The process of evaluating a work in a public manner. May include a rating but it is not necessary. Reviews appear widely in traditional media including newspapers, TV, magazines, and academic journals, and, more recently, in web-based formats such as Review Blog and Video Review Show.

Reviewers are often called critics, and can come in many forms, from someone genuinely attempting to evaluate a work for public benefit, to those who deliberately pick up on a bad work and insult it in the funniest way possible. Over the years this has made reviewing a serious industry, especially with New Media. Whole companies and sites can depend on their reviewing of works. This is most visible in the gaming and filming industry where it goes hand in hand. If a game or movie gets even a mediocre rating the makers can say bye-bye to their potential profits.

Possibly an even bigger source of entertainment than the works being reviewed. This can lead to interesting twists. If a work gets a bad enough rating but an entertaining review, it can gain a ton more sales just on the advertisement on how it's So Bad, It's Good. This can go for films, shows, comics, and games. Thus, reviews can be seen much like a forced advertisement makers have to gamble on. Of course, unscrupulous advertisers have been known to Quote Mine and select just a few words that make it look like the reviewer loved it. ("It was ... very good at all!")

Reviews frequently give works a star rating, usually on a Four Point Scale or On a Scale from One to Ten. This can result in people giving more weight to the rating than to the content of the review — Roger Ebert has notably complained about this — leading to a situation where 8.8 might be considered a pan. Particularly good or bad works might warrant Rank Inflation or F--. If the reviewer can't figure out how to rate a given work in their system, it Broke the Rating Scale.

Given that reviews usually describe the work they're reviewing (of course), there's always some potential for Spoilers. Considerate reviewers will either find ways around mentioning sensitive plot points, or at least flag them with a Spoiler Warning. Inconsiderate reviewers... well, Spoil At Your Own Risk; in addition to outraging the fans, some people have even been sued for divulging information that the creators didn't want to be public just yet.

The Caustic Critic doesn't hesitate to express their disapproval of a work's flaws. Kinder souls may offer Constructive Criticism. On the other hand, the Compassionate Critic may accentuate the negative out of the belief that it's tough love.

When done poorly, a review might contain nothing more than Complaining About Shows You Don't Like or Gushing About Shows You Like. These crop up in good reviews too, but they tend to have more nuance and, crucially, reasoned arguments for why the critic thinks the work in question is good or bad.

Woe to the reviewer who gets caught Complaining About Shows They Don't Watch; that's considered very bad form, for obvious reasons.

Alert readers may spot Reviewer Stock Phrases and Reviewer Standard Comparisons, showing that the reviewer is hard pressed to avoid journalistic cliches. Cleverer reviewers may invoke lines from the work to create a Review Ironic Echo.

Some readers adhere a little too closely to their favorite reviewer's opinions, leading to the belief that Reviews Are the Gospel. The opposite is He Panned It, Now He Sucks. In between the two is Critical Backlash, where a work panned by reviewers turns out to be not as bad as you expected.

When a reviewer appears in fiction, they often get portrayed as a Straw Critic, probably because some writers can't resist the chance to say Take That, Critics!.

Notable reviewers include:

See also:

By the way, you can post reviews on This Very Wiki; see the details at TV Tropes Reviews or see a list of them here.

This page Needs More Love.