Note: While this may seem like me being jealous of far more successful reviewers/sites, that is not the case. Whether you love me or hate me, I don't give a shit. I don't get paid to do this and this is my own opinion. If you disagree with me, please leave a comment and tell me where you disagree with me on any subject on this site. I'd love to get back to you. :D
Now onto the list -
Fangoria:
Oh I can hear my 5 viewers a day calling shenanigans already. Ok, let me explain. As an unpaid reviewer on the internet, I can tell you that it's tough. I applaud Fangoria for lasting so long in a market that has a limited audience for them and they get props for not folding and closing shop yet. But over the years, the publication has become far too mainstream. While this could benefit them by appealing to more people, it makes them lose credibility. Sure a column on Dark Shadows is interesting but it is still gonna be overshadowed when every fucking Twilight movie is a cover story. It still covers independent films, but not nearly on the scale that it used to. In fact, the majority of indie films in a usual Fangoria magazine can be found as advertisements instead of being "news" stories or even simply descriptive paragraphs. As a magazine that prides itself on being one of the top horror publications, you guys should definently look into more coverage on the lesser known flicks. I'm not saying that you should be like Bloody-Disgusting and call Automaton Transfusion "One of the best Zombie films in decades", but definently look into covering the little guys more. After you do that, I'll be able to take back this following statement:
While Fangoria notices and remembers horror, it lacks the coverage and celebration of horror at the level that makes Rue Morgue a superior outlet.
I might not take back my feelings of Rue Morgue's superiority, but I'll atleast drop Fangoria from discussion. Speaking of Bloody Disgusting ...
Bloody-Disgusting:
While this is a less known site than Fangoria, it's in the same boat. Similar to Fangoria, it lacks completeness. While I add that BD does follow indie flicks very well, something I'll admit Rue Morgue even lacks to do from time to time, it doesn't follow the whole genre enough to be your #1 source of horror as it proudly proclaims that it is (You could attack me for calling my site Horror Movie Central, but I simply chose the name as it sounded cool. If you ask me personally how I think my site stacks up to many others, I'll tell you straight up that I'm a stranded baby in a lion's cage that is bleeding, crying, and covered in various meats holding a bowl of Sweet Baby Rays). The site also lacks objectivity as it's reviewers seem to be influenced by means other that focusing on specific criteria. For example, Troll 2 is given a perfect score for simply being "so bad it's good". Is it a cult classic? I'd have to say so. Is it a great film? HELL NO. Don't cave into peer pressure and go with the flow, have a fucking voice that has something to contribute other than "WOWEE. The Hype is truuuuueeeee!!!". And while I said have a voice, atleast have a fucking brain to go along with it and be realistic. Mr. Disgusting seems to not follow that last sentence and contradicts himself all the time. He called Automaton Transfusion "The holy grail of true independent horror films" yet gives it a mere 7/10. He states that neither Paranormal Activity movie better than the other, yet he states that #2 is not superior to #1 and rated it lower.
But hell, what do I expect from a guy who recently rated Final Destination 5 a 9/10. Watch that film and come back to tell me if that's right. Maybe he watched a different movie than me.
IMDB (Internet Movie Douche Bags):
The Internet Movie Data-Base isn't all that bad. It does contain a great amount of information on films and actors along with some great trivia and articles. But this is a list of OVERRATED MOVIE REVIEW SITES and IMDB epitomizes this whole page. What's the site's main problem? The ratings are based on viewer voting, not on critics who actually go off a criteria. The result? Critically acclaimed films such as Citizen Kane, hailed as the greatest film of all time, being ranked lower than all three Lord of the Rings movies, Star Wars 4 & 5, the Dark Knight, Inception, The Matrix, Forrest Gump, and fucking TOY STORY 3. In fact, I believe that the last time I checked the top 250 before, it contained a good amount of the Harry Potter flicks on it. The worst message board community on the internet, arguably next to 4chan, should not be in charge of this. I'm sorry if I offended any of you but any list that is on a site claiming so much that has Deathly Hallows Part 2 ranked higher than Gone with the Wind is a joke to me. And before you tell me to blame the community that goes there, I'll blame the editors for not having their own personal list and separating the two view points from each other kind of like how Rotten Tomatoes does it. Wait a min-
Rotten Tomatoes:
Rotten Tomatoes is the opposite of IMDB. It lacks specific bonus shit to make people go back to it daily and gives critics the overall power in rating films. This sounds good, but it becomes troublesome as they include way too many publications and critics into their system. The result? Halloween, widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, horror film of all time, is rated 93% and is ranked lower than [Rec], Young Frankenstein (Which I hope Rotten Tomatoes realizes isn't even a horror film), and Julia's Eyes on a list of the 100 best. Halloween is ranked 45th on the list. Even though A Nightmare on Elm Street is my favorite movie of all time, and I believe that it's #30 spot on the list is fair if not only a little off, it still does not belong higher on the list than Halloween. While Evil Dead 1 and 2 are great cult horror films, they don't deserve the #3 and #16 spots respectively. And I'm not gonna even go into how non descriptive the bad reviews they list for Halloween are anyways. There are like 5 of em and only 1 has any real analysis. If you are going to dispute a classic, you need to understand why it's loved/revered and then view it as though you are studying blueprints. The "It's a horror film and it didn't scare me so it's bad" isn't relevant anymore in this day in age so don't make that the focus of your review (You can however use that to dispute another critic's ideas). Want some more reasons? Donnie Darko and Zombieland (two films I enjoy that I feel are a bit overrated) aren't even true horror films and they are rated higher than the Exorcist, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Eraserhead and 28 Days Later is #76 on the list. Need another reason? Freaky Friday has an 88% rating and two of the three High School Musical have a "certified fresh" rating. Sorry you had to read that.
Honorable Mention: Metacritic
This is only an honorable mention due to the fact that while it is essentially just like Rotten Tomatoes, it does a few things more correctly. First off, it doesn't have a genre specific list when it comes to the top films of all time. This may sound like a bad thing but it's good in the long run. It's harder to dispute if a well received comedy is better than a well received horror film if they are on the same list. Due to entertainment criteria possibly being different as well, that opens the door even more. Like I said though, it has some big flaws as a site and this can be seen with Knocked Up being rated an 85%. As with Rotten Tomatoes, this site would be better with a few less critics and publications.
Long story short, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and this perhaps one of the least funny yet most overused jokes ever.
Now onto the list -
Fangoria:
Oh I can hear my 5 viewers a day calling shenanigans already. Ok, let me explain. As an unpaid reviewer on the internet, I can tell you that it's tough. I applaud Fangoria for lasting so long in a market that has a limited audience for them and they get props for not folding and closing shop yet. But over the years, the publication has become far too mainstream. While this could benefit them by appealing to more people, it makes them lose credibility. Sure a column on Dark Shadows is interesting but it is still gonna be overshadowed when every fucking Twilight movie is a cover story. It still covers independent films, but not nearly on the scale that it used to. In fact, the majority of indie films in a usual Fangoria magazine can be found as advertisements instead of being "news" stories or even simply descriptive paragraphs. As a magazine that prides itself on being one of the top horror publications, you guys should definently look into more coverage on the lesser known flicks. I'm not saying that you should be like Bloody-Disgusting and call Automaton Transfusion "One of the best Zombie films in decades", but definently look into covering the little guys more. After you do that, I'll be able to take back this following statement:
While Fangoria notices and remembers horror, it lacks the coverage and celebration of horror at the level that makes Rue Morgue a superior outlet.
I might not take back my feelings of Rue Morgue's superiority, but I'll atleast drop Fangoria from discussion. Speaking of Bloody Disgusting ...
Bloody-Disgusting:
While this is a less known site than Fangoria, it's in the same boat. Similar to Fangoria, it lacks completeness. While I add that BD does follow indie flicks very well, something I'll admit Rue Morgue even lacks to do from time to time, it doesn't follow the whole genre enough to be your #1 source of horror as it proudly proclaims that it is (You could attack me for calling my site Horror Movie Central, but I simply chose the name as it sounded cool. If you ask me personally how I think my site stacks up to many others, I'll tell you straight up that I'm a stranded baby in a lion's cage that is bleeding, crying, and covered in various meats holding a bowl of Sweet Baby Rays). The site also lacks objectivity as it's reviewers seem to be influenced by means other that focusing on specific criteria. For example, Troll 2 is given a perfect score for simply being "so bad it's good". Is it a cult classic? I'd have to say so. Is it a great film? HELL NO. Don't cave into peer pressure and go with the flow, have a fucking voice that has something to contribute other than "WOWEE. The Hype is truuuuueeeee!!!". And while I said have a voice, atleast have a fucking brain to go along with it and be realistic. Mr. Disgusting seems to not follow that last sentence and contradicts himself all the time. He called Automaton Transfusion "The holy grail of true independent horror films" yet gives it a mere 7/10. He states that neither Paranormal Activity movie better than the other, yet he states that #2 is not superior to #1 and rated it lower.
But hell, what do I expect from a guy who recently rated Final Destination 5 a 9/10. Watch that film and come back to tell me if that's right. Maybe he watched a different movie than me.
IMDB (Internet Movie Douche Bags):
The Internet Movie Data-Base isn't all that bad. It does contain a great amount of information on films and actors along with some great trivia and articles. But this is a list of OVERRATED MOVIE REVIEW SITES and IMDB epitomizes this whole page. What's the site's main problem? The ratings are based on viewer voting, not on critics who actually go off a criteria. The result? Critically acclaimed films such as Citizen Kane, hailed as the greatest film of all time, being ranked lower than all three Lord of the Rings movies, Star Wars 4 & 5, the Dark Knight, Inception, The Matrix, Forrest Gump, and fucking TOY STORY 3. In fact, I believe that the last time I checked the top 250 before, it contained a good amount of the Harry Potter flicks on it. The worst message board community on the internet, arguably next to 4chan, should not be in charge of this. I'm sorry if I offended any of you but any list that is on a site claiming so much that has Deathly Hallows Part 2 ranked higher than Gone with the Wind is a joke to me. And before you tell me to blame the community that goes there, I'll blame the editors for not having their own personal list and separating the two view points from each other kind of like how Rotten Tomatoes does it. Wait a min-
Rotten Tomatoes:
Rotten Tomatoes is the opposite of IMDB. It lacks specific bonus shit to make people go back to it daily and gives critics the overall power in rating films. This sounds good, but it becomes troublesome as they include way too many publications and critics into their system. The result? Halloween, widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best, horror film of all time, is rated 93% and is ranked lower than [Rec], Young Frankenstein (Which I hope Rotten Tomatoes realizes isn't even a horror film), and Julia's Eyes on a list of the 100 best. Halloween is ranked 45th on the list. Even though A Nightmare on Elm Street is my favorite movie of all time, and I believe that it's #30 spot on the list is fair if not only a little off, it still does not belong higher on the list than Halloween. While Evil Dead 1 and 2 are great cult horror films, they don't deserve the #3 and #16 spots respectively. And I'm not gonna even go into how non descriptive the bad reviews they list for Halloween are anyways. There are like 5 of em and only 1 has any real analysis. If you are going to dispute a classic, you need to understand why it's loved/revered and then view it as though you are studying blueprints. The "It's a horror film and it didn't scare me so it's bad" isn't relevant anymore in this day in age so don't make that the focus of your review (You can however use that to dispute another critic's ideas). Want some more reasons? Donnie Darko and Zombieland (two films I enjoy that I feel are a bit overrated) aren't even true horror films and they are rated higher than the Exorcist, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Eraserhead and 28 Days Later is #76 on the list. Need another reason? Freaky Friday has an 88% rating and two of the three High School Musical have a "certified fresh" rating. Sorry you had to read that.
Honorable Mention: Metacritic
This is only an honorable mention due to the fact that while it is essentially just like Rotten Tomatoes, it does a few things more correctly. First off, it doesn't have a genre specific list when it comes to the top films of all time. This may sound like a bad thing but it's good in the long run. It's harder to dispute if a well received comedy is better than a well received horror film if they are on the same list. Due to entertainment criteria possibly being different as well, that opens the door even more. Like I said though, it has some big flaws as a site and this can be seen with Knocked Up being rated an 85%. As with Rotten Tomatoes, this site would be better with a few less critics and publications.
Long story short, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and this perhaps one of the least funny yet most overused jokes ever.
RSS Feed