This video had good cinematography, good editing, good writing and good story. Great video Joel!

One reason may be that it's incredibly difficult to explain why a movie impacted you so deeply without revealing who you are as a person. In an environment where sincerity is at best ignored, and at worst reviled altogether, shedding enough light into who you are as to simply give viewers a clear idea of a film's impact on you seems very high-risk, low-reward. Moreover, most on the internet (and in life, generally) are of the mind that one should constantly be looking to analyze and correct others' moral alignments, and vie for influence over media that doesn't reflect their own ideals. I appreciate your genuineness, Joel-more than in that you choose to be candid in regards to your tastes but that you have the guts to tell why such a form of sincerity matters.

If I'm honest, I'm not much of a film buff. I've got a short attention span and haven't seen a lot of movies all things considered. Yet I find myself watching every one of the videos you post on this channel. These videos aren't just video essays on filmmaking, they're subtle, realistic sermons on optimism and getting more out of life. Your perspective brightens my day. Thanks, Joel.

I think part of why movie criticism is so removed and lacks personal connection is because of society's obsession with "objective" criticism. Art is "objectively" good because of these metrics. We need to understand that it is impossible to be objective. We filter everything through our perspective and that alters it.

there are plenty of "bad" movies that still make you feel somehting, same goes for music. Actually, my example was gonna be exactly the same as yours : romance movies. Even the sappiest, melodramatic teen ones that are basically tear-porn, have been in my case some of the strongest emotions I've felt while watching movies simply due to the fact that when I watched them I my situation was parraleled by the movie or the characters. A lot of times, even "lower-tier" art can affect you more than you'd expect simply due to the fact that they came at a point in time in your life where they truly resonate. It's like breaking glass with your voice, both wave lengths need to be perfectly in sync and that's a very personal experience that can't really be shared with others no matter how many words you type. Personally, I try to view almost everything from both the objective and subjective less when possible because it helps explaining why you like something even if it might be poorly made from a technical aspect.

Thanks for this word, Joel. This is easily the most "you took the words right out of my mouth!" video you've ever made. I used to try to be "objective" in my film criticism on UKposts and focus on technical stuff, but these days I tend to just meditate on some particular theme or idea that hit me in a particular way. I've also started talking more openly about my interest in theology and spirituality and how it connects to movies, not to preach to anybody, but just so that my videos have more of a sense of what I actually care and think about when I watch movies. I hope other people follow suit and we can break out of the box of technicality. There are so many video essays and reviews out there that I don't even watch anymore because I see the thumbnail and go "I know exactly what they're gonna say. And I'll agree with it. But it won't surprise or enlighten me with anything human." You are the rare exception and I'm grateful for this channel!

“Film criticism is actually very bad”- Evil Joel

I love the videos on this channel so much. They're like those thoughts you have late at night when you're trying to sleep made flesh.

I completely agree. I think a big part of the problem is the amount of pressure there is for critics to get their reviews out as soon as possible without being able to properly let the film sink in, while also trying to avoid spoilers and all that. On top of that, so many people who look for movie reviews are only interested in hearing about technical aspects and how fast paced it is and how believable the acting is, so I feel like a lot of critics feel pressured to make very surface level reviews or else a big chunk of their audience will lose interest in the video quickly. Great video!

Ive been watching your main channel for a while and somehow ive missed you talking about this channel, but im glad ive found it. Good stuff Joel!

Having someone I admire say "I love you guys" directed at me-even through a UKposts video, even though we don't have a personal relationship, and even though it addresses everyone in the community still feels special somehow. Joel's thoughtfulness is not lost on me. Thanks for talking about movies and being so authentically caring, Joel. We love you too.

Thanks for this! Watched "Pretend That You Love Me" right after this and loved it!! Great work, all around.

I've watched so many movies that are perfectly competently made that have felt completely hollow and left me feeling absolutely nothing after watching them. Editing, composition, acting, those are all means to an end. If I feel something, at least the movie is successful to that extent, and all those other "objective" qualifiers can be discussed if doing that is fun for people. There are so many people who want "objective" reviews of art, and I don't know if those people will ever fully understand what they're even engaging with (nor do I think they necessarily want to). I appreciate your perspective constantly, you don't miss the forest for the trees when it comes to art. Your honesty and willingness to let things make you feel are truly refreshing.

0:37 this is why Yi Yi is my favourite movie of all time

Joel, how I adore your passion for the art of filmmaking and movies as a whole

It's possible to talk about a film's emotional impact without getting too personal tho. I had time to experiment with this when writing reviews, and what I found is that when you're writing a public review it's really important to present your experience in a universal way -you're not just reacting to a film in a certain way because you are you, but also because you are human. There are certain aspects of the movie-watching experience that nearly all viewers share, and I think that's the part critics should focus on. As a critic I'm not going to talk about the loved ones I lost when I talk about a movie about grief, but I am going to describe just how devastating the movie is because it reminds us of what grief feels like.

I feel very similarly about a lot of music criticism on UKposts or just in general really. So many people focus on music theory, song structure, production etc and while all those things are important when talking about music, it really is more interesting to me whenever someone talks about their own personal experience to an song/album/band or what a specific piece of music means to them. That’s the thing about any piece of art that is so unique is just the impact that it can have on somebody, and I wish there was just less cut and dry analysis type videos on UKposts really

Absolutely. Was thinking about this shit today. It's bled out into how the culture at large talks about film. They talk about movies like they're surveying the structural integrity of a building. Cinema is experience and criticism should be a personal expression in conversation with another artwork. Reviews should be a slice of that person's soul and a testament to how people connect through art

I am a big fan of talking about movies as they affect my life. Thanks for also liking that sorta thing Joel.

Very much appreciated your latest feature because of how it related to me. I think, at least for me, it’s rare that something really appeals to me on a deep personal level, I tend to enjoy films based on how weird they make me feel, so it’s a special thing when they do connect with me that way.

In their video essay about subjectivity, CJ the X (another artist on UKposts) expresses that engaging with art is a form of creating art in itself, and that sentiment has had a profound impact on how I enjoy film. And if we looked at film reviews from that lens, it’s no wonder there are commonalities and approaches that have been overdone - I can imagine these were once quite profound when they were first popping up in the papers; describing the moving picture for an audience. It’s interesting to think about the roots of this objective criticism trend. I guess what my rambling is trying to get to is this: The review creates a moment between the reader and the reviewer, and in the present day people value connection, vulnerability, and authenticity more than the approaches of the past. We soak that up because it’s harder to find on the reg. Knowing there are people like you in this world I am feeling hopeful for what is to come for the relationship between art and art criticism. (And if you’ll indulge me in one final paragraph) For a long time, it has personally been difficult to interact with online spaces, but this space you have created is helping me get out of my shell. Slowly dipping my toes into the waters of an online community brings a level of discomfort I never thought I would have. Even now I write this with an uneasy combination of giddiness and fear - I’m excited and scared of being vulnerable with my ideas, of being seen, of being. You’ve created a community where even a quiet snail like myself feels inspired and motivated to speak up. Thank you for that, Joel.

Please watch The Wailing - To me it represents the greatest horror of all which is uncertainty and captures it perfectly.

Joel, you’re my favorite UKpostsr

In one word: Otaku Gonzo Journalism

I think of those "checklist-style" reviews as targeting those potential moviegoers, rather than trying to have a discussion with the people who are walking out of the theater. I've always thought of reviews that way, so your description of the review style you enjoy strikes me more as the essay-style of film discourse. Whatever it is, I do think it'd be cool to see more of that.

I always love listening to these videos and your thoughts. Thanks for sharing Joel

This is why I love Letterboxd. I love movies, but I wouldn’t consider myself a film buff, and because of this, I value how a movie made someone feel, rather than the technicality of how it’s made. You just can’t get that with websites like rotten tomatoes

I was thinking about this yesterday! I love engaging with criticism (positive or negative) that comes from a personal place. Someone watched a movie / played a game / listened to a song whatever, and it moved them to talk about it. But when everything needs a critical response, when critics feel like they need to have a take on things that don't move them at all, the result is checklists and 10 point scales just so they can have something to say

I'm not a movie critic, I do some book reviews in my spare time and I consume a lot of reviews (both of books and movies), and I completely agree with you here. I don't think it's as bad in film criticism, but this is pretty rampant in book criticism. there's a very experienced book reviewer who made a video basically saying that if you wanna do proper book reviews, you have to remove yourself from the review, refrain from saying "I" and just talk about the book only. And it's such a weird mindset from my perspective, that's probably why I read less "proper" reviews and more of the personal type.

This UKposts video is really well lit, and the sound is done so well!

This was pretty insightful! Thanks, Joel!❤

I sit and talk like this with myself alone a lot about a lot of different stuff, and I think to film it or write it down or, something, but every time I do it makes me too nervous to talk in the way that I was

I feel like the more objective elements are being focused on by these youtube film critics because the corporate movie makers are somehow failing at them, and failing big. "Holy shit, how are you getting that wrong, we've made movies for decades, *we know how to make good movies.*" And the corporations are clinging to their crutch of focusing on existing IPs, which can of course result in amazing movies, but the misses get a lot more attention because they've got people attached to those worlds and characters. Those objective elements can be quite interesting to analyze, but you're completely correct that it shouldn't just be that. MauLer of course is one of those who is big on objective criticisms of movies, but one of the most interesting things I've seen him put out was a stream where he and his friends went through Jurassic Park. They of course looked at all the technical aspects and just how well executed the movie was, but towards the end of the movie he went into the impact it had on him, saying that as a kid he came away with "Yeah they shouldn't try and make more dinos, humans can't control them!" while as an adult he came away thinking about it as a commentary of humans meddling with nature, and how that can have massive unforeseen consequences due to its unfathomable scale coupled with human hubris. I think the wiser critics already understand the importance of seeing the personal impact of media; it's the fresher imitators that don't quite get it yet. That and the pressure to get out reviews now now now while the film is still relevant, before you have time to stew on what it actually means to you.

This resonates with me, thank you for sharing 🥰

“I feel the lack”. Man that’s relatable… For me I feel that when listening to my favourite songs that are either happy or sad love songs.

Videos like this make me want to film a movie for you to watch and review

One of my favorite movie reviews is on my film A Life Directionless, "BIG fan of scrambled eggs on screen". Thanks Noah. 🙂 And Thanks Joel.

totally agree a shameless emphasis on subjectivity is where its at

Fun fact: Joel Haver has a mustache

I think it's important to get more of the type of emotions that you discuss across because most people don't watch reviews before watching a movie, they usually watch the reviews after to see how the film touched other people. I personally enjoy the half hour or so on the way back from the cinema looking at forum posts where people give their opinions, especially when they disagree with me, they may baffle me, but that is an emotion I feel strongly, and isn't that why you go to see a film? To feel emotion? Even if that emotion is just "ahhh FUCK YEAH, JASON STATHAM!" that's still a thrill, it's still an emotive experience, just because it didn't reduce you to tears or make you reconsider your purpose in life, it's still an emotive experience.

I feel like Welcome to the Basement has been great for the emotional reaction to things, but they talk about movies from all eras, silent up to now, so maybe this is more about the criticisms of current films specifically? They do what many do and recap the film first, talk about the technicaly stuff too, but I they at least go into how the films made them feel, if briefly. I think Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel did portray these honest emotional reactions to what they saw, I still go back to their writing and their show when I want to hear what they thought about something. Felt more human and honest even when I didn't agree with their lines of thought. I think the personal is sort of inescapable, there are arguments for and against bringing it too much into a review but it's still there. It's like a genre of criticism I guess, but often creates the best essays and the best examples of works-of-art-that-is-also-criticism sorta thing. You thought about doing more film profiles like that, to show people what kind of criticism you mean? I'm thinking of your reaction to Ikiru as a good example maybe.

If I give my time to see a movie. I want somethings in return. I want to see something I've never seen before, or I want to see something I have seen before, but in a new way, and most important I want to care about the characters. Finally, I want a happy ending or at least victorious. I give extra credit to people who take risks.

Interesting aspect ratio. :)

I’ve having these same thoughts recently about recent UKposts movie reviews that kind of seem repetitive in the criticisms. I don’t think the creators or videos are bad but it is nice to just get a nice refreshing genuine personal review of the movie. A perception that gives me a different perspective of the movie.

Honestly it's great to hear you say all this. I often feel like a crazy person when I leave a movie because there's usually something that directly parallels my life, or the life of someone I'm close to, and it makes me introspective. Usually people fall asleep in the movies I like and I'm like hooooow?? Did you not see the inner turmoil they were going through? I think some people just have a tendency to cut themselves off from their own stories and narratives, maybe because of some past trauma, or just passivity. The result is they only see the technical, and they miss the heartfelt relatability in the art. It's a very sad way of living if you ask me. I'm glad you see movies that way.

I've had an idea for a short movie for a while, but honestly I've been terrified to work on it. There are thousands of people on the internet who would love to see something emotional and personal. But I would have to keep the entire thing secret from everyone I know, because I know they would be horrified and disgusted by it. If they watched it, I feel like it would be like them discovering I actually had a secret second family they've never heard of. I can't decide if it's worth it or not.

Excellently said Joel! This is what I try to do with my reviews (though they're of games, not films), so the affirmation is nice.

Honestly, I think I'm even guilty of trying to analyze movies like that, and I've forgotten why I always end up going back to my old favorites. You pretty much nailed why I do! I'd love to hear more from critics when something connects with them this personal way. It definitely feels more truthful in a way.

The Week I Review is a channel where he always connects the art that he watches back to his own life experience. I agree that it's usually more interesting that way.

I love this! Sometimes it's hard to describe how a movie changes your mind or makes changes to your life, because on the surface level it's only about a certain topic

I used to trash certain movies and other types of art/entertainment that people liked if I didn't enjoy them, largely because it made me feel superior. Since I had 'objectively' the right opinion based on the technical qualities of these works, I felt somehow more intelligent or high-brow than other people. But I came to realize that enjoyment of something and how fulfilling it is emotionally is much more important to me personally. Now if someone is expressing their sincere excitement or fondness for something I don't care for, I try to tap into any aspect of that work that resonated with me instead of trying to tarnish someone's love for something that means so much to them.

Completely agree. Movies are no maths. I have this sensation that many reviews seem to be aimed more towards "consumption" rather than contemplation of the artwork itself: "This movie is too long, has some incoherences, etc. You shouldn't spend your weekend in this!"

Hah, I was going to comment about the book volumes before recipes and then you said it. But I completely agree with you. And I wouldn't worry about being too individual in your reviews here, I come here for your thoughts and stories - not concise summaries. (P.s. for balance, a movie to come to the defence of recipe writers! Because I do appreciate the deep personal dimensions of food but not on tuesday night when i JUST want to know how to cook a brussels sprout: Julie & Julia, 2009)

Joel your amazing

I would highly recommend "The Autistic Horror of Don't Hug Me I'm Scared" by Patricia Taxxon, if you haven't seen it already. It's a review of a UKposts series but it addresses your point here directly, where the synthesis is built in no small part from Patricia's real-life experiences and how they shaped her reaction/connection, emotionally, to DHMIS, such that I believe her analysis interpreted the films far more effectively than 'theorycrafters' and other plotlocked literalist reviews are typically unable

Truth! That’s what I like about this channel. Also: I love when I didn’t like a movie and then someone who did like “reviews” it and explains what great about it. Then I go rewatch and love it. This happens to me with Gran Torino. I have never like Punch Drunk Love but after watching your taking I’m looking forward to rewatching it. I don’t think I understood what it was about before. The whole “outsider love” thing you mentioned.

Good video Joel. I think you summed up the reason why I’ve lacked motivation to talk about films on UKposts as of late. It can feel like you’re ticking off a checklist and especially, when most reviews on UKposts are about 5-10 minutes, it’s hard to be in-depth and personal. Probably, why I prefer long-form reviews and video essays because a lot of the time they’re more personal and you can tell the creator is passionate about the film/tv show they’re talking about.

Literally every UKposts critic talks about movies in this way.

I like Jeremy Jahns's style of movie reviews. It's not just entertaining but informative. Also has a deeper look that I often ignore about films. Pitch meeting is also great at what they do even if the films they review are mostly Hollywood blockbusters.

I feel like the reason you don't see a lot of that is because it's those peoples' job to review films, and don't always get a personal connection that is worth delving into. But, I get where you're coming from. RLM's Re:view is the closest example I can think of at the moment. Edit: And what you do, of course.

Maybe this applies to a lot of criticism, but I see what you're talking about with video game criticism. There are not not a lot of words to talk about how personally connected I feel to the games I love, but there are a lot of words that go into detail about what is mechanically happening with a game, and if those mechanics are good or bad it's much easier to talk about those things with those words.

I am not a movie buff and I feel that my general lack of savvy gives me a more honest way to rate movies I watch. I don't rate movies on technical stuff at all, because I don't _care_ about any of it. I don't care about the hours their sound engineers spent recording random foley sounds to get the perfect sound. I don't care about acting as a profession, maybe I can't even tell the difference between good acting and bad acting because unless the acting is blatantly horrible, I see people talk about "okay, good and great acting" and I just see people acting. I've never really seen someone acting a role and thought "I believe this person", and I feel like that's a bad way to view it anyway. Suspension of disbelief has nothing to do with how good someone's acting is and has everything to do with how effectively a story immerses its audience. And I don't care about cinematography. I understand all of these things that happen behind the scenes, but I do not care. What I care about is having a good experience. Thus all my ratings are entirely subjective on a scale of "hated it" to "great". And any movie has a chance to be a great as long as it is thoroughly entertaining and makes me want to see it again. Troll 2 is a great. It's regarded as one of the worst films of all time, but I loved it, so it gets my highest rating. Oppenheimer was my first time coming to a theater in years. Never much liked the experience of theaters, but the opportunity came up so I went to go see it. Oppenheimer was good. That's...the mark on my scale just below great. It was good. I liked it, but I wouldn't watch it a second time. Too loud in a lot of places. Sure the cinematography was interesting, but I don't care about that when I'm trying to be entertained. I do care that after the movie's climax it spent a whole extra hour debriefing the audience on how some petty politician tried to screw him over. This probably would have been better left to a documentary. That said, if none of that was in the film, I can't say that my rating would be any higher. I do not believe that movies need to be longer than 1 hour. I think that most films pad their runtime to meet some conventional 90-150 minute ideal, and that what they SHOULD be doing is making it as long as it actually needs to be. If your movie's entire plot can be told in 15 minutes with normal pacing, then it's a short film, don't pad it out to 2 and a half hours. So the longer a movie is, the more I wonder while watching it what parts of it are really necessary and what is just fluff, the more I notice unnecessary dialogue scenes and bad pacing, the more likely I am to not like the movie so much. Let's be clear: Oppenheimer could have been told in 90 minutes. It did not need to be 3 hours long. No movie NEEDS to be 3 hours long. And to me, making a movie overly long by padding it is not respecting the viewer's time. So wow it must have been a really good movie if despite all of that, I still say I enjoyed it (with the minor caveat that I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it again). My scale is hated, bad, meh, good, great. The difference is not always so clear cut between these ratings, but hated is generally for movies I can't even finish because they are so bad. There are VERY few movies on my list that have that rating, and if I hate a movie but manage to finish it, it more often than not just gets the bad or meh rating depending on how much it bored me. So a movie has to be REALLY unbearable to get my equivalent of a 1/5. For reference, Human Centipede was a Meh.

NakeyJakey does this beautifully with video games.

Poking people in their hearts, or stabbing us in the memory glands, something that makes us feel...pain, happiness, remorse, triumph, peace or anger(beware the last one, hate, fear and anger is the easiest route to poking people, and it is the least fruitful so far as it's impact on our society and individual selves as well). Joel Haver does so well with making films of a higher quality than what the standards or expectations of uhh what we expect, regarding of just how we get poked... it's just, well you have to see for yourself to understand.

Yoooo, what's the plant called? Both genus....and if you've named it.

I think there's a good reason you just endorse movies based on if it made you cry

Something that I like to do when criticizing a bad movie is pointing out things that I liked, I have found genuinely great things in movies that I consider to be bad, I find that fascinating.

So what we want is Tim Rogers but for films, then?

I don't think you can decouple the technical quality of a movie from the emotional impact of a movie. One is used to convey the other.

Sometimes a film just makes me feel a certain way. People don't like Prometheus. I think the visuals are amazing!

If you're worried about movies living in a hole inside of you, avoid the hobbit

While I respect this outlook on reviews, it seems that this style would be more suited for film buffs or when you want to know more after watching the film and not as a recommendation before. I think the majority of reviews are more "Objective" because it's easier to manage your expectations, cause usually when I recommend a film with a more personal take most of the time people are disappointed afterwards cause I hyped the film up but they didn't have the same connection to it. (for example I love Guardians of the galaxy 2 but most people don't feel such a strong connection to the disjointed family drama that's conveyed thru all the different aspects of the film Like a huge Pac Man fighting EGO)

One movie made me make a promise to my self to change as a person... Believe it or not it's the Little Prince(1974)

Personal connection to the movie is missing from these film reviews. However, there has to be a balance. A movie can be good and fun but not hit in a deeply emotional way. This personal connection should be a sign of a good movie, and a lack should not indicate a bad movie

that's a nice shirt

This is why when people ask me what my favorite movie is 2001: A Space Odyssey I get called plebeian because its so well known, but the truth is the movie isn’t perfect, its my favorite because I watched once when I was 12 expecting it to be like any other sci fi action movie but instead I got, for the first time, my first experience with understanding that filmmaking is an art-form and not just a product I watched.

I both agree and disagree

hey joel have you seen BeauIsAfraid? i feel like it got critisized really hard because of the check list mentality, and people didnt even watch it how it was ment to be watched because they were just busy trying to fit in a box.

A good example of this is someone like Ralph bakshi. Ralph Bakshi is not exactly a great film maker from a technical standard. He makes all sorts of mistakes but I and many people enjoy his films. Although, I don’t really blame anyone who doesn’t like a Ralph Bakshi film. However, if I know a reviewer likes Ralph Bakshi he might recommend other films that are also not technically good but also touches on similar themes as Bakshi. Like tale of tales. Instead because the reviewer is so focused on technical skill, they will suggest something like the deer Hunter. Really, too find a good reviewer for myself doesn’t have to do so much with someone who is good at deconstructing a film as much as it is someone who has similar tastes as myself.

A lot of film critique channels are all "this is so bad, look at how bad this is" repeat ad infinitum with no more depth than that not even an explanation as to why a thing is "bad" it's tiring. Even a "bad" movie can have interesting critiques. What is the film trying to accomplish, how does it communicate itself, does it succeed? Why or why not? It is so hard to find film criticism that goes beyond bad film is bad because it's bad or good film is good because it's good. Even positive film talk is rare

Hello Joel. :)

Wish ya could see this Joel, but I know this video is pretty old. I never really considered a movie review as a piece of art, which is what I think you are getting at. Instead of being purely for utility, why not write a "review" that is introspective and meaningful? Some game reviewers will do this, on occasion Video Game Dunkey will explain more at length why a piece of art was personally meaningful for him, and the "review" builds on the original work. Maybe showing someone why the art can be beautiful to another.

I think part of this is that a lot of people don't have a ton of experience talking or writing about movies except for casual conversations with friends. In English class we talk about books in plays, music is ubiquitous throughout our lives and in art and history classes we talk about paintings. In contrast, most movies are just a thing people do with their friends

Yeah I agree 100% but I still struggle to appreciate movies that resonate with me on an emotional level but are very poorly executed…

Just watch more horror film commentary. The movies are "bad" in most traditional senses, so if you love horror you already aren't focused on the checklist things :D Scaredy Cats and Ryan Hollinger are both excellent

Movies are complicated. That's why I stick to Ghost Adventures

I used to review films professionally. I had a few pull quotes end up on posters, and I'm certain it's because I wrote from this personal perspective you're talking about rather than a technical one. It felt like the producers, or marketers, or whoever made the call did so because my review came from the heart, not because I praised the film (which I rarely did) or because my words were so impactful (which they rarely are). On a broader note, I feel, ironically, that the shift over the last 10-15 years towards 'issue' films has made it harder for people to find themselves in modern stories. It's like there's some concerted effort to move away from stories that remind audiences of what makes us all alike and towards stories that reinforce notions of difference, or the importance of tribe. They are designed to be understood from a single perspective. I feel this is probably a major reason - even more so than the focus on technicals you highlight - why there's less discussion about the personal impact of modern film. Why speak when there's nothing new to say?

We don't know how to talk about our experiences with movies and emotions that may have come up, because capitalism discourages us from doing so. You must consume as much product as quickly as possible. There's no room for emotion and experience there.

Man this is why I don’t get why Citizen Kane is the highest rated movie of all time

From what I see, there is a lot of clickbait out there that's very negative. Just label something woke, go on a tirade about political/social controversy, people click, and the algorithm does the rest. As a viewer, its actually hard to find good review and analysis that's not just "watch this because its in the right camp" "don't watch this garbage, its in the wrong camp." Better stuff than that is certainly out there, too. But I have to scroll through uglier and uglier rhetoric, grosser and grosser thumbnails, to find it.

I like Charts with Dan, Chris Stickman and Doug Walker for this. They give technical and emotional stand points. Even Angry Joe, he puts so much emotion into his videos.

I'm honestly going to have to hard disagree with you, on this. There are plenty of people on youtube who will just tell you that they liked the film because it made them feel a certain way, or hated the film for the same reason, but if you want something beyond that surface level, and to go into why a film can make you feel a certain way, you usually have to go into the editing, the cinematography, the writing, the narrative, etc. Whether Slartiblartfast5551 enjoyed the movie is beside the point of what I am looking for in film discussion; I want to know why some people resonated with a story and others didn't, and that isn't something we can get to if we just talk about our subjective opinions on the overall film. Also I would like to see these channels that you're talking about being all over youtube, because my experience so far has been quite the opposite of yours, with most channels just being "I liked it, it was good, in my opinion, like comment and subscribe."

Joke letterbox reviews so insufferable...

People who critique a movie because of editing or cinematography, make no sense to me. It's like you can't see the forest through the trees. "Erm I didn't like how it was shot, but everything else about it was as good as Godfather 1, 6.2/10" like bro how does "hrm that camera angle isn't good" take you THAT far out of a movie. When I see a movie, it's either an 8/10, garbage, or so bad it's fun to laugh at. Movie critics are stupid and I hate them.

I think part of the issue is there are rarely impactful films made in the mainstream anymore.

You😮tube😅 be😊 like😢 then😒 it 😂is 🐒fine🙂.

I think part of why movie criticism is so removed and lacks personal connection is because of society's obsession with "objective" criticism. Art is "objectively" good because of these metrics. We need to understand that it is impossible to be objective. We filter everything through our perspective and that alters it.