Reviewing Reviewers: Bloody Disgusting's Heart Eyes Review
Reviewing Reviewers reviews reviewer’s reviews that influence what you watch.
You can tell a lot about a critic from how they review a horror movie. Roger Ebert “thumbed down” many horror flicks that are ranked among the all-time greats in the genre. But who are we to question the writer of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. However, it’s hard to learn about horror critics, because they’re usually more forgiving to counteract the negative stigmas used by general reviewers and audiences. This is where someone might insert how horror is actually the most profitable genre, those reviewers need to be more positive so it will be taken seriously in a society that views it as cheap entertainment, and pad see ew might be my favorite dish despite the horrible diarrhea it gives me… I mean, some other reviewing tactic used by horror reviewers to boost the genre. Some might say this extreme support by critics and fans to overlook major flaws in horror films inevitably lowers standards, because studio systems believe they’re willing to watch any crap they throw at them… No comment, as that plays no role into how well a review is constructed. For example, Meagan Navarro, “queen of overly positive horror reviewing,” is well known for these types of reviews to the point where commenters on the Bloody Disgusting website have criticized her for being disingenuous and a studio pleaser. *There is a screenshot of a masterful comment attached below that’s in response to the review currently being examined.
It should be admitted that I am well aware of Navarro’s reviewing and unofficial title (that I just made up) associated with her when it comes to horror movies of a certain budget, cast, and/or crew. And her review of Heart Eyes did not disappoint. In fact, one could go as far as to claim it was too positive. “Hey, don’t shame someone for really liking something.” There’s no shaming going on here, because that’s what a 5 out of 5 review, two thumbs up, 100%, etc. is for. Yet, despite Navarro giving such a glowing review without mentioning any noticeable issues, she gave the movie 4 out of 5 skulls. That’s a whole skull missing from her review. That means it has to have some issue unless you're like one of those professors that randomly takes off points, because you want to give the message that it could always be better. Based on her reviewing history, the content of the review itself, and the score given, it is clear how one comes to the conclusion about the reviewer’s bias overpowering their strive for objective criticism in a subjective field. It’s a fine line to walk, Meagan, and your readers show concern. *Don’t worry, that screenshot of the juicy comment is going to be worth the wait.
Despite that question of integrity *We are so close. Navarro’s review is very strong. She showcases an amazing ability to blend synopsis, production history, critiques (more like only praises coming from her, am I right?), and every other component that most critics put into separate blocks of text to make for a very clunky read. You can feel the passion from her writing as someone that legitimately loved watching that movie, which can be faked but it doesn’t matter. Whether the positivity is fake or not doesn’t matter. It’s a solid review.
I’ve been avoiding + or – with these grades, and while giving Heart Eyes 4 out of 5 without any explanation is a knock against the review itself. It’s the best I’ve read so far in this journey, so…
Grade: A
If you’d like to read the review yourself: https://bloody-disgusting.com/reviews/3852802/heart-eyes-review/
*As promised, here’s the comment:
