Fairly Judging A Movie ...

[KenSPT]

How much does bias towards an actor/actress/director skew one's openness in fairly judging a movie?

For example, in the eyes of many movie fans, Uwe Boll's films are trash. They're written off as trash as soon as they're announced, mostly bashed when they're released and reviewed, and many people judge them as horrible pieces of cinema before even seeing them.

Is that going into a film with an open mind? Is that fair?

Another example I'll give is Paris Hilton's involvement in The Hottie and the Nottie.

This movie has been called "the worst movie of all time", and "the worst peice of film in the 21st century". Since everyone was so adamant about the poor-quality of the film, I gave it a watch. I was curious as to how bad this flick was; and I was surprised that it wasn't terrible.

Don't get me wrong, The Hottie and the Nottie is far, far, far from a great film; but to be fair, it's also far, far, far from being the worst film of all time. Hell, it wasn't even the worst film of the year. It was simply mediocre.

I'm thoroughly convinced that a good majority of the hate towards the film was fueled by peoples general disdain for Paris Hilton. I think if she was recast by any other attractive actress, the movie wouldn't have been as despised as it was.

Is that fair? Is that judging a movie with an open mind?

So, I once again reiterate my question.

As movie fans, when judging a movie you've never seen, I believe you should go into it with an open mind. Do you believe most movie fans do this, or do you believe most movie fans don't?

Think about it, if you go into a Uwe Boll horror film thinking it's going to be fecal matter on the screen, would you allow yourself to like it if it ended up being this generations Nightmare on Elm Street?

[ZMoney08]

I completely agree. I believe there is a lot of bias towards certain actors/directors/etc. out there. I'll admit I'm sure I've done it before and it's just something that is always going to be in movie reviews.

[miguel_montes]

I didn't like Terminator 2 as much as I should have because I find Linda Hamilton and Edward Furlong annoying. Then again, it might have been the way they acted or their characters, because I have no problems with Linda Hamilton in the first Terminator.

[SAI]

How much does bias towards an actor/actress/director skew one's openness in fairly judging a movie?

Another example I'll give is Paris Hilton's involvement in The Hottie and the Nottie.

Don't get me wrong, The Hottie and the Nottie is far, far, far from a great film; but to be fair, it's also far, far, far from being the worst film of all time. Hell, it wasn't even the worst film of the year. It was simply mediocre.

I'm thoroughly convinced that a good majority of the hate towards the film was fueled by peoples general disdain for Paris Hilton. I think if she was recast by any other attractive actress, the movie wouldn't have been as despised as it was.

I always try to go into a movie with an entirely open mind. Did I with The Hottie and the Nottie... perhaps not, but that wasn't because of Paris Hilton, I'd never seen her on screen, but Mark Kermode's hillarious review had made me suspect that it proboably wasn't going to be good. Frankly though no amount of bias could have prepared me for The Hottie and the Nottie; it's not just bad, it's actually evil. I called it an jackbooted, armband sporting, sieg heiling nazi in my review, and I stand by every one of the 1000 plus words I wrote about it (review here (http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2774529#post2774529)). I thought it was a foul, hateful, evil piece of excerement, and that was LONG before I got to considering the (awful) performances.

I guess I also have a bias towards certain actors, but it's generally in the other direction. I can't help but anticipate anything that Jennifer Jason Leigh does and, yes, I do assume that whenever she's in a film she at the very least, will be worth watching. I don't feel that gets in the way of my criticsm though, there are films in which she's less good than usual (Flesh and Blood, for example) and she's been in a ton of bad films (Sister Sister, Heart of Midnight).

I guess the ultimate arbiter of how my bias effects my criticsm will be the people who read it. I imagine that they soon get to know that I think Jennifer Jason Leigh is the best actor alive, and that Francois Ozon is a genius, and that my tastes aren't particularly mainstream. All I know is that when I review I try to give my honest oppinion of a film, and back it up with areasoned argument. Whether you think I've done that, or whether you think I'm biased is really up to you.

Does that answer your point?

[rilocay]

Bias is hard to avoid, it's natural. Wether it's good or shit, the bias is there due to past factors. Eg, Nolan's fans werent surpised with the quality of tdk because memento, prestige, batman begins and identity were very solid and great movies. The biast of expecting good things from him came out. Yet ont he other hand, alot fo people hadn't seen begins, and the general public still saw Batman as campy crap from the Schu-sequels, and while this doesn't quite work for tdk, in begins case, the bias of batman being 'shit' meant that begins maybe wasn't as succesful as it could have been.

We make our biast opinions due to different factors, they arent nessecarily wrong or right, and it will come into judging a movie. Those expecting less from a film maycome out enjoying it more than someone who was expecting something big.

[jbar1026]

i judge ever movie off its own merits! when i go the the movies and see an uwe boll movie i know its more than like not going to be awsome but it could be. i went and saw in the name of the king before i knew he directed it. and it still sucked two hours of my life i will always regret wasting. i liked the hitcher remake. it stands well on it own imo. i liked disturbia when others said it was trash for being similar to rear window or what ever the other movies title was.

over all i base all movies on if i wasted my time and money on them not on who is in them or who directed them. if spielberg had directed alone in the dark it would not have made a diference to me.

[bigred760]

I try to go into movies with an "open mind." I'd like to think that I'm unbiased when it comes to actors, actresses, and directors. (And since Paris Hilton isn't an actress, I don't have to worry about being biased against her :D.) But I also mostly go to movies that I want to see, which is why I usually avoid movies directed Uwe Boll and "starring" Paris Hilton (haven't seen any movie featuring them yet).

On the subject, it's safe to say that Steven Spielberg is my favorite director and Indiana Jones is one of my favorite trilogies, but I found the fourth installment weak and didn't live up to its predecessors. You would think that I would've loved it with my affinity for Spielberg films . . . but alas, I didn't like it.

[spacemonkey]

I agree, certain movies are stamped as bad immediately without giving them a chance. But sometimes, a certain actor or director has really earned that. For example, Uwe Boll starts promoting Postal and its an immediate response of many a schmoe, including myself, to say that the film will be "utter garbage" with out even seeing it.

I always like to give filmakers and actors a second and sometimes even third chance before completely blocking them out. Uwe Boll I wont see ever again, Ive suffered through enough of his films. I think I lasted upto BloodRayne. Thats where I drew the line!

Sometimes you cant help but be biased about certain actors and directors. Specially when theyve proven themselves to be constantly associated or involved in shitty films.

But I stress sometimes. I also like to give second chances, and yes, sometimes three chances to actors and directors. With Uwe Boll for example...I gave him quite a few chances to redeem himself...but by the time I got to BloodRayne...I said 'no more!'

[Superplasmatron]

i like some shit films, worst movie of all time is a comment too often banded about. but to me the majority of big budget films are too awful to waste time on, such as transformers and Hancock.