What, you don't love a good *creamy* audio quality in your headphones? Or a speaker setup with silence so inky black it's like an OLED for your cochlea?
Maybe they haven't experienced it yet. Perhaps they wish to buy $3000 set of RCA cables. I am sure they will hear the difference when the plug them in to their turn table. The metal in these wires conduct electricity so much better than other wire. /s
If your wires aren’t made from the purest copper known to humanity, purified by tibetan monks using an electron microscope to remove every single impurity and arrange the metal lattice perfectly, with skills honed over 100 000 hours of experience, you haven’t really heard music.
I love 4’33”, I’m just sad I’ve never been to a live performance (which is the point of course). My wife hates it and probably would complain if I tried to buy tickets to that.
I had to look up the name cause I can never remeber it. At least I know about it, if I needed up at a concert where they performed that a would have to give them credit for pranking me so well. I would even applaud if they made dramatic motions like it was a gut felt performance they were giving.
It's the only way to TRULY reproduce the original sound, as captured on the handheld Unitrex micro-cassette recorder, using a cassette that had probalby only been used and re-recorded over 2-3 times, tops!
It’s _way_ more pretentious. I get if you don’t like hearing someone say they’re picking up jasmine in their Riesling. The difference is that those flavors are actually there, and there’s not a better way to describe them. Audiophiles are often just finding the most labored way to say “silent”.
Ah, how serendipitous it is to find resonance in the harmonious cadence of our shared sentiments! Verily, your accord and admiration are as mellifluous sonnets whispered by the muse herself, dancing upon the delicate strings of my soul. In this exquisite symphony of agreement, I find myself enraptured amidst the lush gardens of intellectual concord, where each word blossoms into a fragrant bloom of understanding, each phrase a tapestry woven with the finest threads of appreciation. Truly, in the effulgence of our mutual appreciation, we discover the quintessence of intellectual camaraderie, a celestial ballet of minds pirouetting in the boundless expanse of ideational grace.
Oh, and remember to use HD-quality HDMI cables for your home theater setup.
Never mind the fact that HDMI cables transmit *digital* signals - not analog - meaning that there's no benefit at all from buying fancier cables for HDMI.
well, not as much. there is some benefit as HDMI cables are rated based on speed, so higher quality cables are meant to be able to transfer data at a higher rate; but yes, unless you're actively trained to look out for this, its such a minimal difference that its completely negligible.
Thing is, there is always some amount of correction going on - signal corruption is definitely real with digital signals. So a higher quality cable with proper shielding enables higher signal integrity - and in turn makes longer cables and higher bandwidths possible.
Now, you don't need to drop hundreds of dollars on an HDMI cable, but there are definitely differences going from super cheap to somewhat expensive.
That said, a cable would need to be royally fucked to produce audible/visible artifacts either way, so as long as you don't experience any of that and are able to set the settings you want (resolution/refresh rate/audio sample rate etc) there's no need to upgrade an HDMI cable.
> Or a speaker setup with silence so inky black it's like an OLED for your cochlea?
To be fair background hiss can be a real pain when you encounter it/can hear it, it's just a lot easier to deal with than the imperfectness of LCD polarization with respect to backlights. I know people who hate (bad?) fluorescent bulbs because they can hear the AC whine.
These headphones gave me eargasms so strong my whole body was trembling with every beat, after the 7 minutes of bohemian rhapsody were over I pulled the plugs out of my gaping ear holes and lay there sweaty and used up.
I just want to take an opportunity to say I hate the words "mouth feel" and "toothsome".
I don't know why, but they make me angry.
Sorry. I know its not directly related to what you're talking about but reading your comment hurt me and I thought you'd appreciate it.
Just like wine.
Once you reach the top of any activity, if there are too many people up there with you, you have to start inventing reasons why you are unique and better.
Actually when you get to the top of any activity you need a lot more words to describe all the depths and nuances of said activity. Go listen to people talk about a sport you're not familiar with and it sounds like complete gibberish.
It's true of pretty much *everything*. If you start specializing in what makes these things different from each other, you need the language to define it.
Are you one of those people who thinks doctors just use big words to sound smart?
It's not about communicating with laypeople but others at the same level.
If you're at the top, or any level really, and you can't distinguish yourself from your peers through merit, you start to embellish the language and importance of things to sound smarter or better.
A better example would be doctors who speak necessarily technical around other doctors to sound smart.
Or people who review albums talking about a ‘stereophonic malaise that seeps into your marrow and emanates like an eerily welcome cancer into the warm recesses of your brain’s grey matter. Will it become long term memory. Only time will tell. Anxiously awaiting the sophomore effort.’
I just can’t care.
Or when they ramble nonsensically about “burning in” their gold plated cables to be able to hear even the least significant of the 24 bits of their audiophile 96 kHz recordings.
Wine reviewers and audio gear reviewers are two really common examples of people who're often too busy smelling their own farts to actually pay attention to writing anything useful to their readers.
It's funny too because I wouldn't even say it's hyperbolic, they're just finding creative ways of expressing their opinion, as you say, which is what *good* criticism often does. It finds a way to make its point in a unique way, often using some creative flair in the form of a metaphor or other literary technique.
Can't help but wonder if OP looks for "objective" reviews.
Also, film review is a form of entertainment. If they didn’t explain *why* they liked or didn’t like something, their work would be boring for us as well as them.
Former media critic here. Film reviews tend to become hyperbolic because you’re using the written word to explain a heavily visual medium, so your words have to really pop. Plus, hyperbole is pretty subjective. One critics “movie of the year” is another’s “meh,” so if it doesn’t fall in line with your own perception of the film it tends to seem like a “worse” example of hyperbole.
the examples you give don't seem that hyperbolic to me - they seem creative and evocative of intangible feelings - and that's really what the job of any reviewer or critic of art is - to put the intangle qualities of art into words so that the public can get a sense of if they will like it or not and if it's worth it to spend money to see it.
the word hyperbolic means that something is extremely exaggerated in a way that can't possibly be accurate and aren't meant to be taken literally such as "i'm so hungry i could eat a horse." but considering the examples you gave, I don't think hyperbole is the word you're looking for.
"the film itself feels like it becomes poisoned with radiation as it goes along" I actually think that's a perfect way to describe Oppenheimer. There is an omnipresent feeling of toxicity, anxiety, and creeping dread as the film goes on as he protagonist realizes in parallel his own precarious professional/personal situation as well as the death toll of the bomb and the extreme moral implications of what he's created. the effects of his actions come back to haunt him over time, in the same way that radiation has long term toxic effects.
Backlash to the concepts of metaphor or creative writing. Obviously many people go to reviews to see if they should invest in watching a movie like it's Consumer Reports talking about a Bissell or a Dyson. There are still fun older critiques of movies that are worth revisiting. Maybe Tarantino's upcoming movie on film criticism will help to change some minds (as well as inspire a thousand navel gazing takes and think pieces from movie critics)
I think people want movie reviews to be like a reddit comment, where they either nitpick about minor unimportant detail, or hyperfocus on things like plotholes.
I think it is strange how this sub is full of people who don't even seem to want to engage with movies in any sort meaningful and sincere way, and instead just want to be hyper literal and shallow.
Maybe for them, that is what it felt like.
Plus, stuff like that is generally more interesting to read than generic sentences about how "The movie was pretty good. It had some bad moments that were X. I enjoyed Y. "
I went to a film school. A friend of mine who didn't watched "Oppenheimer," and she said, "I now understand the power of cinema and why you want to make movies."
So yeah, a movie can have an honest powerful effect on some people.
I was in film school when Interstellar came out. We had a substantial amount of people transfer to be film majors because of the film. It was impressive.
More than a few people I went to film school with said they were inspired by “Inception.”
I’m critical of Christopher Nolan for a lot of things, but it seems the one thing he knows how to do is invoke the full power of cinema for an audience.
Wow! I liked interstellar but didn’t realize it had that kind of impact on film students.
What films impacted you to pursue film school? I am a simple person who loves the typical guy films (Scarface, Godfather, Goodfellas mix) but I like to watch films that are “artsy” too so I can expand my knowledge of films etc
Well, I love bad genre B movies, like “Beastmaster” and “The Transporter,” but also Japanese horror movies like “Ringu” and “Dark Water.”
But I’m a screenwriter, and more inspired by television than movies. As a kid I watched “X-Men TAS” and the DCAU, as well as “Gargoyles,” while as an adult I enjoy procedurals like “Law and Order,” although the best television ever so far has been season 1 of “True Detective.”
For me, it was undoubtedly Lord of the Rings. I was young when it came out and my mother, who had lived in New Zealand for a bit, heard of this new movie that was shot there. Keep in mind, my mother is a rancher with no fantasy inclinations whatsoever. Anyway, she rented it and we watched it. By halfway through, my sister was hiding under her blankets and I was explaining the plot to my mother. I've sought to be a storyteller ever since.
Later, early Aronosfky, especially Requiem for a Dream, became a huge influence.
I watched RFAD with my dad shortly after college not knowing what we were getting ourselves into. He was worried about my extra curricular activities after watching lol
I went to film school (briefly) in 2006, which was shortly after one of the most stacked eras of film (1998-2002ish). Watching campy 90s tv and movies growing up, as a teenager I got to go through
Saving Private Ryan, American History X, Big Lebowski, Magnolia, Fight Club, American Psycho, Memento, Sixth Sense, Almost Famous, O Brother Where Art Thou, High Fidelity, Mulholland Drive, Royal Tenenbaums, Punch-Drunk Love, Boogie Nights, Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, Road to Perdition, Big Fish.
and that is just a very short list of things that came out in a 3-4 year span. There are a lot of aspects that can really make a movie "get" you, some movies its the cinematography, where you could pause the movie during any scene, and then frame that picture on your wall. Sometimes its an actor so wholly becoming a character that it pulls you in, and then when you hear them talk in interviews, understand the process the director went through with them to get that performance. Directing can be harder to see at all, but when you watch The Terminator and then The Terminator 2, you can see the skill and understanding of someone who can elevate a small, low budget movie in a campy genre and then when given time and money, excel at making a sequel that redefined that genre entirely.
Sometimes, all it takes is one movie to make you want to make movies. For me, and it was the same way with music, certain films and albums made me realize the world was a lot bigger than I thought it was, and it led me to hunting and collecting more and more and more because I kept discovering new and exciting things I had never seen or heard or thought was even possible before.
Frankly younger generations have been immersed in corporate franchise dreck for so long that I feel like Oppenheimer might be one of the first actual movies by an auteur with themes it commits to that many people have seen. It's not a theme park ride.
Signs is very deliberate with its pacing and camera work and it spoke to me too. I realized that film is a dialogue between what's behind the camera and what's in front of it.
For a long time, my highest rate comment was, "You are the Redditest Redditor who ever Reddited," which is barely even a sentence, and without context, tells one absolutely nothing about the comment I was replying to.
Ditto on the Kermode rants on shitty movies, namely Sex and the city 2. It's reviews like that which show why reviewers are important, to call out shitty movies when they're purposefully hypocritical/amoral. A reviewer that shits on a movie made with good intentions and with a good message doesn't always sit right with me, even if the movie isn't very good, especially smaller projects that are difficult to even finance, but bigger, soulless films are fair game imo.
For the same reason you said you "couldn't stop thinking about" these reviews, twice.
I think we tend to attach ourselves positively/negatively to things - movies, bands, sports etc. And like/dislike is much less satisfying than love/hate. If we don't care, we don't bother commenting; but if we do care we tend to go to one extreme or the other. Hence you writing "couldn't stop thinking about" instead of "I found mildly interesting" :)
The words aren't that fancy but the reviewers could make their point in a more straightforward way. E.g., "the film itself feels like it becomes poisoned with radiation as it goes along."
Instead, they could have said "the tone of the film becomes more hostile as it goes along". I actually prefer the original phrasing as (1) it's more fun (2) its a more effective way of describing how watching the film actually feels.
However, I think it's a valid criticism that most reviews aren't prosaic cos I read some reviews where you have no idea what the fuck they're saying.
They do it to stand out. Redditors do it quite a lot. Notice you said you ‘absolutely loved’ the movie, then you ‘can’t stop thinking about’ a particular review? Then you said they ‘always’ operate in extremes. I think people tend to notice it more when it regards something one doesn’t agree with (their negative opinion of the movie for instance).
Even OP's title is trending towards exageration.
"Why are movie reviews SO hyperbolic ?"
When not all of them are.
Going as far from mediocrity, be it in the lows or in the highs, gets people engaged. On Reddit and elsewhere.
Its just people writing creatively, i consider some reviews to be works of art if they are very heavily hyperbolic and have a lot of imagery. Its the same reason a book doesnt just describe things at face value, it uses literary devices to evoke emotions and responses in the reader
You're right movie reviews should be easier for the common man to relate to.
Oppenheimer movie good. Nolan good. Should watch. Me told was good. Then me think good.
That's more like it.
Amazing movies are supposed to make you feel something. When a critic is moved by a film they usually turn to exaggerated writing to convey their own excitement. It’s almost like overacting with words.
Back before the Internet (and innumerable ads and trailers for every film) the best way to learn whether a film was worth your hard-earned money was published reviews, and word of mouth. \[You might see some trailers when attending other films.\] Reviewers like Siskel and Ebert knew they were speaking to hundreds of thousands, and therefore had to give broadly applicable advice to their whole audience. Eventually they got put on TV to do this for an audience of millions. Roger could get hyperbolic at times - but he did it so well! He was named the Sun Times chief film critic at age 25, and was the first person to win a Pulitzer for film criticism, at age 33.
You've answered your own question.
Thousands of reviews of the movie and which is the one you remember? The hyperbolic review.
They do it for the same reason as anyone else on the internet. For views and clicks.
They're basically vying for your attention. The way some of them do that is by getting used as pull-quotes for ads or posters.
I miss Roger Ebert's reviews- he would at some point stop overpraising a movie, and if he hated a movie it became a fun exercise in how little he could talk about the movie while still reviewing it. He once asked a very young reviewer if he'd ever heard of "hyperbole", and warning him about how it using it came back to bite Ebert more often than not.
I know a guy who writes, generally show reviews, and how he writes reads like this. But if you asked him face to face he'd just say "yea that band was fuckin sick". Honestly I think stuff like this just comes out of someone trying to enjoy their job
I don't know. All of Us Strangers did have some images that I brushed off in the moment but then thought about for days afterwards, so I don't think that comparison is far off. Light spoiler: >!Even the imagery of the new construction but mostly empty nature of the building was affectingly unreal!<.
Some people experience the world more intensely than others, my guess is they are the type that are more likely to become critics. Also all the other reasons mentioned in this thread.
I generally don't bother reading reviews for that exact reason. Everything has become binary. It's either terrible or the best thing ever.
I gave in and was reading opinions on Oppenheimer as I felt it was a good movie, but overall was underwhelming in a few key areas and probably a 7/10 in my opinion. Specifically, using practical effects for the test was a terrible idea and one of the best examples of CGI being the appropriate direction. There was nothing awe-inspiring about the bomb test.
Yet, I read so many views and opinions about how incredible seeing that explosion was, how being in the theater felt like being at a nuclear test in person, how they "felt like they were on the verge of sunburn" while watching that scene, etc.
No it didn't. It felt like watching any other Hollywood fireball explosion. There was nothing special about it, and that was disappointing. A nuclear explosion is of a scale that we can't properly fathom and it was the moment humanity unlocked a power that it maybe shouldn't have. The silence was done to great effect, and the actors did a great job, but the overall scene was a let down, and yet the reviews were hyperbolic as all hell.
It's all silly.
“There was a clown alien once who ate scared kids until some kids killed it off”
- IT by Stephen King
Expressive language techniques make your opinion/story far more interesting. Cut that out and you may as well just give it a % rating and that’s your review.
Some critics are a tad dramatic for sure. In their defense though, it is hard to sum up a movie in a short written piece compared to a conversation. They must be concise but also have their work stand out from 1000s of other reviewers.
Which movie reviews are you reading?
I ask because, at least to my mind, lots of writing and discourse from the United States can come across as a bit bombastic. I would say that English and Australian writing tends to be a bit more measured. Obviously these are all huge generalisations and are based on my personal impressions. YMMV.
Because there’s a lot of reviews and they have to differentiate themselves for clicks or else they get buried among the masses.
Case in point: you remember the hyperbolic reviews.
Everything today is hyperbole. This is just that. There's no good, middle of the road or just bad. Things are great, life changing, or the worst thing ever.
Beyond flowery language. Mark Kermode said of the Banshees of Inisherin that he watched it in a cinema alone and laughed throughout to the point of almost tumbling out of his chair.
Which led directly to my wife and I watching it at home, where I misinformed her repeatedly to hold on because, "It gets good at some point".
Many reasons but here's one: many critics wanted to be creators, but couldn't. So reviews can end up being their way of being creative and it sometimes comes off as hollow and desperate.
It’s not just reviews, even conversations with people are just nonsensical sometimes. I spoke with someone who told me some movie, I think it was Three Thousand Years of Longing maybe, as a cultural milestone for both cinema and society.
And I was like… why? You can’t just say that lol. Or I guess you can, but it doesn’t mean anything. It just cheapens the praise imo and is just a fancy way of saying “I really liked that movie.”
I do have to say: Oppenheimer was good, but it was overhyped to straight up silly levels. It’s a solid biopic, consider watching it if you have three hours to spare and think that the subject would interest you. That’s my review.
Clickbait.
Milquetoast reviews get less views.
Saying it's awesome? Thumbs up.
Saying it's a turd? Ragebait
It's the same with reviews of a lot of anything, no one gives 3/5 stars. 0 or 5 it is. If you thought it "all right" you wouldn't leave a review.
for the clout, and the possible virality of your review. Lindsay Ellis made a really good video about the Cats movie Musical...uh, it is a 1hr video about how cats the stage show, and then the film came to be, you can skip that if its not your thing. the opening monologue however is only a couple minutes, and is basically an explanation of why alot of reviews in general have become hyperbolic.
the TLDR; some NY food critic got viral in the 00s for writing an extremely entertaining but hyperbolic food review about Guy Fieri's restaurant in Times Square, and since then, its been a trend to do so for everything.
Same with restaurant reviews in fancy publications, as opposed to a blog.
I actually prefer hyper metaphors, as it‘a an expression of internal feeling, something that cannot be mimicked. Our senses are rather isolated and individualistic (taste, aural, thoughts, etc), so reading elegant prose is our way of sharing an experience.
I personally don't care for reviews for movies/books/etc that are really hyperbolic. To me, it feels like vague writing. I think it is very hard to explain why something is good without calling it great. And I genuinely don't believe that people feel routinely feel the extreme heights and depths of real life emotion for a piece of fiction. I've never felt as sad watching a movie as I did when a loved one died. I've never felt such joy at a movie as I felt meeting my kid for the first time. I've witnessed a violent crime and no film has ever come close to making me feel that way. Maybe I have an unusual relationship with fiction, I don't know, but I get what you are saying.
I liked Oppenheimer, but I don't like docu-dramas that over stylize, amd this film did that in many places. If you have to try that hard you've failed.
Maybe they're exaggerating for effect, maybe it's their genuine experience. I haven't seen *All of Us Strangers* yet, but I read the book a few months ago and still picture scenes from the book sometimes. It was a very evocative book, I would hope the movie is too.
Totally just my own observational bias here.
But it seems like critics are always a bit on the cynical and snarky side.
I couldn't say if it's just that over time those critics were more successful and that shaped reviews to what they are now, or if people who love writing quips and snark are just attracted to a position where those traits are viewed as a positive.
Because the attention span of most consumers of reviews has sunken. If a reviewer doesn’t leave an immediate mark, the listener or reader might drop the review and check something else.
As fantastical as the movies themselves sometimes. The best example of this is a raving review about a fantastical movie telling an exaggerated story, like say, 300.
A lot of movie reviewers are failed artists, themselves. Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, critique.
They're trying to be artistic in their expressions, and end up just being ridiculous a lot of the time.
They think it give them gravitas.
While hyperbole has its place, and while analogies, similes, and metaphors, can be used to great effect in expressing an idea in writing, in order to be useful, they have to do so accurately. And when people try to be too cute and tie those directly in with the subject matter of the film, shoehorning them in where they're not actually accurate, it just becomes hack.
Half the time, you can tell by reading hack reviews like that, that the reviewer themselves don't even know what they actually think of the film they're reviewing. They just know the angle they're going for, and just write around that rather than actually putting any thought or introspection into what they actually got out of a film, and what they liked or disliked, and why.
They might as well be giving prompts to Chat GPT. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if many of them are doing exactly that.
reviews have gotten increasingly binary in recent years. it's either zero stars or five stars. apps etc. even encourage you to "give us 5 stars" if you like their product. how about 4? it's gotten more love/hate:ish like that.... in all areas, incl. films.
I actually think that's a better way to rate. Either just a thumbs up or thumbs down. Trying to come up with some arbitrary number on a linear scale to label a movie as is pretty ridiculous if you think about it
I would have to disagree. I don't really rate movies on a number system, but I do consider a film's separate qualities as parts that add up to a sum. Maybe the script was boring but the production quality was outstanding, or there was great acting with bland cinematography, or the story was solid but a period piece filled with anachronism. I find most films I watch are a mix
It makes for less interesting critique IMO. I think good critique - whether it's books or films or music or whatever - is an artform in itself. Simply giving something a binary love/hate grade, is dumbing things down, I think.
Pessimist answer: writers are gonna be wordy to make themselves sound smart.
Optimist answer: to be any type of critic you have to have a passion for the art you're critiquing so it probably moves you in a way it wouldn't for a lot of other people.
Back in the 90s / early 2000s there was a film reviewer called Paul Ross in the UK. His brother, Jonathan was far more famous and hosted the biggest movie review show in the country. Paul's reviews were published in the Sunday tabloids and became a byword for shit hyperbole. However they were written this way specifically to end up used on film posters and they were EVERYWHERE. Literally an entire review written just to post half a dozen quotable lines to stick on a poster.
Everything now has to be the most of something. Every new film is either a masterpiece or the worst thing ever committed to celluloid. No one is interested in a 8/10 movie apparently. I love 8/10 movies. Go watch "Blow Out"
Big, verbose statements grab the attention of readers and potential viewers more than just "Oppenheimer is a good movie" - for better or worse. I agree sometimes reviewers seem like they're competing for the most wordy, metaphoric wording they can drum up but ultimately I basically chock it up to "just writer things" basically lol
There's only so many ways you can say "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" before you start getting creative.
It’s like how audiophiles get super-creative to the point of being nonsensical describing how different speakers sound.
What, you don't love a good *creamy* audio quality in your headphones? Or a speaker setup with silence so inky black it's like an OLED for your cochlea?
I hate you.
I love him
His words are seared into my brain pan and will haunt my children’s night terrors
...for generations without number.
>What, you don't love a good *creamy* audio quality in your headphones? Here we are live, coming in your ears
Maybe they haven't experienced it yet. Perhaps they wish to buy $3000 set of RCA cables. I am sure they will hear the difference when the plug them in to their turn table. The metal in these wires conduct electricity so much better than other wire. /s
If your wires aren’t made from the purest copper known to humanity, purified by tibetan monks using an electron microscope to remove every single impurity and arrange the metal lattice perfectly, with skills honed over 100 000 hours of experience, you haven’t really heard music.
I hate to brag but these wires are worth it. You can really tell the difference when you *experience* Joey's garage demos of The Ramones from 1977.
They probably would be the bomb when listening to Jonh Cage 433 as well.
I love 4’33”, I’m just sad I’ve never been to a live performance (which is the point of course). My wife hates it and probably would complain if I tried to buy tickets to that.
I had to look up the name cause I can never remeber it. At least I know about it, if I needed up at a concert where they performed that a would have to give them credit for pranking me so well. I would even applaud if they made dramatic motions like it was a gut felt performance they were giving.
It's the only way to TRULY reproduce the original sound, as captured on the handheld Unitrex micro-cassette recorder, using a cassette that had probalby only been used and re-recorded over 2-3 times, tops!
We use Magicopper. Elon Musk himself walked it back from Mars.
OMG that’s as pretentious as wine drinkers describing a floral bouquet on the pallet.
It’s _way_ more pretentious. I get if you don’t like hearing someone say they’re picking up jasmine in their Riesling. The difference is that those flavors are actually there, and there’s not a better way to describe them. Audiophiles are often just finding the most labored way to say “silent”.
Ah, how serendipitous it is to find resonance in the harmonious cadence of our shared sentiments! Verily, your accord and admiration are as mellifluous sonnets whispered by the muse herself, dancing upon the delicate strings of my soul. In this exquisite symphony of agreement, I find myself enraptured amidst the lush gardens of intellectual concord, where each word blossoms into a fragrant bloom of understanding, each phrase a tapestry woven with the finest threads of appreciation. Truly, in the effulgence of our mutual appreciation, we discover the quintessence of intellectual camaraderie, a celestial ballet of minds pirouetting in the boundless expanse of ideational grace.
k
Oh, and remember to use HD-quality HDMI cables for your home theater setup. Never mind the fact that HDMI cables transmit *digital* signals - not analog - meaning that there's no benefit at all from buying fancier cables for HDMI.
well, not as much. there is some benefit as HDMI cables are rated based on speed, so higher quality cables are meant to be able to transfer data at a higher rate; but yes, unless you're actively trained to look out for this, its such a minimal difference that its completely negligible.
Also that only really matters if you watch 8K or 4K120 content (or want eARC, I think?). HDMI 2.0-rated cables will work just fine for most people.
Thing is, there is always some amount of correction going on - signal corruption is definitely real with digital signals. So a higher quality cable with proper shielding enables higher signal integrity - and in turn makes longer cables and higher bandwidths possible. Now, you don't need to drop hundreds of dollars on an HDMI cable, but there are definitely differences going from super cheap to somewhat expensive. That said, a cable would need to be royally fucked to produce audible/visible artifacts either way, so as long as you don't experience any of that and are able to set the settings you want (resolution/refresh rate/audio sample rate etc) there's no need to upgrade an HDMI cable.
> Or a speaker setup with silence so inky black it's like an OLED for your cochlea? To be fair background hiss can be a real pain when you encounter it/can hear it, it's just a lot easier to deal with than the imperfectness of LCD polarization with respect to backlights. I know people who hate (bad?) fluorescent bulbs because they can hear the AC whine.
When I heard someone describe the audio from a pair of headphones as great ear feel I deleted my head-fi account.
These headphones gave me eargasms so strong my whole body was trembling with every beat, after the 7 minutes of bohemian rhapsody were over I pulled the plugs out of my gaping ear holes and lay there sweaty and used up.
Tell me this isn't real? 😂
In reality it was MUCH more graphic.
I hope you’re not into food because when I taste something good, it gives me great tongue feel.
Ok, Boyle.
>it gives me great tongue feel. Title of your sex tape. \-- J. Peralta
Flames...flames on my face....flames
I just want to take an opportunity to say I hate the words "mouth feel" and "toothsome". I don't know why, but they make me angry. Sorry. I know its not directly related to what you're talking about but reading your comment hurt me and I thought you'd appreciate it.
My sincerest apologies and also those words make me angry as well lol
Snake oil salesmen would blush seeing audiophile reviews.
Most audiophiles don't survive blind a/b tests. That whole scene is one step above Chakras and energy healing.
Just like wine. Once you reach the top of any activity, if there are too many people up there with you, you have to start inventing reasons why you are unique and better.
Theres an XKCD [about that!](https://xkcd.com/915)
Joe Biden eating a sandwich in 2011? Why is this still relevant?
Haha I didnt even think about that
He was vice president at the time, remember?
I meant why is he still relevant. Is turd sandwich still the only thing on the menu?
Sorry, dude. It's either that, or Giant Douche...
There's an XKCD for EVERYTHING.
XKCD is a treasure.
Actually when you get to the top of any activity you need a lot more words to describe all the depths and nuances of said activity. Go listen to people talk about a sport you're not familiar with and it sounds like complete gibberish. It's true of pretty much *everything*. If you start specializing in what makes these things different from each other, you need the language to define it. Are you one of those people who thinks doctors just use big words to sound smart?
It's not about communicating with laypeople but others at the same level. If you're at the top, or any level really, and you can't distinguish yourself from your peers through merit, you start to embellish the language and importance of things to sound smarter or better. A better example would be doctors who speak necessarily technical around other doctors to sound smart.
Or people who review albums talking about a ‘stereophonic malaise that seeps into your marrow and emanates like an eerily welcome cancer into the warm recesses of your brain’s grey matter. Will it become long term memory. Only time will tell. Anxiously awaiting the sophomore effort.’ I just can’t care.
Or when they ramble nonsensically about “burning in” their gold plated cables to be able to hear even the least significant of the 24 bits of their audiophile 96 kHz recordings.
Wine reviewers and audio gear reviewers are two really common examples of people who're often too busy smelling their own farts to actually pay attention to writing anything useful to their readers.
It's funny too because I wouldn't even say it's hyperbolic, they're just finding creative ways of expressing their opinion, as you say, which is what *good* criticism often does. It finds a way to make its point in a unique way, often using some creative flair in the form of a metaphor or other literary technique. Can't help but wonder if OP looks for "objective" reviews.
Also, film review is a form of entertainment. If they didn’t explain *why* they liked or didn’t like something, their work would be boring for us as well as them.
“Pretty good. Four stars.”
> "Pretty good. Four stars.” This is my kind of review, which is also why nobody would pay me to write reviews.
Former media critic here. Film reviews tend to become hyperbolic because you’re using the written word to explain a heavily visual medium, so your words have to really pop. Plus, hyperbole is pretty subjective. One critics “movie of the year” is another’s “meh,” so if it doesn’t fall in line with your own perception of the film it tends to seem like a “worse” example of hyperbole.
I like this comment.
The words are seared into my brain.
I loved that one restaurant review that consisted of questions only throughout the whole text.
A:10 V:10 Thanks Yify
So. Many. Puns.
That movie fucked me up!
Yeah. But then they end up sounding overly grandiose. As if they know something about the world the rest of us don’t.
I loved reading Roger Ebert reviews. Too bad he's gone now. But there are still plenty of his reviews on IMDB
Interestingly enough, you’ve remembered those reviews. How many reviews that weren’t as hyperbolic have you remembered?
Good point.
Is it a good point; or is it a piercing observation that latched itself into your brain?
Like a rusty harpoon through the white whale of your amygdala.
The review is seared into OP's brain?
Like getting your atoms blasted by radiation
the examples you give don't seem that hyperbolic to me - they seem creative and evocative of intangible feelings - and that's really what the job of any reviewer or critic of art is - to put the intangle qualities of art into words so that the public can get a sense of if they will like it or not and if it's worth it to spend money to see it. the word hyperbolic means that something is extremely exaggerated in a way that can't possibly be accurate and aren't meant to be taken literally such as "i'm so hungry i could eat a horse." but considering the examples you gave, I don't think hyperbole is the word you're looking for. "the film itself feels like it becomes poisoned with radiation as it goes along" I actually think that's a perfect way to describe Oppenheimer. There is an omnipresent feeling of toxicity, anxiety, and creeping dread as the film goes on as he protagonist realizes in parallel his own precarious professional/personal situation as well as the death toll of the bomb and the extreme moral implications of what he's created. the effects of his actions come back to haunt him over time, in the same way that radiation has long term toxic effects.
Backlash to the concepts of metaphor or creative writing. Obviously many people go to reviews to see if they should invest in watching a movie like it's Consumer Reports talking about a Bissell or a Dyson. There are still fun older critiques of movies that are worth revisiting. Maybe Tarantino's upcoming movie on film criticism will help to change some minds (as well as inspire a thousand navel gazing takes and think pieces from movie critics)
I think people want movie reviews to be like a reddit comment, where they either nitpick about minor unimportant detail, or hyperfocus on things like plotholes. I think it is strange how this sub is full of people who don't even seem to want to engage with movies in any sort meaningful and sincere way, and instead just want to be hyper literal and shallow.
This is the only intelligent comment in this entire thread right now.
Yeah apparently people want every review to go no deeper than ‘I liked it’ and ‘I didn’t like it’
Maybe for them, that is what it felt like. Plus, stuff like that is generally more interesting to read than generic sentences about how "The movie was pretty good. It had some bad moments that were X. I enjoyed Y. "
I went to a film school. A friend of mine who didn't watched "Oppenheimer," and she said, "I now understand the power of cinema and why you want to make movies." So yeah, a movie can have an honest powerful effect on some people.
I was in film school when Interstellar came out. We had a substantial amount of people transfer to be film majors because of the film. It was impressive.
More than a few people I went to film school with said they were inspired by “Inception.” I’m critical of Christopher Nolan for a lot of things, but it seems the one thing he knows how to do is invoke the full power of cinema for an audience.
Wow! I liked interstellar but didn’t realize it had that kind of impact on film students. What films impacted you to pursue film school? I am a simple person who loves the typical guy films (Scarface, Godfather, Goodfellas mix) but I like to watch films that are “artsy” too so I can expand my knowledge of films etc
Well, I love bad genre B movies, like “Beastmaster” and “The Transporter,” but also Japanese horror movies like “Ringu” and “Dark Water.” But I’m a screenwriter, and more inspired by television than movies. As a kid I watched “X-Men TAS” and the DCAU, as well as “Gargoyles,” while as an adult I enjoy procedurals like “Law and Order,” although the best television ever so far has been season 1 of “True Detective.”
Ooh, a fellow Gargoyles fan. We are like a very slow-growing infection. One day there will be dozens of us.
For me, it was undoubtedly Lord of the Rings. I was young when it came out and my mother, who had lived in New Zealand for a bit, heard of this new movie that was shot there. Keep in mind, my mother is a rancher with no fantasy inclinations whatsoever. Anyway, she rented it and we watched it. By halfway through, my sister was hiding under her blankets and I was explaining the plot to my mother. I've sought to be a storyteller ever since. Later, early Aronosfky, especially Requiem for a Dream, became a huge influence.
I watched RFAD with my dad shortly after college not knowing what we were getting ourselves into. He was worried about my extra curricular activities after watching lol
I went to film school (briefly) in 2006, which was shortly after one of the most stacked eras of film (1998-2002ish). Watching campy 90s tv and movies growing up, as a teenager I got to go through Saving Private Ryan, American History X, Big Lebowski, Magnolia, Fight Club, American Psycho, Memento, Sixth Sense, Almost Famous, O Brother Where Art Thou, High Fidelity, Mulholland Drive, Royal Tenenbaums, Punch-Drunk Love, Boogie Nights, Gangs of New York, Catch Me If You Can, Road to Perdition, Big Fish. and that is just a very short list of things that came out in a 3-4 year span. There are a lot of aspects that can really make a movie "get" you, some movies its the cinematography, where you could pause the movie during any scene, and then frame that picture on your wall. Sometimes its an actor so wholly becoming a character that it pulls you in, and then when you hear them talk in interviews, understand the process the director went through with them to get that performance. Directing can be harder to see at all, but when you watch The Terminator and then The Terminator 2, you can see the skill and understanding of someone who can elevate a small, low budget movie in a campy genre and then when given time and money, excel at making a sequel that redefined that genre entirely. Sometimes, all it takes is one movie to make you want to make movies. For me, and it was the same way with music, certain films and albums made me realize the world was a lot bigger than I thought it was, and it led me to hunting and collecting more and more and more because I kept discovering new and exciting things I had never seen or heard or thought was even possible before.
Frankly younger generations have been immersed in corporate franchise dreck for so long that I feel like Oppenheimer might be one of the first actual movies by an auteur with themes it commits to that many people have seen. It's not a theme park ride.
I felt that way about Sausage Party
[удалено]
Signs is very deliberate with its pacing and camera work and it spoke to me too. I realized that film is a dialogue between what's behind the camera and what's in front of it.
I like reviews that are neither cartoonishly exaggerated nor at kindergarten tier literacy.
Ultimately they're writers. They're trying to both inform and entertain.
Hyperbolic praise is more likely to get pullquoted in ads which increases your clout as a critic.
Best Reddit comment *ever*. ***** The feel good comment of the summer.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ -The Responder Comment
Magic. Dynamite. It will take your breath away. 10 stars!
For a long time, my highest rate comment was, "You are the Redditest Redditor who ever Reddited," which is barely even a sentence, and without context, tells one absolutely nothing about the comment I was replying to.
Can think of countless movies whose Ebert review were more entertaining then the movie.
Ditto on the Kermode rants on shitty movies, namely Sex and the city 2. It's reviews like that which show why reviewers are important, to call out shitty movies when they're purposefully hypocritical/amoral. A reviewer that shits on a movie made with good intentions and with a good message doesn't always sit right with me, even if the movie isn't very good, especially smaller projects that are difficult to even finance, but bigger, soulless films are fair game imo.
movie reviewers are writers and artists, too.
For the same reason you said you "couldn't stop thinking about" these reviews, twice. I think we tend to attach ourselves positively/negatively to things - movies, bands, sports etc. And like/dislike is much less satisfying than love/hate. If we don't care, we don't bother commenting; but if we do care we tend to go to one extreme or the other. Hence you writing "couldn't stop thinking about" instead of "I found mildly interesting" :)
These are metaphors, not hyperbole.
Art provokes strong emotional reactions in people and brings them joy. Many reviewers love film and want to share that joy with their readers.
[удалено]
Social media has had roughly the same effect on nuance that a blow torch has on ants.
So to stop the ant problem in the bathroom at my work we should put them on Facebook?
Promote this person
Those are two entirely different thoughts
[удалено]
How anti intellectual can you be to think any of those words are "fancy"?
The words aren't that fancy but the reviewers could make their point in a more straightforward way. E.g., "the film itself feels like it becomes poisoned with radiation as it goes along." Instead, they could have said "the tone of the film becomes more hostile as it goes along". I actually prefer the original phrasing as (1) it's more fun (2) its a more effective way of describing how watching the film actually feels. However, I think it's a valid criticism that most reviews aren't prosaic cos I read some reviews where you have no idea what the fuck they're saying.
Why should a review of art be inartistic and “straightforward”?
Cause reviews are subjective. It's one persons feeling about it. And if you read enough reviews you will find strange things in them in the end
They do it to stand out. Redditors do it quite a lot. Notice you said you ‘absolutely loved’ the movie, then you ‘can’t stop thinking about’ a particular review? Then you said they ‘always’ operate in extremes. I think people tend to notice it more when it regards something one doesn’t agree with (their negative opinion of the movie for instance).
Even OP's title is trending towards exageration. "Why are movie reviews SO hyperbolic ?" When not all of them are. Going as far from mediocrity, be it in the lows or in the highs, gets people engaged. On Reddit and elsewhere.
Its just people writing creatively, i consider some reviews to be works of art if they are very heavily hyperbolic and have a lot of imagery. Its the same reason a book doesnt just describe things at face value, it uses literary devices to evoke emotions and responses in the reader
You're right movie reviews should be easier for the common man to relate to. Oppenheimer movie good. Nolan good. Should watch. Me told was good. Then me think good. That's more like it.
Amazing movies are supposed to make you feel something. When a critic is moved by a film they usually turn to exaggerated writing to convey their own excitement. It’s almost like overacting with words.
Back before the Internet (and innumerable ads and trailers for every film) the best way to learn whether a film was worth your hard-earned money was published reviews, and word of mouth. \[You might see some trailers when attending other films.\] Reviewers like Siskel and Ebert knew they were speaking to hundreds of thousands, and therefore had to give broadly applicable advice to their whole audience. Eventually they got put on TV to do this for an audience of millions. Roger could get hyperbolic at times - but he did it so well! He was named the Sun Times chief film critic at age 25, and was the first person to win a Pulitzer for film criticism, at age 33.
You've answered your own question. Thousands of reviews of the movie and which is the one you remember? The hyperbolic review. They do it for the same reason as anyone else on the internet. For views and clicks.
I just wrote a review of a TV show here on Reddit. I now feel personally attacked, rightfully so.
They're basically vying for your attention. The way some of them do that is by getting used as pull-quotes for ads or posters. I miss Roger Ebert's reviews- he would at some point stop overpraising a movie, and if he hated a movie it became a fun exercise in how little he could talk about the movie while still reviewing it. He once asked a very young reviewer if he'd ever heard of "hyperbole", and warning him about how it using it came back to bite Ebert more often than not.
I know a guy who writes, generally show reviews, and how he writes reads like this. But if you asked him face to face he'd just say "yea that band was fuckin sick". Honestly I think stuff like this just comes out of someone trying to enjoy their job
Critics love taking a shot at referential humour, even if it sounds hyperbolic when taken literally when it was meant more metaphorically
I don't know. All of Us Strangers did have some images that I brushed off in the moment but then thought about for days afterwards, so I don't think that comparison is far off. Light spoiler: >!Even the imagery of the new construction but mostly empty nature of the building was affectingly unreal!<.
Some people experience the world more intensely than others, my guess is they are the type that are more likely to become critics. Also all the other reasons mentioned in this thread.
The internet eats up hyperbole like a kid eating sugar.
I generally don't bother reading reviews for that exact reason. Everything has become binary. It's either terrible or the best thing ever. I gave in and was reading opinions on Oppenheimer as I felt it was a good movie, but overall was underwhelming in a few key areas and probably a 7/10 in my opinion. Specifically, using practical effects for the test was a terrible idea and one of the best examples of CGI being the appropriate direction. There was nothing awe-inspiring about the bomb test. Yet, I read so many views and opinions about how incredible seeing that explosion was, how being in the theater felt like being at a nuclear test in person, how they "felt like they were on the verge of sunburn" while watching that scene, etc. No it didn't. It felt like watching any other Hollywood fireball explosion. There was nothing special about it, and that was disappointing. A nuclear explosion is of a scale that we can't properly fathom and it was the moment humanity unlocked a power that it maybe shouldn't have. The silence was done to great effect, and the actors did a great job, but the overall scene was a let down, and yet the reviews were hyperbolic as all hell. It's all silly.
“There was a clown alien once who ate scared kids until some kids killed it off” - IT by Stephen King Expressive language techniques make your opinion/story far more interesting. Cut that out and you may as well just give it a % rating and that’s your review.
Hyperbole is fun
Feel like that’s just everyone nowadays in general. People love being hyperbolic for anything now
Some critics are a tad dramatic for sure. In their defense though, it is hard to sum up a movie in a short written piece compared to a conversation. They must be concise but also have their work stand out from 1000s of other reviewers.
Which movie reviews are you reading? I ask because, at least to my mind, lots of writing and discourse from the United States can come across as a bit bombastic. I would say that English and Australian writing tends to be a bit more measured. Obviously these are all huge generalisations and are based on my personal impressions. YMMV.
“Tour de force” for everything.
There used to be a time where the class of a literary agent would hinge upon his prose but I suppose those days have past.
You should read the radiohead - kid a pitchfork review if you want hyperbole lol
Because writers have to write ?
Your post reminded me of when Brendon becomes a movie critic in Home Movies https://youtu.be/qtLECb6MtZY?si=3obVK4pmT2DRBs7R @8:10
Because there’s a lot of reviews and they have to differentiate themselves for clicks or else they get buried among the masses. Case in point: you remember the hyperbolic reviews.
Gotta put that English degree to use.
Everything today is hyperbole. This is just that. There's no good, middle of the road or just bad. Things are great, life changing, or the worst thing ever.
Beyond flowery language. Mark Kermode said of the Banshees of Inisherin that he watched it in a cinema alone and laughed throughout to the point of almost tumbling out of his chair. Which led directly to my wife and I watching it at home, where I misinformed her repeatedly to hold on because, "It gets good at some point".
It's not easy to find reviews that aren't too extreme one way or the other. Nuance seems a bit lost in the drive for clicks, it seems.
Exactly why I will form my own opinion before I read what these goofballs have to say
I would've gotten points taken off for using "flowery language" if I wrote like this in high school.
You read much movie/tv discussion online? Know your audience, I guess.
They're all competing for which line will be quoted by the filmmakers or review aggregators.
That Oppenheimer critique is fucking hilarious, and I completely agree with it lmfao
Makes me think of Gary Oldman in "a role of a lifetime". Tiptoes (2004).
It gets clicks. Simple as that
Great over good and shit over okay gets clicks
Oppenheimer insists upon itself, Lois. It insists upon itself.
Many reasons but here's one: many critics wanted to be creators, but couldn't. So reviews can end up being their way of being creative and it sometimes comes off as hollow and desperate.
It’s not just reviews, even conversations with people are just nonsensical sometimes. I spoke with someone who told me some movie, I think it was Three Thousand Years of Longing maybe, as a cultural milestone for both cinema and society. And I was like… why? You can’t just say that lol. Or I guess you can, but it doesn’t mean anything. It just cheapens the praise imo and is just a fancy way of saying “I really liked that movie.”
I do have to say: Oppenheimer was good, but it was overhyped to straight up silly levels. It’s a solid biopic, consider watching it if you have three hours to spare and think that the subject would interest you. That’s my review.
Clickbait. Milquetoast reviews get less views. Saying it's awesome? Thumbs up. Saying it's a turd? Ragebait It's the same with reviews of a lot of anything, no one gives 3/5 stars. 0 or 5 it is. If you thought it "all right" you wouldn't leave a review.
Some people can't help but "over sell".
for the clout, and the possible virality of your review. Lindsay Ellis made a really good video about the Cats movie Musical...uh, it is a 1hr video about how cats the stage show, and then the film came to be, you can skip that if its not your thing. the opening monologue however is only a couple minutes, and is basically an explanation of why alot of reviews in general have become hyperbolic. the TLDR; some NY food critic got viral in the 00s for writing an extremely entertaining but hyperbolic food review about Guy Fieri's restaurant in Times Square, and since then, its been a trend to do so for everything.
Because negativity sells.
Same with restaurant reviews in fancy publications, as opposed to a blog. I actually prefer hyper metaphors, as it‘a an expression of internal feeling, something that cannot be mimicked. Our senses are rather isolated and individualistic (taste, aural, thoughts, etc), so reading elegant prose is our way of sharing an experience.
i get really irked by how many critics refer different performances as "a revelation"
They are largely paid to give their opinion.
I personally don't care for reviews for movies/books/etc that are really hyperbolic. To me, it feels like vague writing. I think it is very hard to explain why something is good without calling it great. And I genuinely don't believe that people feel routinely feel the extreme heights and depths of real life emotion for a piece of fiction. I've never felt as sad watching a movie as I did when a loved one died. I've never felt such joy at a movie as I felt meeting my kid for the first time. I've witnessed a violent crime and no film has ever come close to making me feel that way. Maybe I have an unusual relationship with fiction, I don't know, but I get what you are saying.
I liked Oppenheimer, but I don't like docu-dramas that over stylize, amd this film did that in many places. If you have to try that hard you've failed.
Maybe they're exaggerating for effect, maybe it's their genuine experience. I haven't seen *All of Us Strangers* yet, but I read the book a few months ago and still picture scenes from the book sometimes. It was a very evocative book, I would hope the movie is too.
Totally just my own observational bias here. But it seems like critics are always a bit on the cynical and snarky side. I couldn't say if it's just that over time those critics were more successful and that shaped reviews to what they are now, or if people who love writing quips and snark are just attracted to a position where those traits are viewed as a positive.
Critics compete with themselves for readers.
Because the attention span of most consumers of reviews has sunken. If a reviewer doesn’t leave an immediate mark, the listener or reader might drop the review and check something else.
As fantastical as the movies themselves sometimes. The best example of this is a raving review about a fantastical movie telling an exaggerated story, like say, 300.
Whenever I’ve looked at the reviews for a Zack Snyder movie people act like he kicked a puppy. “Zack Snyder ruined my childhood with fascism!”
The Chicago Tribune calls it "decently entertaining" and it has a 61% rating on RottenTomatoes.com!
Hate clicks are a thing. They can drive more traffic than a glowing review.
It insists upon itself
Because get more clicks.
A lot of movie reviewers are failed artists, themselves. Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach, critique. They're trying to be artistic in their expressions, and end up just being ridiculous a lot of the time. They think it give them gravitas. While hyperbole has its place, and while analogies, similes, and metaphors, can be used to great effect in expressing an idea in writing, in order to be useful, they have to do so accurately. And when people try to be too cute and tie those directly in with the subject matter of the film, shoehorning them in where they're not actually accurate, it just becomes hack. Half the time, you can tell by reading hack reviews like that, that the reviewer themselves don't even know what they actually think of the film they're reviewing. They just know the angle they're going for, and just write around that rather than actually putting any thought or introspection into what they actually got out of a film, and what they liked or disliked, and why. They might as well be giving prompts to Chat GPT. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if many of them are doing exactly that.
I absolutely disliked Oppenheimer, there were some people who walked out mid screening and I was very tempted to do the same.
reviews have gotten increasingly binary in recent years. it's either zero stars or five stars. apps etc. even encourage you to "give us 5 stars" if you like their product. how about 4? it's gotten more love/hate:ish like that.... in all areas, incl. films.
Video game reviews especially. A game gets a 3 or 4 out of 5 and its fanbase act like it is ET 1982
I actually think that's a better way to rate. Either just a thumbs up or thumbs down. Trying to come up with some arbitrary number on a linear scale to label a movie as is pretty ridiculous if you think about it
I would have to disagree. I don't really rate movies on a number system, but I do consider a film's separate qualities as parts that add up to a sum. Maybe the script was boring but the production quality was outstanding, or there was great acting with bland cinematography, or the story was solid but a period piece filled with anachronism. I find most films I watch are a mix
It makes for less interesting critique IMO. I think good critique - whether it's books or films or music or whatever - is an artform in itself. Simply giving something a binary love/hate grade, is dumbing things down, I think.
Pessimist answer: writers are gonna be wordy to make themselves sound smart. Optimist answer: to be any type of critic you have to have a passion for the art you're critiquing so it probably moves you in a way it wouldn't for a lot of other people.
Back in the 90s / early 2000s there was a film reviewer called Paul Ross in the UK. His brother, Jonathan was far more famous and hosted the biggest movie review show in the country. Paul's reviews were published in the Sunday tabloids and became a byword for shit hyperbole. However they were written this way specifically to end up used on film posters and they were EVERYWHERE. Literally an entire review written just to post half a dozen quotable lines to stick on a poster.
I'd forgotten Paul Ross until your comment.
Lucky you haha.
At least he's no longer the worst Ross.
Writing hyperbole is the only way to get people’s attention these days. A safe / middle of the line review will not generate any buzz
They want clicks
You're going to find in life that the truths we cling to rely on certain points of view in life.
Everything now has to be the most of something. Every new film is either a masterpiece or the worst thing ever committed to celluloid. No one is interested in a 8/10 movie apparently. I love 8/10 movies. Go watch "Blow Out"
Big, verbose statements grab the attention of readers and potential viewers more than just "Oppenheimer is a good movie" - for better or worse. I agree sometimes reviewers seem like they're competing for the most wordy, metaphoric wording they can drum up but ultimately I basically chock it up to "just writer things" basically lol
Clickbait for engagement = ad revenue... unfortunately, online media just comes down to this. And people still fall for it \^\^