Bullshit. Reviews are a composite of a whole slew of different things, and how that movie makes you feel because of them. There's no way you can genuinely say that expectations don't change your perception of a movie, and when you have incredibly low expectations it's much easier to exceed them. Critique can never occur in a vacuum, no matter how much someone tries.
Look at Star Wars, expectations were set insanely low by all the hatred for the prequel trilogy. All they had to do was make it better than Phantom Menace and it was guaranteed to succeed, and make people act like it's the greatest thing ever regardless of quality. Just relieve the decade long tension of "I hope the next ones aren't this bad."
Right, all movies are timeless and something that was once thought of as good is always good forever because the bar never changes.
Excitement and expectations are two different things. Star Wars had an unprecedented level of excitement, buildup, and hype around it; most of it was "oh my god I hope it's not fucking awful like the last ones." But this is just going to get further off topic for the thread so I'm stopping with that.
Double post....
Talk about missing the point. If movie A is better than movie B and C (for example, A = X-men 1, B = Superman from 1977, and C = Batman Forever,) that does not imply that movie A is a 10/10 film. Movie B and C sure do suck but movie A just sucks a lot less. It may be arguable that it was an important film that proved to major studios that comic book properties were viable. It was a stepping stone that lead to the age we have now where Superhero movies are a wholly accepted genre of movies on their own merits.
I'm gonna ignore the Star Wars part because I don't even think you know what your point was.
All movies aren't timeless that is for sure, but the best movies do stand the test of time.
Of course not, but that doesn't mean that short-sighted people won't call it a 10/10 when it comes out. Movies are an iterative medium as much as any other, so anything that raises expectations and sets a new baseline for a certain type of movie will always be regarded as good to some extent. Not necessarily perfect, but good. It just depends on where that particular critic sees the new hypothetical ceiling for quality.
Doesn't Roger Ebert have a quote about how he scores movies, basically saying when he reviews a superhero movie, he's comparing it to other superhero movies and the dynamics and expectations set up by such movies? So, yes, no real critic is going to directly say "it was better than Batman," because that's unnecessarily limiting your readership to people who have seen Batman, but that doesn't mean having seen Batman doesn't influence a critique in any way.
I don't trust anyone who wasn't a fan of John Wick. Go be quiet and sip more unpronounceable wine with your pinky raised up while wearing a top hat and monocle.
Compared to..?
Fuck you, John Wick is epic as fuck.
Fuck singer. Gf saw the trailer and was like, what's so bad about it? I sulked. Ugh hh!!
John wick is the shit!
So I rewatched X1 an X2 yesterday. If not for big ticket actors, the movie would have been shit tier. Not to mention the plots for both, are pretty much identical. As sequels go, X2 was pretty bad. Wolverine's hair in X2 looked so overly emphasized, almost similar to what they did with Sue Storm in Silver Surfer. Only the BroSirs kept me interested in the movie. Oh and Mistique, watching Rebecca was actually really enjoyable. Unlike Jean, Cyclops or Storm, she actually did really good job.
Going to rewatch X3, cause I'm masochist like that, then watch FC and DofP. Not even gonna bother with Wolverine spinoffs, although the second one was better production quality.
Welp, I just "re-acquired" that series of movies to relive their greatness. Should be a fun ride.
I thought it was boring as hell but never was a fan of Wolverine's Japanese adventures really.
lol that car looks so bad D; Dunno still feeling mixed about this movie.