I think at least part of it has to do with the fact that, if you're a critic, you see probably 500+ movies a year. You are likely to get bored with things that the casual viewer doesn't, and it might even be hard to tell it's happening to you. So you'll recommend something that's more "challenging" just because it's different, even if the rewards are thin for the average moviegoer.
Are film critics losing sync with audiences?
241–250 of 421 posts
Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?
#242No, I don't think so. I think they get it largely right. How many reviews of movies have you seen from a senior, experienced reviewer got a film really totally wrong? I don't mean "hated a movie that genre fans will like", or "dunked on a trashy movie", because in almost all cases those reviews acknowledge their biases and even the people who like that sort of thing will get the picture. I mean: really wrong. In rece…
Movie critics tend to give mediocre movies a bump when they like the message or think it otherwise is politically desirable.
Similarly, critics tend to downplay movies that have a more... blue collar?... appeal, no matter the artistry or purpose of the film. For instance, Taken gets 59% with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. It was a hugely important and impactful film. It basically spawned/revived a whole subgenre of action film.
Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?
#243Critics seem to rate movies on a global scale. How can I give this movie 9/10 when Citizen Kane is a 9/10? On that scale, this movie is at most a 6. Unsurprisingly, popular genres get trashed on that scale. Normal folks rate movies subjectively. Was it really awesome and did I love it? Then it’s a 10.
> Unsurprisingly, popular genres get trashed on that scale.
Except kids movies. I think they get graded on a huge curve. I think "I took my kid to it and I don't hate myself" gets an automatic three stars or something.
Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?
#244Have they ever been in sync?
I don't know about in sync but I think there might have been more common ground in the past. Movies like The Godfather, Jaws, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption sometimes feature highly on both critics and the public's favourite movie lists. I doubt many serious film critics are going to be putting any of the Marvel movies in their top 10 of all time yet there are large numbers of people out there who would.
Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?
#245[deleted]
Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?
#246Critic reviews are prescriptive: what they think the masses should watch. User reviews are retrospective: how much did they actually enjoy watching the movie. I think there has always been a fundamental disconnect, in that critics think the masses should be watching 'smarter', 'more artistic' or, less flatteringly, more pretentious movies. The world has become a lot more political over the past couple decades. I woul…
I'm a film major. I wrote about film on print for quite a while. This was not in the US. I did want to prescribe, but not to the masses. To other crítics, to the pedantic purists that thought Bruce Lee was unimportant and Spielberg formulaic and uninspired, and that unless your name is David Lynch anything American is worse by default. People who thought anything with emotion was trash for the masses. And I was there…
That’s an interesting take on the remake I hadn’t considered before. But as someone without an artsy bone in my body, I wish something other than superhero movies could be made
Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?
#247Just from a review reader perspective: I don't want critic scores to necessarily go hand in hand with audience scores. I have no idea what a given audience member wants. Random user reviews might rave that "Fast and Furious" speaks to the truth of the human condition, but I'm kinda skeptical and don't really know what that means coming from their perspective ... maybe question that person's life / film viewing experi…
Yes. With Ebert you always knew what his particular filter was (he would usually tell you directly, as IIRC with the LOTR movies he said he hadn't read the books) and you could adjust your expectations accordingly.
Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?
#248The average of film critics shouldn't be in sync with the average of audiences, and that is okay!
Critics watch movies from a different perspective of an audience member. Some really get pulled in by the technical details of the film while others are drawn to the story. Meanwhile the average movie goer's sole concern is entertainment.
The best way to use movie critics is like a discovery service. Find several (4 or 5) whose opinions you find agreeable (and maybe a few that you don't agree). Then go look at the movies those critics liked that you have never heard and watch them.
Finally, if you have made it this far, I recommend you watch "It Happened One Night" (1934). It's a romcom with Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert, directed by Frank Capra, and it was the first movie to win the Oscar for Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screen play. It's really good!
Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?
#249Others have said they miss Ebert. I'm certainly in that club.
I haven't paid much attention to film reviews since Ebert died. Sure, he gave scores, but they were not the point. I read his reviews because they helped me to explore my own thoughts about the films. It's the same reason I enjoy chatting with friends about films, books, art, etc. Scoring is not the point. Agreement is not the desired outcome.
Oftentimes, after I watch an old film, I'll look up Ebert's review, to see what he thought. Almost always, I'm enriched by doing that.
Re: Are film critics losing sync with audiences?
#250Just from a review reader perspective: I don't want critic scores to necessarily go hand in hand with audience scores. I have no idea what a given audience member wants. Random user reviews might rave that "Fast and Furious" speaks to the truth of the human condition, but I'm kinda skeptical and don't really know what that means coming from their perspective ... maybe question that person's life / film viewing experi…
Ebert was one of the last real effigies of good reviewing. The folks who took over after he died haven't really done his name justice. That said, I think "reviewing" took on much more than what Roger Ebert stood for. I don't think he saw himself as a gatekeeper of quality as much as someone who could put the summary of the experience of watching a movie in text quite succinctly. Nowadays with things like rotten tomat…
If it's gatekeeping, it's not doing a very good job. Star Trek: First Contact had a 96% rotten tomatoes rating a few years ago. It's gradually dropped a bit since, but seems a bit high for that movie, compared with all other movies ever made.