There are two ways to review a piece of work. First, strictly for an entertainment or enjoyment aspect. That is pretty much where she is coming from. And there is a lot to be said for that. That is why most people go to movies, listen to music, watch TV, etc. I get that. I rarely do that type of review. I suppose I could, I just choose not to. Most already do it that way. Why should I just repeat what they do? I don't want to.
The other way is to look at it as a piece of art, as creation, as structure, as potential to be something and see how close the creators got to that. That is mostly what I do.
But then I thought, what if I did both in the same review? So, from time to time, that is what I will do. Two movie reviews in one.
Reminds me of the old American Bandstand thing.
"I give it a 90, it's catchy. You can dance to it and it has a nice beat to it."
Maybe that is all that matters. Maybe more matters. I will consider both aspects when I do my reviews and do two if I think it warrants it.
I think what I will do before I post my review is ask all my friends who have seen it to say what they liked about it and what they did not, and then sift out of those responses to give an "entertainment value" review. Then do my critical and artistic point of view. Then the reader can decide which one they want to consider, possibly both, before they make their decision to see it or comment on my review.
Should be interesting.