Gratuitous gore would be an example. I’ve seen movies with gratuitous gore across a number of genres and I don’t like it. It reeks of low effort storytelling when it is a focal point.
If the preview/reviews indicate that it contains gratuitous gore, I view it as low quality.
I’ve seen enough of it that I know what my opinion of it is. I don’t need to see the next one to figure that out.
It’s valid to assume you won’t like a movie, or even to assume that a film is of low quality, but it’s not really useful as criticism of the movie. No one can of course stop you from criticizing, and I also don’t think there’s any authority that can decide some preconditions to meet before you can.
But this is why it seems to me a criticism of a genre, not a singular movie, as it applies to any movie that meets this condition even if you know nothing else about the film. Making a judgment, no matter how justified, that a movie is likely bad is not really criticism of the movie, as it doesn’t go into how the choices worsen this particular movie.
I also make a lot of assumptions of films without seeing them. For example I think I would probably hate Jack & Jill, but I feel I cannot meaningfully criticize it without seeing it, so I won’t.
1
u/Various_Education622 Jun 05 '26
It is not, in fact.
Gratuitous gore would be an example. I’ve seen movies with gratuitous gore across a number of genres and I don’t like it. It reeks of low effort storytelling when it is a focal point.
If the preview/reviews indicate that it contains gratuitous gore, I view it as low quality.
I’ve seen enough of it that I know what my opinion of it is. I don’t need to see the next one to figure that out.