Some people are very hard to please...
Previously on the Charles Fudgemufin blog, I've highlighted a selection of gushingly enthusiastic music reviews with confusingly stingy ratings. It's not just music reviewers who give harsh review ratings, so this week I've decided to look at a few similarly stingy reviews focusing on TV shows, movies, and first of all books...
1) Withering Tights by Louise Rennison
|Withering Tights: "The most hilarious book ever!"|
3 / 5
"...this book is insane. It could have easily killed me with its hilarity, and to be entirely honest it might just be the most hilarious, most ridiculous book I've ever read. I wish I read this when I was younger - I'd have loved it! Or well...it could have easily killed me then. It's just too funny! 3/5"
So just to recap, the 'most hilarious book' you've ever read...
...3 out of 5?
A book so funny it could have killed you...
...3 out of 5?
A book which is so amazingly hilariously funny it has the potential to kill, and yet you give it only 3 out of 5? Seriously!? 3 out of 5!?
Next up is a review of Impractical Jokers, one of my favourite comedy TV shows of all time, and although it's not quite as stingy as the first rating, it's still somewhat frugal. This was the review:
"Impractical Jokers, possibly the funniest, most ridiculous show I've seen in years."
So just to recap, the reviewer has stated that Impractical Jokers just might be the funniest show they have seen in years. To reiterate once again, they are therefore saying it might possibly be funnier than every other comedy TV show to appear on TV over the last few years. Think about that for a moment. That's quite a significant compliment.
|Impractical Jokers: "The funniest show in years. 3/4"|
Perhaps 90% then?
Surely it can't be as low as 80%!?
In fact the review awarded Impractical Jokers a rather stingy 75%! Once again, I think that deserves a ... !?!?!
Don't get me wrong, 75% is still a very respectable rating and suggests a very good TV show ... but 'the funniest show in years'? 75%?
To be fair, top respect to the reviewer for recognising the comedic brilliance of Impractical Jokers, but it doesn't say much for every other comedy show of the last few years, if 'the funniest show I've seen in years' only merits a mere 75%.
|"A gem of a film. 3/5"|
"This little gem of a film took me by surprise and sucked me in from beginning to end. 3/5"
Once again, I think I must be missing something here. A 'gem of a film', and yet they only gave it three stars? When I was at school three out of five equated to average. Although admittedly that was a very long time ago, so maybe the rules of maths have changed since I was at school.
Another reviewer added:
"Highly recommended, but don't watch by yourself. 3/5"
The 'don't watch by yourself' comment is a reference to the fact that the second half of the movie gets a little bit scary, but I'm not sure what the '3 out of 5' is a reference to, because it certainly doesn't seem to bear any relevance to their 'highly recommended' comment.
. . . . . . . .
Just for the record, I'm a big fan of Louise Rennison's books, I absolutely love Impractical Jokers and I enjoyed Triangle, so top respect to each of the reviewers for taking the time to highlight the excellence of each of these items. However, when they clearly enjoyed the book/TV show/movie so much, I just feel that they should have awarded a similarly enthusiastic rating to match.
You can find further examples of enthusiastic reviews with stingy review ratings at the links below:
Giving Excellent Stuff The Credit It Deserves
Giving Excellent Stuff The Credit It Deserves (Part 2)
Footnote: Incidentally, the entire page of user reviews for Impractical Jokers on metacritic give the show either 10/10 or 9/10. If you haven't seen the show yet and need more convincing, check out the reviews for yourself:
Reviews of Impractical Jokers on metacritic.com
Please note, all promotional images used on this blog remain the copyright of the respective artists/publishers and are used in accordance with 'Fair Use' legislation for review purposes.