows, and on YouTube are a complete mix of experts and non-experts and there's no particular guidance as to who is which.

I mostly read print reviews of movies. And I often read old compilations of reviews. While I enjoy youtube reviews, that isn't my main diet. But that said, I don't think there is anything wrong with someone being a youtube critics. I do not see cinema as belonging uniquely to journalism or academia. I think it is an art form everyone can participate in talking about. Besides critics for newspapers are also a mixture of experts and non-experts. They are usually professional journalists, but they aren't necessarily experts in film. Though I agree that some are and that academic film critics are coming from a place of a specialized expertise

A lot of critics understand a huge amount about film-making, in real depth, and with real context, and additionally have seen thousands of movies with a critical eye, and understand things about them that other people don't necessarily notice, as well as understanding critical theory.

Sure, I don't disagree that this can be the case. But you can definitely tell lots of reviewers are coming from very different places here. And I did say, I think seeing this volume of cinema gives them unique insights. However I also think they develop blinders from consuming so much media and it being part of their profession

You don't have to understand critical theory to talk about movies. Critical theory is one way of interpretation media. I am much more concerned about films emotional impact on viewers than that kind of analysis.

Those people are expects, and you calling them not is just bad manners and frankly a little ignorant.

I may be wrong, I am certainly open to the possibility that I am abusing the word expert or something. But I do not think I am ignorant. I am no expert myself, but I do follow film criticism and am aware of the kinds of experts you are talking about. The main reason I made this statement was more to say the people don't have to listen to what critics say. They can have their own ideas. But I think it is also fair to say critics as a group aren't necessarily experts. Calling them experts and giving that weight on what people should think about a movie, feels wrong to (it isn't like a physicist having an opinion on gravity for example, it is a much different situation because movies are so subjective). I do get though that there are aspects of movies where expertise can be valuable (film history, explanations of the mechanics of film making, etc).

But countless others are just some guy with an opinion, which may be informed by very little indeed. For example, there was a popular critic who I think was on YouTube who just wouldn't watch movies from before 1980s, and generally offered the most shallow CinemaSins-type criticisms and praise possible, who was really popular a few years ago (I assume he Milkshake Duck'd himself as I haven't heard of him in a while).

Sure, and I think it is totally fine for this guy to give his opinions, even if he is ignorant of movies before a certain era. We are talking about movies, I think it is okay for people to publish their opinions about them on the internet. That doesn't make him right, but he might still have other interesting things to say. Hopefully he ends up learning more about cinema from before the 80s. I've encountered this too when I have seen reviewers on youtube. It is like anything else online, you take it with a grain of salt.

One of the benefits of this kind of criticism on youtube, and elsewhere on the internet, is genres that may be underserved get more coverage. I watch a lot of very niche genre movies and a lot of times there are zero professional reviews on them. But there are often dedicated blogs, youtube channels, and fan sites where you can get reviews to gather a sense of other peoples opinions. You can also sometimes get information in them, but obviously given these are pretty much just blogs people are doing for free, and so they aren't going through an editorial review, you should take it with a grain of salt and verify (but you can often find good leads). And I have found tons of factual errors in even professional reviews (I have been surprised how little many professional reviewers know for example about some of the genres I am interested in: so even there you will get sweeping generalizations that aren't true if one has seen enough movies from the genre).

Unfortunately this even applies to a certain proportion of critics who work for actual media outlets.

This just reinforces my point that they aren't necessarily experts though.

The problem is even larger with videogames of course, but not as bad as it was say, 10 years ago there.

I don't play video games so I can't comment there.

If you have the NYT on subscription they generally have archival reviews (sometime they are available without subscription, it's kind of random), it's one of the few things I respect them for. I think the WaPo and a few others might too but they don't show up in searches easily.

Unfortunately I don't have the NYTs on subscription. There are a lot of paywalls I am privy to

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not trying to be rude, but you're asking for something pretty unreasonable, and you seem to think it's trivial.

Fair enough. I realize this is asking for a lot of actual work for what is just an internet discussion.

For someone to find out the actual reviews from the actual time would require literally hours of serious research, by a competent researcher, with proper access to a library of newspapers from 1990, which generally costs money (and may require going to an actual library or the like). There is no "archival reviews" site, and Googling for even 30 seconds would show that.

The best you can do, for free, is look on Wikipedia, where some research will already have been done (albeit it often opens with a modern RT/Metacritic score which is often hugely different to the reception at the time), and is usually reasonable accurate, in the "Reception" section.

From there we find this, which is undated but I suspect at least near-contemporary (though who knows?) - Best Movies of 1990 - CriticsTop10

Seems like critics involved in this voted Goodfellas the #1 movie of 1990, and Dances with Wolves the #2 movie.

I appreciate this. But I think this matches what i was trying to say, which is critics didn't hate Dances with Wolves, it was well reviewed, but Goodfellas was more highly reviewed

Dances With Wolves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Goodfellas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EDIT - If I seem a little miffed, it's because I used to work as a researcher, and people thinking gigantic tasks are trivial was something I encountered a fair bit. But when you're working as one, you at least have access to the tools to potentially do something like this.

To be clear I wasn't asking people do research. I was more trying to get at where this information was coming from because people were asserting that Dances with Wolves wasn't that well reviewed but there didn't seem to be any real basis for the statement.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Even in newspaper a lot of reviewers are journalists who happen get assigned to the review beat

What's your basis for this claim?

As far as I knew, which includes knowing actual human beings who have been actual critics for actual major UK newspapers, and more than one of them, note, it wasn't generally true historically, and still isn't true in a lot of cases. I can see it might happen with local papers, especially really small-time ones, but I don't think it's usually the case with larger publications.

What has happened, particularly over the last 5-10 years is that journalism as a whole has been massively devalued, so critics are less likely to be veterans etc. - but I still don't think most major outlets have yet got to assigning randos to the role.

I mostly read print reviews of movies. And I often read old compilations of reviews.

Both of which are significantly more likely to be written by people who do, actually, qualify as experts, which makes your claim rather surprising.

Sure, I don't disagree that this can be the case. But you can definitely tell lots of reviewers are coming from very different places here. And I did say, I think seeing this volume of cinema gives them unique insights. However I also think they develop blinders from consuming so much media and it being part of their profession

I think you're making assumptions without much of a basis. Someone is an expert because they know a lot, but you seem to be dismissing that as meaningless and unworthy of acknowledgement. I mean, that's absolutely standard in 2025, but that doesn't mean it's a helpful or informed attitude.

The blinders thing seems completely baseless to me. What evidence do you have for it? Disagreeing about quality doesn't show blinders at all, you'd literally be wrong to claim that. If a movie critic was saying "audiences will hate this!!!", but audiences love it, sure, that's them being wrong and maybe having blinders.

But you seem to think that happens with actually-expert critics, and my experience is that, generally, it does not. It happens more often with the unexpert critics, who think they're "men of the people" and the like, and let their personal reaction dominate. Someone like Pauline Kael might be an enormous jerk, and might focus on elements of films you don't care about, but historically she's still usually been right about what movies she thinks will be popular with general audiences. But she was paid to express HER opinion of the film, not play Nostradamus re: whether it will be successful. That's still the case with most critics.

That said, I don't think a person having expertise in critical theory means their opinion of Mean Streets is more valid than one's own. It is art and what matter's is how it makes people feel in when they are watching it.

This seems like a weird thing to bring up to me. Who on earth is talking about "validity" except you? It seems to me that some people have weird insecurities where they get upset if critics have different opinions to them, but instead of talking about the opinions, they just start talking about "validity" and other irrelevant stuff. Why do that?

I mean, like if you disagree with a critic, disagree with them on an actual basis, don't get into "validity" contests. Don't appeal to imaginary "common man" audiences who you actually are probably worse at assessing than most expert critics are.

You don't have to understand critical theory to talk about movies. Critical theory is one way of interpretation media. I am much more concerned about films emotional impact on viewers than that kind of analysis.

But what makes various randos better at reading/understanding "emotional impact" than expert critics, and why, for you is "emotional impact" given such primacy? Why is it more important than anything else? Especially this is interesting in the context that many movies have a very fleeting "emotional impact", but others do not, but that's rarely accounted for when this is brought up. Why aren't other aspects of a movie, like what it makes you think about, what ideas it conveys, and so on, important?

 

[TiQuinn]

I'm not trying to be rude, but you're asking for something pretty unreasonable, and you seem to think it's trivial.

For someone to find out the actual reviews from the actual time would require literally hours of serious research, by a competent researcher, with proper access to a library of newspapers from 1990, which generally costs money (and may require going to an actual library or the like). There is no "archival reviews" site, and Googling for even 30 seconds would show that.

The best you can do, for free, is look on Wikipedia, where some research will already have been done (albeit it often opens with a modern RT/Metacritic score which is often hugely different to the reception at the time), and is usually reasonable accurate, in the "Reception" section.

From there we find this, which is undated but I suspect at least near-contemporary (though who knows?) - Best Movies of 1990 - CriticsTop10

Seems like critics involved in this voted Goodfellas the #1 movie of 1990, and Dances with Wolves the #2 movie.

Dances With Wolves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Goodfellas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EDIT - If I seem a little miffed, it's because I used to work as a researcher, and people thinking gigantic tasks are trivial was something I encountered a fair bit. But when you're working as one, you at least have access to the tools to potentially do something like this.

Does Rotten Tomatoes “Tomatometer” not suffice for a general idea of reviews? Most of those are taken from the time the movie was released, and whoever is asking (I don’t see their exact post but I get the gist) can look up the individual reviews from their or simply accept the aggregate.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Most of those are taken from the time the movie was released

The trouble is that this isn't consistently true.

It assumed it was, but then I checked for a number of movies a few years ago (during the pandemic) and found actually, despite being released in the 1990s, most of the reviewers were from much later.

So I think you kind of have to check on a per-movie basis. RT could certainly have a researcher on staff and get them to do "authentic" at the time reviews (and perhaps put them alongside later ratings), but that's not how they operate.

 

[TiQuinn]

The trouble is that this isn't consistently true.

It assumed it was, but then I checked for a number of movies a few years ago (during the pandemic) and found actually, despite being released in the 1990s, most of the reviewers were from much later.

So I think you kind of have to check on a per-movie basis. RT could certainly have a researcher on staff and get them to do "authentic" at the time reviews (and perhaps put them alongside later ratings), but that's not how they operate.

True but generally I look to see if it’s a newspaper or not if it’s an older movie, which for Dances with Wolves and Goodfellas, both predated the typical Internet review site. Again, it’s not exact but just for a general sense of where reviewers landed at the time.

 

[Bedrockgames]

What's your basis for this claim?

It is possible I am wrong but based on reading about reviewers whose background was often not in film until they became reviewers. My understanding for example is that Gene Siskel was a philosophy student, not a film student. This seems to have been the norm with a lot of film reviews. But if it is in fact the case that all film critics or most have backgrounds in things related directly to film expertise, I will gladly acknowledge that.

As far as I knew, which includes knowing actual human beings who have been actual critics for actual major UK newspapers, and more than one of them, note, it wasn't generally true historically, and still isn't true in a lot of cases. I can see it might happen with local papers, especially really small-time ones, but I don't think it's usually the case with larger publications.

What has happened, particularly over the last 5-10 years is that journalism as a whole has been massively devalued, so critics are less likely to be veterans etc. - but I still don't think most major outlets have yet got to assigning randos to the role.

I was a stringer for a local paper and at the local level at least, this seems to have been what was going on. It is also my impression that that is the case with larger papers, but I admit it is just an impression. It isn't like I have data supporting the impression.

Both of which are significantly more likely to be written by people who do, actually, qualify as experts, which makes your claim rather surprising.

Yes but many of them do not seem to be. And frankly I think that is a good thing. Sometimes I want a very academic review of a movie, but most of the time that is the last thing I want. I want someone whose opinion is informed (which I do think most reviewers are) but more importantly I want to read a review by someone who is good at writing about movies and passionate about them.

I think you're making assumptions without much of a basis. Someone is an expert because they know a lot, but you seem to be dismissing that as meaningless and unworthy of acknowledgement. I mean, that's absolutely standard in 2025, but that doesn't mean it's a helpful or informed attitude.

Tell me what you think makes someone an expert. Is being a reviewer for 10 years the baseline? Is some kind of education the baseline? Is seeing 1000 films the baseline? If you just mean they are informed and experienced, I agree. But the reason I pushed back a bit on expertise, is because while they may have very solid expertise in some instances on the technical aspects of film, the history, etc, we are talking about opinions on movies, and I don't think bringing in expertise on that is the same as bringing in expertise on say peoples opinions about antibiotics or whether the earth is round

The blinders thing seems completely baseless to me. What evidence do you have for it? Disagreeing about quality doesn't show blinders at all, you'd literally be wrong to claim that. If a movie critic was saying "audiences will hate this!!!", but audiences love it, sure, that's them being wrong and maybe having blinders.

This is based on my own experience reviewing a lot of movies and it is something I have noticed with critics too. This isn't meant as a criticism at all. But when you watch movie after movie, you don't see movies the way many audiences do. You can start to lose touch with audiences and you can even get kind of dizzy from just consuming so much. You can also begin to think your opinion matters more than the people who are going to see the thing.

But you seem to think that happens with actually-expert critics, and my experience is that, generally, it does not. It happens more often with the unexpert critics, who think they're "men of the people" and the like, and let their personal reaction dominate. Someone like Pauline Kael might be an enormous jerk, and might focus on elements of films you don't care about, but historically she's still usually been right about what movies she thinks will be popular with general audiences. But she was paid to express HER opinion of the film, not play Nostradamus re: whether it will be successful. That's still the case with most critics.

First off, I like Pauline Kael. I don't always agree with her. But I like her. That doesn't mean the man on the street's opinion isn't also important. I personally like film critics. What I am talking about is not putting them on a pedestal and not dismissing other peoples opinions simply because they don't have the same credential (when what we are talking about is art, and everyone is going to have a different reaction to art).

This seems like a weird thing to bring up to me. Who on earth is talking about "validity" except you? It seems to me that some people have weird insecurities where they get upset if critics have different opinions to them, but instead of talking about the opinions, they just start talking about "validity" and other irrelevant stuff. Why do that?

I mean, like if you disagree with a critic, disagree with them on an actual basis, don't get into "validity" contests. Don't appeal to imaginary "common man" audiences who you actually are probably worse at assessing than most expert critics are.

On the one hand you say no one is talking about validity based on whether they are critics or not, but then you keep saying things like "audiences who you actually are probably worse at assessing than most expert critics are.". Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning here, and perhaps I misunderstood the poster's point about critics when it was first raised. But I mentioned validity because I was sensing that kind of meaning operating behind the post

But what makes various randos better at reading/understanding "emotional impact" than expert critics, and why, for you is "emotional impact" given such primacy?

Because emotional reactions are individual. People understand their own emotional reaction to a film.

Because for me all of art, music, film, literature is about how it makes me feel. What I care about is how music makes me feel. What I care about is how a movie makes me feel. For me that is the most important aspect of it

Why is it more important than anything else? Especially this is interesting in the context that many movies have a very fleeting "emotional impact", but others do not, but that's rarely accounted for when this is brought up. Why aren't other aspects of a movie, like what it makes you think about, what ideas it conveys, and so on, important?

I am not saying it is the only aspect. But it is very important when people are deciding if they like something.

I do think that what a movie makes you think about can be important to. I think the two measures I have of a movie are 1) my emotional response (which for me is the most important part) and 2) how my mind goes back to the movie after I see it. But neither of these are things critics have a monopoly on. We can all feel in response to a film and we can all think in response to a film.

And I am not uninterested in what an informed critic has to say about a movie's ideas. At the same time, I am not uninterested in what audiences have to say about a movie's ideas.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And I am not uninterested in what an informed critic has to say about a movie's ideas. At the same time, I am not uninterested in what audiences have to say about a movie's ideas.

I'll reply to some of the rest later, but this is a good example of the kind of problem I'm pointing to - "audiences" don't have anything to say, because they're made of individuals, who have things to say, but very few of them choose to say much - usually only ones with with extreme opinions re: the film's quality, unless you get someone out there to actually survey them. Anything which is self-selecting though will grab a very strange portion of the audience, not the audience as a whole. Indeed, the entire idea of the "audience as a whole" is questionable, given many films are divisive in various ways.

Hell, look no further than the Minecraft movie - kids of a certain age will probably think, unironically, that it's amazing. Kids who are a bit older will think that it's bad-but-amazing with a degree of irony. A lot of adults will think its pure crap, but tolerate it for the sake of their kids.