Leniency because of age

[Briare Rabbit]

I hate this. I hate it, hate it, hate it. I see it every movie place I look. Leniency because of age.

Some people look at a film like Giant, for example. Now, Giant has James Dean in his last film role and said person watches it... and they can barely sit through it. They think it's absolutely boring and repetitive.

Then, they come online and bash the movie to high hell, employing some very nasty curse words, and not having one good thing to say about it until the end, then they finish the review with a line similar to "but, James Dean is in it, and the movie was revolutionary for it's time" or some similar pile of wank. Then proceed to give it a passing mark. Say, 3/5, or 6/10 or **1/2 or whatever. BUT AS PASSING MARK! How in the nine hells could anyone do this? I see it a lot, and it peeves me to no end. Yes, it should get marks for technical achievement, but historical meaning means jack shit when reviewing, unless you're writing a fucking book.

Then, said asshole comes online after going to the show on the same night and viewing... Closer. Now, they claim Closer is jaw dropping, the acting is astounding, the look beautiful and the script phenomenal and after this mini rave, they then award the film with the stunning grade of.... 7/10?

1 mark high then a film they utterly hated, and WHY? Because the older film is old, and the newer film new.

It pisses me off to no end.

[Fisting Ackbar]

I can admire both older and newer films for certain technical qualities and give a rating with that in consideration, even if I didn't like other things about it. But, if I really disliked said (older) film, historical relevance or not won't change the fact that I hated said movie and will rate it accordingly as a piece of crap that it is.

[A.J. Hakari]

My feelings exactly towards SWEET SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG; I admire the fact that it kick-started a new wave of black cinema in the '70s and portrayed African-Americans as strong characters who refused to back down from their enemies...but the movie really is little more than a 97-minute rotation of Melvin Van Peebles running, screwing women, running, screwing women, yada yada yada.

The movie got ** (out of ****) from me, not because I said, "Well, look at the impact it had," but because amidst the rather awkward and often unnecessary sex scenes, there were a few moments of intelligence and poignancy that shone through and actually said something worthwhile.

[Ted Pikul]

I think the bias is the other way round to be honest.

New films tend to get an easier ride.

For example I doubt The Girl Next Door will be remembered overly in 10 years time but that's been given some glowing reviews by schmoes.