I use the critics as a guide. I read what they liked and disliked. I try to read more than one. If I read “Spectacular effect but weak on plot”, I’ll probably skip. “The director brought the authors work to new levels highlighted by the sunning acting” I’m standing at the box office.
SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED says “I saw the actor plug his newest on the talk show. It has sex, violence, and a great car chase. Lets go!”
There are two basic functions of movie reviews: 1) Is this a well-made fim? 2) If you see it, will you have a good time? These two criteria aren’t mutually exclusive, but they aren’t synonymous either. Some critics focus more on one, and some on the other, and the same critic might stress one over the other from movie to movie. There are some critics whose sensibilities I know are in line with my own, and some that I know are not. But if a critic is simply pointing out that some movies are soda pop and some are fine wine, that critic might be entirely right but of little use to someone who likes the former and dislikes the latter.
Is film art, or is it entertainment? It can be either, or both (sometimes it’s neither). Sometimes I want a film that’s going to challenge me or give me one artist’s vision. Sometimes I just want to turn off my brain for two hours and watch explosions, slapstick, and/or nudity.
Actually, “Wizard of Oz” was well received critically. It was nominated for both the Best Picture Oscar (it lost to “Gone With the Wind”) and the Golden Palm at Cannes. It was also popular with audiences, grossing $3 million (in 1939 dollars), but it was so expensive to make that it didn’t turn much of a profit for many many years.
From Wikipedia: “Initially, The Wizard of Oz made only a small profit due to its enormous budget, despite largely favorable critical reviews. “Over the Rainbow” won the Academy Award for Best Original Song and the film itself received several Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture.”
I’m sure you can turn up anecdotal evidence of some famous reviewer who didn’t like it, but you can find one or two of those for just about anything that we now regard as ‘Classic’.
There was one movie reviewer in the newspaper that my mother found very reliable, and she always checked out his reviews. She knew that if he liked something, she would hate it, and vice versa.
The problem comes when you can’t tell, from reading the review, whether you would like something. What use is that??! I’m not reading the review to admire the critic’s writing style!
The harm is that Low Culture drives out the High. There are a limited number of screens, and the studios have a limited budget for production and promotion. By gearing their output so heavily towards audiences who ask little from their entertainment, there’s not much left for those who know that film can be something more.
For movies like “Twilight Saga” or “Transformers”, it really doesn’t matter much what the critics say. But for smaller, independent or foreign films, good critical response can be the difference between a $1 million take and a $10 million take, which would make the movie a HUGE success for that level, and might decide whether that director ever gets to make another movie or not.
(And for those of you who say “If the critics hate it, I’m going to like it”, you’ll probably never even hear of the movies the critics hate MOST. If you think the GOOD “art” films are boring and pretentious, you should try sitting through some BAD “art” movies.)
@fritzoid–I agree. I went through the art film stage back in the early 80’s. PHEW!!! However, art for art’s sake is not a good idea for those of us who want to simply relax and forget about what’s outside the theatre, or our living rooms. I personally like a movie that makes me think but entertains me also. That, my friend, is the very definition of good filmmaking. One other point, you never know what is going to become a cult classic. Hence, Rocky Horror Picture Show. EEEEWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, it’s certainly possible for a movie to be both Good and Popular. My favorite movie of all time is “Casablanca”, which not only was enormously popular in its day, it’s also maintained its status as a “great” movie for nearly 60 years. On the other side of the coin would be something like “Citizen Kane”, which I admire more than I enjoy. Sure, it was like nothing that had come before it, and changed the way movies were made thereafter, but it’s not a movie that I find overly entertaining to actually watch.
To use 2008 as an example, my favorite movies that year (not in a particular order) were “Wall-E”, which was both critically acclaimed and popular, “Iron Man”, which I think was just about the most successful movie of the year in terms of accomplishing what it set out to do, “Step Brothers”, which aimed low but was HILARIOUSLY funny, “Hamlet 2”, which probably nobody liked other than me, and “Synecdoche, New York”, which was an enormously challenging and original movie, taking huge risks and pulling them off, but which was incomprehensible to a large portion of even sophisticated audiences. Those last two particularly I’m glad that someone had the guts to make and release them, even if few other people I know liked them. It lets me feel that these movies were made specifically for ME…
(By the way, all but the most die-hard fans would admit that “Rocky Horror Picture Show” is actually a terrible movie. It was the audience-participation aspects of the experience which made it work. If you try to watch it home alone, without the toast-throwing and the sing-alongs and such, it’s pretty excruciating.)
Oddly, every single movie (according to the commercials) is the number one movie of the year / the summer / all time. So where are all those piles of bleeep such as “Marmaduke” coming from?
Sisyphos over 14 years ago
Was it The Last Airbender? From what I’ve seen, that has had some withering reviews….
(Irwin, I hate to say, is pretty close to representing the Lowest Common Denominator.)
margueritem over 14 years ago
Sometimes a simple mind makes life more enjoyable.
Llewellenbruce over 14 years ago
I guess that movie was a thumbs down vote.
MontanaLady over 14 years ago
I loved it!!!!!
GROG Premium Member over 14 years ago
The critics are always hardest to please. But why is it I always hate the movies they love?
lewisbower over 14 years ago
I use the critics as a guide. I read what they liked and disliked. I try to read more than one. If I read “Spectacular effect but weak on plot”, I’ll probably skip. “The director brought the authors work to new levels highlighted by the sunning acting” I’m standing at the box office.
SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED says “I saw the actor plug his newest on the talk show. It has sex, violence, and a great car chase. Lets go!”
Charles Brobst Premium Member over 14 years ago
I find the critics are usually WRONG!
thetraveller4 over 14 years ago
When the critics slam a movie, I usually go to see it right away….it’s sure to be good!
dougdash over 14 years ago
The first Star Wars film was trashed by the critics. We can trust them. They are always right. (sarc/off)
I usually ignore them as well. I know what I like, and I like what I know.
BananaSlug over 14 years ago
They must’ve seen The Last Airbender. And while Toy Story 3 is in theaters? Tsk, tsk.
Destiny23 over 14 years ago
Just wait till ”Broom Hilda: The Movie” comes out. Then let’s see what you two “experts” have to say!
(Garfield and Marmaduke got their own movies – why not Broomie?! It couldn’t be any worse!!)
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
There are two basic functions of movie reviews: 1) Is this a well-made fim? 2) If you see it, will you have a good time? These two criteria aren’t mutually exclusive, but they aren’t synonymous either. Some critics focus more on one, and some on the other, and the same critic might stress one over the other from movie to movie. There are some critics whose sensibilities I know are in line with my own, and some that I know are not. But if a critic is simply pointing out that some movies are soda pop and some are fine wine, that critic might be entirely right but of little use to someone who likes the former and dislikes the latter.
Is film art, or is it entertainment? It can be either, or both (sometimes it’s neither). Sometimes I want a film that’s going to challenge me or give me one artist’s vision. Sometimes I just want to turn off my brain for two hours and watch explosions, slapstick, and/or nudity.
boldyuma over 14 years ago
“The Wizard Of Oz” was panned by the critics when it first came out…
The movie didn’t really take on it’s iconic status until CBS started showing it once a year on TV…
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
Actually, “Wizard of Oz” was well received critically. It was nominated for both the Best Picture Oscar (it lost to “Gone With the Wind”) and the Golden Palm at Cannes. It was also popular with audiences, grossing $3 million (in 1939 dollars), but it was so expensive to make that it didn’t turn much of a profit for many many years.
From Wikipedia: “Initially, The Wizard of Oz made only a small profit due to its enormous budget, despite largely favorable critical reviews. “Over the Rainbow” won the Academy Award for Best Original Song and the film itself received several Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture.”
I’m sure you can turn up anecdotal evidence of some famous reviewer who didn’t like it, but you can find one or two of those for just about anything that we now regard as ‘Classic’.
RinaFarina over 14 years ago
Surely even LCD’s have a right to enjoy life? even if what they like isn’t what you like. What’s the harm?
RinaFarina over 14 years ago
There was one movie reviewer in the newspaper that my mother found very reliable, and she always checked out his reviews. She knew that if he liked something, she would hate it, and vice versa.
The problem comes when you can’t tell, from reading the review, whether you would like something. What use is that??! I’m not reading the review to admire the critic’s writing style!
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
The harm is that Low Culture drives out the High. There are a limited number of screens, and the studios have a limited budget for production and promotion. By gearing their output so heavily towards audiences who ask little from their entertainment, there’s not much left for those who know that film can be something more.
For movies like “Twilight Saga” or “Transformers”, it really doesn’t matter much what the critics say. But for smaller, independent or foreign films, good critical response can be the difference between a $1 million take and a $10 million take, which would make the movie a HUGE success for that level, and might decide whether that director ever gets to make another movie or not.
(And for those of you who say “If the critics hate it, I’m going to like it”, you’ll probably never even hear of the movies the critics hate MOST. If you think the GOOD “art” films are boring and pretentious, you should try sitting through some BAD “art” movies.)
pawpawbear over 14 years ago
@fritzoid–I agree. I went through the art film stage back in the early 80’s. PHEW!!! However, art for art’s sake is not a good idea for those of us who want to simply relax and forget about what’s outside the theatre, or our living rooms. I personally like a movie that makes me think but entertains me also. That, my friend, is the very definition of good filmmaking. One other point, you never know what is going to become a cult classic. Hence, Rocky Horror Picture Show. EEEEWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
Yeah, it’s certainly possible for a movie to be both Good and Popular. My favorite movie of all time is “Casablanca”, which not only was enormously popular in its day, it’s also maintained its status as a “great” movie for nearly 60 years. On the other side of the coin would be something like “Citizen Kane”, which I admire more than I enjoy. Sure, it was like nothing that had come before it, and changed the way movies were made thereafter, but it’s not a movie that I find overly entertaining to actually watch.
To use 2008 as an example, my favorite movies that year (not in a particular order) were “Wall-E”, which was both critically acclaimed and popular, “Iron Man”, which I think was just about the most successful movie of the year in terms of accomplishing what it set out to do, “Step Brothers”, which aimed low but was HILARIOUSLY funny, “Hamlet 2”, which probably nobody liked other than me, and “Synecdoche, New York”, which was an enormously challenging and original movie, taking huge risks and pulling them off, but which was incomprehensible to a large portion of even sophisticated audiences. Those last two particularly I’m glad that someone had the guts to make and release them, even if few other people I know liked them. It lets me feel that these movies were made specifically for ME…
(By the way, all but the most die-hard fans would admit that “Rocky Horror Picture Show” is actually a terrible movie. It was the audience-participation aspects of the experience which made it work. If you try to watch it home alone, without the toast-throwing and the sing-alongs and such, it’s pretty excruciating.)
Sherlock Watson over 14 years ago
Oddly, every single movie (according to the commercials) is the number one movie of the year / the summer / all time. So where are all those piles of bleeep such as “Marmaduke” coming from?