Disparity Between Critics and Audience??? What's Your Take?

Critics are looking at the "technical" side of things, much like betas look at your stories. People who go to these movies are looking for entertainment, enjoyment, etc. Two different "goals", two different ratings.

Although frankly, I think a lot of movie critics have just been at it too long. They don't like anything that isn't "Gone With the Wind" or "War of the Worlds"... hell, they probably wouldn't like those now...

Lisa Schwarzbaum over at EW (who I like) wrote this article lamenting the cancellation of At the Movies. The cancellation was largely thanks to the increase in Internet bloggers and the disparity between critics and moviegoers. But she argues we need more of those shows and reviews.

And no, I don't think a critic's review has to be accountable to the audience. Many reviewers say "the masses will love this" to some extent, or "high art this movie isn't trying to be," but that doesn't mean they have to like everything major audiences tend to or critique with them in mind. Even if a certain critic doesn't like a film, most of the time you can figure out if it's something you will like by reading the review.

The movies you mentioned are based on retro stuff as well, so I suppose there is an element of nostalgia, as in, people thinking I like it because it's based on something I liked as a kid.

I pay most attention to friends with similar movie taste to me, rather than critics or audiences generally - I LIKE my movies light and frothy - I'm going to be entertained and uplifted, not dragged down or shown the harshness of reality, but that's just my personal preference as a watcher.

The question is huge and is something which haunts a good critic. The shortest way i can answer is by offering this example. when 'Waiting for Godot' came out only one critic gave it the thumbs up, same as Pinter's 'Birthday Party'. The world is littered with similar examples.
but it was those individual critics which were vital, allowing a work which may have died gain life and more importantly it's creator believe they were not insane. (don't matter who you are, every creator needs some positive reviews at the start of their career) this example views the situation from the other end - praise of what is dismissed by the majority.
as for the masses versus critic - usually down to level of knowledge, analytical tools used etc. divergence to be expected.

Which critics? I find that the RT percent ratings have been a pretty close match for my taste. But sometimes you just have to risk it. I like superhero movies, so I'll check it out even if it gets unanimously bad reviews, 'cause it's "my thing," ya know? I watched "The Spirit" despite absolutely horrendous reviews, and much to my dismay, hated it. I watched "Hancock" despite the absolutely horrendous reviews, and much to my surprise, rather enjoyed it.

I've had this problem personally when writing reviews of movies on Internet forums. Am I to set the rating based on quality or on my enjoyment?

Take a movie like Twilight. I would set a grade of 1 or 2 (of 5) for the technical aspects and acting, but then for some odd reason I liked it anyway and would give it a 4 for enjoyment. So what grade to give it? To make it a 3 as a mean value wouldn't be correct.

Part of the problem with grades or star ratings is that there's no consistent standard for what makes a good or bad film. Do you grade on a curve? Do you just give A-Team 2 1/2 stars but acknowledge that this is probably about as high as it was aiming for anyway?

I tend to like the critics disparity. I don't think it's their job to assess and predict audience reaction so much as evaluate the film's qualities. It seldom has a major impact on what movies are popular / successful in theaters, anyway. But at least it's not like the music biz, for instance, where it seems so many critics just say "Screw it, is this album selling well? Give at least 4 out of 5 stars then, who cares about an actual assessment of the quality."

Films are fairly subjective, beyond certain specific details. Everybody has different taste. I've certainly found I agree with RT more often than not, but in the cases that I disagreed, it was way off the mark.

The same has happened with Ebert a time or two. Or perhaps more times than I can count, since I disagree with him on so much.

I wonder if the style of Pinter and Beckett works oddly in film. I have only seen Not I all the way through, the Julianne Moore version, and it seems a lot of people disliked that, though I found it transfixing.

I think most of it comes down to that fickle thing we call: Taste.

I mean, one of my favorite movies of all time was Mystery Men, but I know people who hate that movie. And those people are clinically ill, because Mystery Men is the best superhero comedy of all time bar none.

I just started laughing just thinking about it.

But yeah, I see this all the all times, cause I'm thoroughly immersed in the video game reviewing culture because I love video games, with peripheral attention on movie reviews because I also love movies. Like, in video game land, reviewers all over the place really hated on two of my favorite video games of all time: Alpha Protocol and Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. But I love those games, because who can't love a rogue agent super-spy ninja kung-fu fighting a knife wielding 80s obsessed coked out Scarface esque Russian pimp...all set to the tune of "Turn Up the Radio" by Autograph.

Well, obviously reviewers that panned that game didn't like it.

Cause they are either.

A) Clinically insane

or

B) Have a different opinion from me.

Though, how can one tell the difference between those now a days?

I rarely ever read critics or, at least, the entire critique. I will only read a few lines and judge from there, avoiding the rating they give it the best I can.

It's a myth that critics a) unanimously agree with each other and b) automatically diss popular entertainment movies. (Some films that appear on All Time Top Ten lists are nothing but popular entertainment movies - Singin' in the Rain for example.)

A while back (1991, gulp) Variety tracked all reviews from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York and London for a year and there was only ONE film which had positive reviews from every critic tracked. (Goodfellas, for the record.)

The value of a critic is that you get to know their tastes over time, and how close their tastes match yours - particularly on those occasions when they go out on a limb and praise things you didn't expect. This is particularly valuable with films that don't have huge marketing budgets and would otherwise struggle to reach an audience otherwise - small-buidget indies, foreign-language films and so on.

Also, professional critics see more films that almost anyone else - in London, as many as nine or ten films which are released each week. So what may seem all right for an audience out for two hours of escapism on a Friday night (not that I'm knocking that) could seem like an Nth-generation rehash if you've seen countless other films like it.

Personally, if mainstream multiplex fodder were all I could see I'd go mad. I need to have some idea as to what is GOOD mainstream multiplex fodder, also which other films that could be worth my attention.

I'm more concerned with what my friends say. If they like it, odds are I will, too.

Screw the critics. If I listened to them, I would have missed three fourths of my favorite movies.

Well, no.

Its a supplement, not a replacement. I wanna know what all kinds of peeps think, but there are people who are...well, smarter than me and know more than me about the issue. So I'd like to hear their thinks on the subject.

Its all about getting multiple angles.

I usually don't read reviews of movies before seeing them, to avoid spoilers. I read them after seeing the movie, and sometimes the critic points things out that make me understand the movie better.

I'm almost always in complete agreement with Peter Travers and/or Roger Ebert. I do get the feeling Ebert has been softballing his reviews, though.

I wouldn't rely on most of my friends for film recommendations. Nothing wrong with their opinions, which they're entitled to of course - but I know more people online than in real life whose taste in films overlaps significantly with mine.

Sites with user reviews have a strong positive bias. Much less people write a review for a movie they didn't like than for one they did like, and they don't see a movie if they don't think they might like it. The result are scores where everything is at least "above average". The only movies that get actually bad scores are ones that are surprisingly bad.

Even so, there are almost always negative reviews that you can read and see if the reviewer seems to have the same taste or worldview as you. The negative reviews are the most interesting I think.

E.g. if the only things the negative reviews are complaining about is too much sex and violence, it sounds to me like an interesting movie. If they complain about bad acting and editing it sounds like a less interesting movie.

And even if all ratings are "above average", there is a relative difference. A movie that gets a lot of reviews and that has a very high rating relative to other movies is probably good in some way.

I don't pay any attention to them. I agree that it is in the eye of the beholder and what i behold is not always on the same level as they have. I think anyone could do their job and I don't think they have that much insight into what is fun/enjoyable to me.

CACTUSWENDY said:

I don't pay any attention to them. I agree that it is in the eye of the beholder and what i behold is not always on the same level as they have. I think anyone could do their job and I don't think they have that much insight into what is fun/enjoyable to me.

Click to expand...

Go for it.

Do Roger Ebert's job for a year (let alone the 30+ he's been doing it): watch 5+ movies a week (new movies, so there's no previous opinions or concensus, so you're coming to everything fresh and without a net), write a review of every one (not an "oh, I liked it, you might like it too" -- an actual analysis of the film, drawing on the history of film-making, current trends, international films, etc) that is both concise and thorough and of the quality for a metropolitan newspaper (and syndication).

Do it for a year, and let me know if you think, with that experience, that "anyone" could do it.

My opinion is that the critics are looking at movies for their storyline, innovation, development of story and characters, acting ability, production values, etc. - in other words, the critics are more concerned with it being innovative and delivering quality on all counts.

The public at large may be looking for some of those same points, but more than anything they literally want to be struck by how it was made and its entertainment value.