Relying on them might make you miss hidden gems.
Putting up posters of films with great reviews makes my space feel like a cinema club. Friends now ask about the critics behind each pick.
I've come to believe that many critics overvalue ambiguous conclusions as intellectually superior, while my viewing circle finds them frustratingly incomplete. They argue that open endings invite deeper reflection, but I see them as a cop-out that leaves audiences unsatisfied. This clash became clear after we debated a recent award-winning film that I thought failed to deliver a meaningful resolution. Do you think ambiguity enhances a film or simply masks narrative weakness?
Honestly, I noticed my reviews were leaning too negative after a director called me out on it. Tbh, I now draft my praise points before diving into criticisms, which keeps everything more balanced. How do you ensure your reviews stay fair?