# Are film critics usually right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 18, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022 "2004-01-18T00:33:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![burundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burundi)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2004, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/21 "2004-01-18T19:54:59Z")
The trick is to find a critic whose tastes are more or less in line with yours. I’m lucky enought that Ken Hanke, the film critic for my local rag, has tastes very similar to mine–we both appreciate good writing, good characters, and films that try something out of the ordinary. He has little patience with gross-out comedies or your typical romantic comedy. If he likes a movie, I can generally be sure that I’ll enjoy it, and if he gives a movie a bad review, I avoid it, despite what other critics say. And, yeah, he’s biased toward the unusual and the thoughtful, but so am I. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2004, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/22 "2004-01-18T22:24:11Z")
> [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > Many moons ago, I recall watching Siskel & Ebert review _Independence Day_. Both gave less than favorable reviews. Bad script. Bad dialogue. Ridiculous premises (eg. Jeff Goldblum hacks into the aliens’ computer with a Powerbook). And so forth. > > After the movie takes in more than $90 million in its first week, S & E do a rare thing: they review a movie a second time. Their opinions don’t change. They are baffled by the movie’s appeal and sucess. > > I wonder if they (or any critics) can ever watch a movie without picking it to pieces? FTR, _ID4_ is one of those movies that I like BECAUSE it’s bad. Perhaps all those eps of MST3K have altered my sense of good and bad. > > On a side note, I recall seeing S & E review a film (whose name I can’t remember) where Siskel gave a favorable review and Ebert was so stunned that he refused to even comment on the film. Anybody remember this film? I think that a lot of reviewers don’t have the capacity to appreciate a film as camp. I also think that many critics expect too much out of a movie on an intellectual level.Thus, Sony’s _Godzilla_ was panned by a lotta critics, but me, I loved it. Big lizard, big city, big property damage. What more could you want from a film? Actually, _Godzilla_ was another movie that I liked as camp, as did my mother (it’s very rare that we agree on a film). I also liked the univesally hated _Battlefield Earth_- as camp. My appetite for camp is instatiable. That said, I think _ID4_ was too long and drawn out to work as camp. I saw it on a free PPV weekend promotion, and wished that I was watching it on tape so I could fast forward through the lame dialogue to the next explosion. The movie just sucked. I couldn’t believe that such a complete waste of celluloid was the blockbuster of the year. Doesn’t say much for the intelligence of the average moviegoer. I go to see movies to be entertained. If a movie makes me think as well, that’s a nice bonus. Back in the days of Silkel and Ebert, my rule of thumb when selecting a movie was, when Siskel and Ebert disagree, go with Siskel. I have a copy of Ebert’s _I Hated, Hated, Hated this Movie_. He shredded some of my favorite films in that book, including _Eric the Viking_. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/23 "2004-01-19T00:07:06Z")
> [@Thea Logica](#): > > That said, I think _ID4_ was too long and drawn out to work as camp. I saw it on a free PPV weekend promotion, and wished that I was watching it on tape so I could fast forward through the lame dialogue to the next explosion. The movie just sucked. I couldn’t believe that such a complete waste of celluloid was the blockbuster of the year. Doesn’t say much for the intelligence of the average moviegoer. When I got the DVD, I went immediately to the 45-minute mark - that’s where the aliens start blowing stuff up. I also fast forward through the “Dawson’s Creek In Space” bits of _Attack of the Clones_. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/24 "2004-01-19T06:58:19Z")
> [@](#): > > I also fast forward through the “Dawson’s Creek In Space” bits of _Attack of the Clones_. Which leaves you with… the CGI Yoda fight and the credits? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/25 "2004-01-19T09:03:28Z")
Yeah, there are two good solutions to the film critic thing. One is to learn a crapload about movies and how they’re made, learn which producers have the Touch of Death, which directors used to be mere costume designers, which actors used be football players, etc. Then follow the preproduction buzz you’ll find in lots of trade rags that say stuff like “the rewritten rewrite of the revision of the Green Arrow script has been pawned off onto Joel Schumacher and Hack X. Writer. Michael Jackson is slated to play the title character.” Then you’ll have as good an idea as anyone what films will be _bad_. (Given its long pre-production nightmare so far, I have bad vibes about the _Superman_ remake, f’rinstance, if it ever gets off the ground.) Or find a film critic you pretty much agree with most of the time. Most film critics, I wager, follow the pre-release buzz of various movies to see what they’re in for. I like my movie critics to refer to other movies. Really. If they say, “This movie was like watching _Aliens_ with Jim Carrey as Hicks,” then I sort of know what to expect. I can decide for myself if I’d like something like that. I’ve seen _Aliens_ and I know Jim Carrey, after all. I don’t need the reviewer to tell me I’ll like the film, I just need him to give me enough information to make up my own mind. Or if a reviewer says “this movie was like _The Game_ meets _House of Cards_.” Hey, I’d like to see that! “This movie is a cross between _Pitch Black_ and _Pretty Woman._” Umm… I’ll give that one a miss. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/26 "2004-01-19T09:14:30Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > One is to learn a crapload about movies and how they’re made, learn which producers have the Touch of Death, which directors used to be mere costume designers, which actors used be football players, etc. Then follow the preproduction buzz you’ll find in lots of trade rags that say stuff like “the rewritten rewrite of the revision of the Green Arrow script has been pawned off onto Joel Schumacher and Hack X. Writer. Michael Jackson is slated to play the title character.” You thought it would be funny to post that because you know that’s what _I_ do, right? 😛 To the OP: I maintain (or used to maintain, until I got burned out) a movie review website. On this site, I’ve got a four page essay explaining why I do what I do and what my approach is. A couple of choice excerpts relevant to what you’re talking about: > [@](#): > > My take on reviews is that the readers should come away with a sense of whether or not they themselves would appreciate the film. Everyone experiences movies differently; there’s really no right or wrong when it comes to like or dislike. A good review will help you decide, based on your taste and your previous experience, whether or not you should go see the movie in question. And it performs this function without giving away the film’s story. > > … > > For the most part, I think story recaps are a crutch for many reviewers, who are often harried, untrained journalists thrust into the film-review role because the newspaper didn’t have anyone else. With the never-ending crush of weekly deadlines, it’s a lot easier to fill up an 800-word review if you can blow two-thirds of it just retelling the movie’s plot, especially if you don’t know much about film to begin with and don’t have any idea what else to talk about. If you’re interested, check it out [here](http://moviegeek.homestead.com). I apologize for not having any new reviews up in a year or so; it’s something I keep intending to get back to, but I find other stuff to occupy my time. In any event, you can find the long essay from which the quoted excerpts above are taken by clicking my About link. Hope you find it interesting. ---
**Author:** ![av8rmike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/edb3f5/32.png) [@av8rmike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/av8rmike)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/27 "2004-01-19T19:34:06Z")
> [@Daylon](#): > > Most critics I’ve read go nuts puffing themselves up with references to previous movies or storylines…aka “Matrix Revolutions borrows heavily (albeit poorly) of Kurosawa’s landmark film 13 Samurai…” > > Gimme a break…did you like the movie or not? Were you entertained? Except it’s not always so simple. Film, like every other creative venture out there, doesn’t exist in a vacuum. In a perfect world, every movie, TV show, book, album, play, or painting could exist completely independently of each other and could be judged solely on its own merits. Unfortunately, each work of artistic expression is based on what came before it, and is in turn the basis for other works. By looking backwards at what an artist’s inspirations were, the reviewer can evaluate where the genre might be heading in the future, among other things. I don’t think a reviewer, in seeing _Matrix: Revolutions_ allusions to _Seven Samurai_ is trying to be a know-it-all blowhard, but is expressing that one served as the inspiration for the other. On the other hand, many people go to movies simply as an escape; to have a cloak thrown over them and leave their own world behind in favor of one on screen. One approach isn’t better than the other; it’s all dependent on what one wants to get out of the experience. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2004, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/28 "2004-01-19T20:01:22Z")
I’ll add a recommend for Ebert as a level-headed writer, though generally I find critics to be useless. Mainstream critics just aren’t close enough to where I’m at to be useful. Most would not even recognize the NAME of my favorite genre: hentai. Fortunately, there are a lot of folks on the Web who do. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/29 "2004-01-20T04:37:37Z")
Moving this to Cafe Society. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/30 "2004-01-20T05:21:29Z")
I think that collectively, the reviews tend to represent an accurate picture. I find that the tomatoe meter works as a pretty good rating on a scale of 1 to 100. Ebert can go really off the rails sometimes, especilally when it comes to giving raves to terrible movies. He loved _The Phantom Menace_, for instance and gave thumbs up to crap like _Tomb Raider 2_ and _Charlie’s Angels 2_. He also has a self-righteous streak when it comes to violence. He loves to tell everybody how outraged he is by stuff like _Texas Chainsaw Massacre_ and claims he can’t fathom why anyone would like it. One pet peeve I have is when reviewers want to tell us how the movie _should_ have been made and where the story _should_ have gone. I really have no interest in haering their creative brainstorms. If they could write and direct movies, they’d be doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Leechboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9fc348/32.png) [@Leechboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leechboy)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/31 "2004-01-20T06:32:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Ebert can go really off the rails sometimes, especilally when it comes to giving raves to terrible movies. He loved The Phantom Menace, for instance and gave thumbs up to crap like Tomb Raider 2 and Charlie’s Angels 2. He also has a self-righteous streak when it comes to violence. He loves to tell everybody how outraged he is by stuff like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and claims he can’t fathom why anyone would like it. Ebert is one of the two critics I have bookmarked in my favourites folder, (The other is the [Teen Movie Critic II](http://www.dreamagic.com/vivianrose/teencritic1.html) who I read only for the head slappingly stupid fun of it.) I think you need to know one things to understand the Tomb Raider & Charlies Angels reviews - He’s a boob man (How do you think he and Russ Meyer hooked up?) As for the violence? Who knows, sometimes stuff can just hit you the wrong way. Hell, I’ve seen and enjoyed stuff like Audition, Braindead, Cannibal Holocaust etc but was so disgusted by a relatively tame killing in 52 Pick-Up that it put me off the rest of the film. (For those whove seen the film, it’s the bit where Scheider’s sent the video of the girl) I still have no idea about his love of the Star Wars prequels, so I attribute it to the madness of “personal taste” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/32 "2004-01-20T06:55:10Z")
I can understand the violence aversion to a certain extent. How it’s done can change the effect. One think that I have a visceral revulsion to is rape scenes. I can’t stand them and I will generally stop watching a movie if I see one. I understand the movie _Irreversable_ has an almost unwatchable rape scene that goes on forever. Ebert loved that movie. I could never watch it. I find that kind of scene far more offensive than the absurdist violence of the _texas Chainsaw_ movies. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/33 "2004-01-20T09:13:34Z")
Roger Ebert wrote the sequel to _The Valley of the Dolls_. That’s why he’s the onyl movie reviewer I trust. > [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > On a side note, I recall seeing S & E review a film (whose name I can’t remember) where Siskel gave a favorable review and Ebert was so stunned that he refused to even comment on the film. Anybody remember this film? Might it have been _Carnosaur_? ---
**Author:** ![Tarrsk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/97f17d/32.png) [@Tarrsk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tarrsk)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/34 "2004-01-20T14:39:54Z")
[The Flick Filosopher](http://www.flickfilosopher.com/) (a.k.a. Mary-Ann Johansen) is the only movie critic I read consistently. I find her reviews smart, witty, and interesting even when I totally disagree with what she’s saying. She has a knack for using very clever formats to present reviews for movies that struck her as either particularly good or particularly terrible, as well (examples: [Tomb Raider](http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/012q/tombraider.shtml), [A.I.](http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/012q/ai.shtml), [League of Extraordinary Gentlemen](http://www.flickfilosopher.com/flickfilos/archive/2003/leaguegentlemen.shtml)). ---
**Author:** ![NE\_Texan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e99b99/32.png) [@NE\_Texan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NE_Texan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/35 "2004-01-20T19:03:25Z")
I don’t know how a reviewer would be “right” – they would either agree with my taste, or not. And if they agree with mine, they obviously won’t agree with my wife’s, or yours, or the guy in the next row, etc. I don’t like looking to reviewers to see if a movie is good or bad. The reviews I’ve read never correlate enough with mine – not even negatively. (That is, not only can I not find a reviewer that likes all the movies I like, I also can’t find one that dislikes all the movies I like – that would work almost as well.) However, I like reading reviews with enough details about the movie to make up my own mind. Tell me the genre, how much action is in it, if the dialogue is clever, who the actors and characters are, how the story starts (but not how it ends!), how consistent the plot is. Scenery, location, costumes, whatever. Details, man, details! With enough information, I can figure out a movie I’ll like even if the review didn’t, and vice versa. ---
**Author:** ![noname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58f4c7/32.png) [@noname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/noname)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/36 "2004-01-20T22:39:35Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > His predecessor Barry Norman was one of the stuck up kind. The kind who are garaunteed to hate anything that makes over a certain level of money. IIRC, he liked Seven, so I guess hes ok, really. But generally, reviewers don’t have a clue. ---
**Author:** ![Ouatic-7](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/f07891/32.png) [@Ouatic-7](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ouatic-7)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/37 "2004-01-20T23:12:31Z")
I agree with NE Texan. The purpose of the review is to to tell you whether the movie is good or bad. It is to give you enough information to decide whether to spend your time or money on it. One phrase that catches my eye is “too confusing” 'cuz I never find it too confusing and often enjoy an intricate plot. Watch out for “measured” because that means “slow”. I rely on Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune. He gives a good feel for the movie. Oh, and if it is based on a book, he reads the book, as well. By the way, I don’t regard the Korean movie “Nowhere to Hide” as particularly obscure. I believe our local neighborhood video store has it. I feel Korea is the new Hong Kong. Some of the best movies are from there. Many stories, such as “My Wife is a Gangster” have been sold to American studios for remakes. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/38 "2004-01-21T00:16:41Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Roger Ebert wrote the sequel to _The Valley of the Dolls_. That’s why he’s the onyl movie reviewer I trust. > > Might it have been _Carnosaur_? Could’ve been. The look on Ebert’s face was priceless. You’d have thought Gene had just stomped on Ebert’s cat. ---
**Author:** ![beajerry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@beajerry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beajerry)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/39 "2004-01-21T00:50:10Z")
I enjoy Rollingstone’s Peter Travers’ movie reviews. Ebert is a close second. I think movie critiquing is an art. As has been said in this thread, it’s all about how to dissect the movie interestingly and provide enough info to people to allow them to decide whether or not to go see it. If there’s a movie with bad acting, or bad writing, or bad effects, etc. then it’s pointed out to the reader. Like Gigli, or Madonna’s last movie. A good critic will recognize whether the bad acting, etc. is purposefully done (as in camp films) and can then say it’s a good film. Formuleic movies usually get bad reviews because they are…formuleic. ID4 and Armeggedon got bad reviews because they were too formuleic and did not go into campiness. (ID4 tried a little, but still took itself too seriously to make it) Films like The Fifth Element are formuleic, but the campiness is obvious and enjoyable (plus 5th Element had an interesting look). The good critics will also point the reader to those films that the current reviewed film stole things from. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2004, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022/40 "2004-01-21T03:04:30Z")
> [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > Could’ve been. The look on Ebert’s face was priceless. You’d have thought Gene had just stomped on Ebert’s cat. IIRC, Siskel once reviewed _Beyond the Valley of the Dolls_ and panned it on the air right in frontof Ebert. I always liked Siskel better than Ebert. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-film-critics-usually-right/225022.md?page=3)