E D I T O R I A L

Why Reviews Are Useless

Thursday, November 8, 2001 — What is a review? One dictionary defines it as a "critical evaluation." An evaluation is 'a determination of the significance or worth, usually by careful appraisal and study.' Sounds like an antique dealer talking. So why do so many movie reviewers spend so much time detailing the plot?

I don't know. I tend to do the same thing. It seems to be expected — tell the reader what the movie is about, then toss in a few jokes about its greatness or stinkiness. But it's also much easier than evaluating the film as a whole. Placing a film in cultural or societal context is much more time-consuming and challenging, and may reveal the reviewer's ignorance.

What, then, are people looking for when they read a review? Well, here's my two cents:

In cinemas — is this worth the time and money (not just the ticket itself, but popcorn, candy, drinks, dinner before or after, maybe a babysitter) or should I wait for it to appear in the rental shops or on television? Who's in it, and what's it about? A comedy, drama, action film, character piece, art house? But I don't need to know everything that happens in the movie, and I don't need to read that there's a shocking and surprising ending, or even that there's a twist at the end! Why give it away?

On DVD — should I buy it? Is it worth US $25 or $30 (as with some Jackie Chan and Jet Li titles)? Will I want to watch it again? Or is it a good flick with limited replay value, and thus maybe just a rental title? Or is it a film to watch when I've seen everything else on the shelves at the local rental shop (or in the bargain basement titles at your favorite Internet merchant?) Here the question gets a bit more subjective, because some people have great home theater systems and only want to invest in titles that are anamorphic with excellent sound, picture and subtitles. Others are more concerned with the movie and are willing to put up with a less than stellar DVD just to see a classic.

When I first started my exploration of Hong Kong films, I was eager to read everything I could, to try to figure out a consensus of films that were well regarded. What should I see first, that kind of thing. With more than 150 films under my belt, I have a fairly good general idea of genres I want to explore more thoroughly, as well as directors to look for, stars to focus on, etc. And my own critical faculties have come to bear on the films I watch. For example, no matter what other people say, The Storm Riders put me to sleep (twice), A Better Tomorrow II was boring, Option Zero is underappreciated, etc.

Though others influence me, my taste, personal bias, and opinions remain my own, and always affect the way I watch films. And that's true for everybody. The best that reviewers can strive for is to provide a semi-consistent (everybody changes over time and circumstances) standard against which other people can gauge their expected reaction to a film. Allow me to end this semi-coherent rant with quotations from two of the too-few reviewers who "get" it:

"Regardless of any review you read printed on this site, all films deserve to seen at least once. The reviews here are mostly the personal thoughts and musings of an admittedly unqualified fan of Asian cinema. The best critic and judge of any creative work is yourself."
— Paul Fox, Canton Kid

"If you find that you usually agree with my HK reviews in the main section, this may prove to be a valuable guide for you. By the same token, if you NEVER agree with me, this may still be a worthwhile read for you."
— John Charles, Hong Kong Digital

P.S. Just to clarify, it's mainstream reviewers that I'm complaining about. Most fans who review Hong Kong films have a better grasp of what's important than the vast majority of professionals.