> I think you have a strange idea about the purpose of a movie review. Yes, the
> critic is more informed when it comes to judging how “great” a movie is in terms
> of cinematic history. But most people don’t read a movie review to find out if it is
> a historically great movie, they read it to find out if they, the reader, would
> enjoy watching that movie.
I think a lot depends on the individual filmgoer. For someone who hasn’t seen very many films, the point of reading reviews is usually just to discover if they would like to see the film. For someone who has seen a lot of films (and often it doesn’t even take that many films), the point often becomes to place the film in one’s own knowledge about all films - how it compares to other movies by that director or with those actors, how it compares to other movies in that genre or from that country, how well it uses the story it’s based on or the visual effects it uses, and so on. It’s no doubt true that the majority of viewers aren’t interested in more than finding out if they want to see the film, but I suspect more people than you think want something more than that.
There are way too many “critics” these days, most of them don’t have anything intelligent to say & exist merely to bolster the box office. There didn’t used to be 82 bazillion publications containing “movie reviews”.
The late Ms. Kael had a wonderful talent for criticizing (and praising) movies and actors. Her reviews are little gems in and of themselves, and she usually (I thought) hit the nail right on the head, summarizing my movie-going experiences cleverly with wit and insight, and an historical perspective.
Sorry to (sort of) disagree with you, Wendell, but while I completely agree with your interpretation of journalistic ethics I disagree with your statement about bribes.
Yes, I’ve found that it’s very rare for someone to say ‘Here’s $1000. Make sure my flick gets four stars’ in the US that’s not to say that some less than subtle forms of bribery (in a loose definition) aren’t going on.
Press junkets to exotic locales
Private ‘meet the stars’ parties
Advance screening promotional kits
Free booze and dinners
and other items are all a part of the ‘reviews’ and ‘trade press’ game. I certainly see it in the video game market (I was at the a posh thing in Beverly Hills two weeks ago. The dancers were wearing Superman panties) and can’t imagine it doesn’t happen in the movie market. It’s considered a part of ‘promotion’ to make sure the people who will write about your product are bombarded with as many reasons to make positive associations with it as possible. If that means the booze and food and models flow freely then it does.
So while a monetary bribe might not happen I wouldn’t say there’s nothing out there being used towards the same goal.
Heck, the “Ain’t it Cool” guy admitted he gave a positive review to the 1998 Godzilla based largely on the electric thrill running through the crowd at the special premiere, which erupted often enough in cheering to obscure how terrible a movie it really was.
You takes your chances. I’ll be seeing X-Men 3 later today and I’ve deliberately avoided reviews because I don’t want the movie spoiled. Frankly, I wouldn’t expect a general-purpose critic like Ebert to fully “get” a genre film of this type, though his reviews for more generic dramas and comedies can be entertaining.
> Yes, I’ve found that it’s very rare for someone to say ‘Here’s $1000. Make sure
> my flick gets four stars’ in the US that’s not to say that some less than subtle
> forms of bribery (in a loose definition) aren’t going on.
>
> Press junkets to exotic locales
> Private ‘meet the stars’ parties
> Advance screening promotional kits
> Free booze and dinners
>
> and other items are all a part of the ‘reviews’ and ‘trade press’ game. I certainly
> see it in the video game market (I was at the a posh thing in Beverly Hills two
> weeks ago. The dancers were wearing Superman panties) and can’t imagine it
> doesn’t happen in the movie market. It’s considered a part of ‘promotion’ to
> make sure the people who will write about your product are bombarded with as
> many reasons to make positive associations with it as possible. If that means
> the booze and food and models flow freely then it does.
Actually, I agree with this. It’s not necessary for the various promoters of movies to do anything as gross as offering cash to a reviewer for a good review. Something like that would get people on both ends of the bribe fired. So would somthing else a film distributor tried recently. Somebody who wrote the ads for some distributor’s movies made up a reviewer and used his quotes in the ads for his company’s films. (It got ignored for a few months because anybody who didn’t recognize his name just thought, “Yeah, another quote whore who likes seeng his name in movie ads.”) A trick that obvious gets slapped down fast.
But as Jonathan Chance points out, there are much subtler ways to bias the reviews (and, more generally, the news coverage) for a film. The big-budget films will have loads of free benefits of the sorts that are listed above - press junkets, parties, promotional kits, etc. for the film critics and, more importantly, for the entertainment reporters. After all, most of us spend much more time watching or reading entertainment news than movie criticism and reviews. Most entertainment reporters don’t pretend that they are critics. They might even agree that most of the films that they are covering are fluff. They would say, “Yeah, this film is probably junk. But I have to give it major coverage. It’s got a couple of hot stars who had an affair while making it. It’s getting loads of TV advertising. If I ignore this film just because I don’t like it, my editors/producers will be angry because this is the film everyone wants to know about.”
I like Alan Smithee, The Movie Guy’s reviews - always something interesting. He recently reviewed the actual theaters in the Metro Atlanta area and I agree with much he has to say. He answers obscure questions from readers - his column is great!
The Arts in general will always have critics and reviewers: dance, theater, art, books - I like comparing other opinions to my own.
You know, I’m not terribly fond of Roger Ebert as a critic - he simply endorses movies I hate often enough that I have realized our taste is rather different - but I think he tends to give a very fair shake to genre films in reviews I’ve seen. He’s pretty populist - he’s certainly not a movie snob - and whatever the genre is, he’s seen more films in it than you or I have. I’ve just never noticed him being at all unfair to any particular genre of films.
No slam on Ebert, but a movie like X-Men contains oodles of references that add an extra layer of amusement to people who’ve read the comics, and I rather doubt Ebert has. It’s an enjoyable enough film as action/adventure, and I could expect Ebert to review it as such. A review for fans specifically might tell them if it a satisfying adaptation of the source material or if it takes potentially infuriating liberties.
Ebert rates movies on an individual basis. When he gives a movie three stars, he’s not thinking “This movie is one star away from Citizen Kane.” He rates it based on how good THIS movie could possibly be. He forgives genre films for being genre films in the first place. Course, I disagree with this approach; it’s like rewarding a filmmaker for setting the bar low. And a movie that transcends its genre should be rewarded for doing so. But whatever. Just one of the reasons I don’t take Ebert very seriously.