Do movie critics understand what movie goers want to see (on average)?

[taters]

So Im planning on seeing The Spirit, and Im reading reviews online. Most, if not all, seem to say its crap. After seeing this, I recalled how the critics said the same thing about Sin City. I felt this was odd, considering that many of the critics cited Sin City as 'what to aspire to' or 'the good example' when speaking of The Spirit.

I recall critics panning movies that (though I didnt feel they were the greatest addition of cinematology) I liked or enjoyed, like the 5th Element, Max Payne, Fight Club, Dude Wheres my Car, and Way of the Gun. Then I remembered how critics raved about movies I thought were drab, pretentious shit-incarnate like sideays (though I liked the actors in it), Titanic, and the Blair Witch project.

I personally dont always want to see over sensitive, visually jarring, artsy flicks that require constant thought to stay in the loop. IMO, thats what books are for. This is nice, but sometimes I just want to be entertained.

So my question is, do you think Movie reviewers really know what the average (or even the majority) of movie goers want to see in a movie, or does viewing movies from a professional standpoint jade your viewpoints to what 'lay' people want from a movie.

[Datači]

Um... sin city was praised by the critics. And, if i remember correctly, Total Film called the Fight Club the best movie ever.

And about your um... question do you think Movie goers really know what the average (or even the majority) of movie goers want to see in a movie,

lol, wut?

[taters]

Um... sin city was praised by the critics. And, if i remember correctly, Total Film called the Fight Club the best movie ever.

And about your um... question

lol, wut?

Nice contribution...

See edit of last paragraph


On Sin City (and Fight Club), mainstream critics in People, the Times, Roeper from Ebert and Roeper etc panned the hell out of those movies, claiming they were just cool looking crap essentially.

Other than that, the point of the thread is in the title. Not 'what did critics think of ____ specific movie'. Lets keep on topic, shall we?

[the creeps]

no they don't. MCs look at movies different. they are trained to see a film in a certain way. john Q public wants to escape the everyday bullshit and sadly, think as little as they can.
i think that is why summer blockbusters are what they are. people like "when the movie go boom."

[Nosebuckle]

I think they do. I mean, they correctly identify these parody movies as reels of dogshit, yet can't understand why they're still being made, assuming that sequals are spawned due to the financial success for the forerunners. Then again, they rave over faggy emo existentialist opuses. No wonder most movies receive "mixed reviews."

[zaphrodesiac]

Perfect example I recently saw was "Notorious"

Now you know this is going to be a piece of shit, but its a theatrical release and probably didn't cost anything since the trailer didn't really have any typical name drops of any semblence of talent in any role on the film. It's not like "Movie Goers" can be placed in one category anyways; there's obviously different target audiences with every motion picture.

[the creeps]

I think they do. I mean, they correctly identify these parody movies as reels of dogshit, yet can't understand why they're still being made, assuming that sequals are spawned due to the financial success for the forerunners. Then again, they rave over faggy emo existentialist opuses. No wonder most movies receive "mixed reviews."
wouldn't that mean the critics don't know what the mass majority of people want to see ?
i am not saying "scary movie 3" was the shit. but enough people went to see it that it made sense for the company to want to make more.

[heelsguy]

the problem with movie critics is they see so many films that instinctively anything different they find themselves praising...almost in a subconsious manner of rewarding creativity. example: crash

[zaphrodesiac]

the problem with movie critics is they see so many films that instinctively anything different they find themselves praising...almost in a subconsious manner of rewarding creativity. example: crash
How was crash more creative than brokeback mountain?

[Titus_Pullo]

One thing is that critics have seen a lot of movies and have studied film. So when a movie "borrows" from other lesser known, old or foreign films they will be able to spot that unlike the average movie goer.

Critics can love films that are mainstream and popular with the masses, just look at The Dark Knight. Made a mint and it is 94% on Rotten Tomatoes.

[nuclearjew]

Gene Shalit loves it all.

[taters]

One thing is that critics have seen a lot of movies and have studied film. So when a movie "borrows" from other lesser known, old or foreign films they will be able to spot that unlike the average movie goer.

Critics can love films that are mainstream and popular with the masses, just look at The Dark Knight. Made a mint and it is 94% on Rotten Tomatoes.

I agree it is a great film, but I wonder would they all have unilaterally raved about it if the whole Heath Ledger death hadnt happened?

[Claydon]

Movie critics are basically art critics, hence their opinions are vastly different than that of the average public.

[zaphrodesiac]

I agree it is a great film, but I wonder would they all have unilaterally raved about it if the whole Heath Ledger death hadnt happened?
Could anybody else have put on the same makeup and read dialogue from the same script Ledger did and not done just as well? It's not like his character was developed that well anyways. I thought he showed his best acting in Monster's Ball. I didn't see much acting in anything else he did.

[taters]

Could anybody else have put on the same makeup and read dialogue from the same script Ledger did and not done just as well? It's not like his character was developed that well anyways. I thought he showed his best acting in Monster's Ball. I didn't see much acting in anything else he did.

Oh I totally agree he did an amazing job for a character that could have only made or utterly destroyed the movie. I wouldnt of been able to tell it was him sans the makeup.

I just wonder how much of the whole 'dark knight is awesome' media hype was just that, hype. I have a feeling that if Ledger had lived, it still would have been just of amazing of a movie, but the critics would have been much harsher on it. Not because of any flaws, but because they tend to look down on most action or comic based or redo's movies in the genre, regardless of whether the public feels they suck or not (Sin City and V for Vendetta for example).

[Skybase]

I remember back when Siskel & Ebert were reviewing "Inspector Gadget". Now, i'm not saying that this was some terrific piece of filmwork, but that was one of the first reviews that started changing my outlook on them as reviewers, and many others.

I don't remember the entire thing, but I do remember one of them talking about how they disliked the movie and how he said "Although i've never seen the original series to base my review on, I don't think they're catering to their target audience." Went on about how silly/ridiculous the movie was and that it just didn't seem like it would appeal to it's target audience.

But, what was so fantastic about it IMO, was how he admitted to never seeing the series, yet had the gawl to say that the movie wouldnt' appeal to it's target audience. Hm, the audience. . that watched the original series? Sure it was a silly movie, but I felt that it stuck to the same type of humor and all that the original series did. (I'm not talking, nor will I, about the sequel) How could a professional reviewer stand up there and tell everyone what a horrible movie something was, that it doesn't cater to the target audience yet never have seen the series to see exactly what the target audience really is?

Bleh. Fuck 'em all.

[Titus_Pullo]

I agree it is a great film, but I wonder would they all have unilaterally raved about it if the whole Heath Ledger death hadnt happened?

I just saw TDK for the first time last weekend and I thought it was a great film. I think they would have still given it great reviews.

I thought TDK is tied with Spider-man 2 for the best of the comic book films since the comic book franchises really took off starting with the first X-Men film and Spider-man 2 received almost the same rating on Rottentomates that TDK did.

And I thought Spider-man 3 was total crap and that took it's hits by the critics, so I think they call it as they see it for the most part. There are always going to be some critics who just hate the comic book franchises.

[Skybase]

I also absolutely believe that regardless of Ledger's fate, the movie would be getting the rave reviews. It is an excellent movie with Ledger leading in about every way. Hell, he'd almost be a shoe-in for Best Leading actor even in this movie....the way *I* saw the movie, anyhow.

And yes, anyone could have worn the makeup and read the script, but don't think that they could have put the personality behind it. The quirky creepiness that is such a dark Joker.

[The GWD]

Nice contribution...

See edit of last paragraph


On Sin City (and Fight Club), mainstream critics in People, the Times, Roeper from Ebert and Roeper etc panned the hell out of those movies, claiming they were just cool looking crap essentially.

Other than that, the point of the thread is in the title. Not 'what did critics think of ____ specific movie'. Lets keep on topic, shall we?

Yeah...but Sin City got two thumbs up (http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=6&subsec=sin+city).

[hishiad]

There are sooo many critics and sooo many viewers it'd be impossible to have everything line up. Like I'm sure TDK is disliked by some critics and a large section of audiences. I loved the film thought the Joker was the best villian I've seen since No Country. Easily my favorite superhero movie too. Ledger was amazing as was Bale and the Two face guy really stepped up his game from the lower budget films he's normally in.


But I could take the negative seat like some critics or audiences and be annoyed that Batman really had less face time and spent more time fighting than developing his character. Or the darkness of the film visually made it less appealing. Or the exit of two face was too quick and he seemed to change sides too quickly without any real struggle being shown...


But again those are just picking to show it could be done.

[taters]

Yeah...but Sin City got two thumbs up (http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=6&subsec=sin+city).

Yea, from that critic (I notice you didnt mention the other titles brought up).

Way to play the devils advocate. It was panned by so called 'high society' critics.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/01/sbt.01.html
ROZEN:
Looks good, less filling.
I mean, essentially, it`s sort of a videogame on screen. This is based on the graphic novel series by Frank Miller. He co-directed the film with Robert Rodriguez. It`s sort of these hard-boiled urban tales -- lots of violence. Lots of violence! But really cool-looking, big-star ensemble cast, but no one`s playing a real character.

Id be hard pressed to agree with almost any of those descriptions, other than the violence and who directed it.

[vasili denisov]

I think the question would be, what is the cumulative practical impact of such reviews?

The Star Wars prequels and Pirates sequels got very poor reviews, without any effect on their audiences. You can point to Dirty Work, Fight Club, and Office Space as movies that were successful later on dvd but did poorly in theaters, but again, this was not because of reviews. Fight Club had two high profile stars whose appeal would have overridden bad reviews, yet was unable to pull in more of an audience because of the unusual premise.

The later success of these movies doesn't imply that something is wrong with the system; the conditions under which most of these movies achieve their later success, a person watching alone with a very low cost attached to the possibility of enjoying the film (paying either rental fee or dling it and not paying at all), than when the movie is released in theaters, a compromise choice among a large group with movement towards the least risky film given the amount paid for tickets, parking, food beforehand. The consequence is that very dull forgettable movies are sometimes very successful, though other films whose eccentricity makes them memorable, only achieve success later, though that success is far more long-term, since the distinctive qualities of the movie incite passionate evangelizing.

[Archetype]

So Im planning on seeing The Spirit, and Im reading reviews online. Most, if not all, seem to say its crap. After seeing this, I recalled how the critics said the same thing about Sin City. I felt this was odd, considering that many of the critics cited Sin City as 'what to aspire to' or 'the good example' when speaking of The Spirit.

I recall critics panning movies that (though I didnt feel they were the greatest addition of cinematology) I liked or enjoyed, like the 5th Element, Max Payne, Fight Club, Dude Wheres my Car, and Way of the Gun. Then I remembered how critics raved about movies I thought were drab, pretentious shit-incarnate like sideays (though I liked the actors in it), Titanic, and the Blair Witch project.

There's your answer.

[taters]

I think the question would be, what is the cumulative practical impact of such reviews?

The Star Wars prequels and Pirates sequels got very poor reviews, without any effect on their audiences. You can point to Dirty Work, Fight Club, and Office Space as movies that were successful later on dvd but did poorly in theaters, but again, this was not because of reviews. Fight Club had two high profile stars whose appeal would have overridden bad reviews, yet was unable to pull in more of an audience because of the unusual premise.

The later success of these movies doesn't imply that something is wrong with the system; the conditions under which most of these movies achieve their later success, a person watching alone with a very low cost attached to the possibility of enjoying the film (paying either rental fee or dling it and not paying at all), than when the movie is released in theaters, a compromise choice among a large group with movement towards the least risky film given the amount paid for tickets, parking, food beforehand. The consequence is that very dull forgettable movies are sometimes very successful, though other films whose eccentricity makes them memorable, only achieve success later, though that success is far more long-term, since the distinctive qualities of the movie incite passionate evangelizing.


But wouldnt that be a question of 'Are critics proper indicators of the success of movies?' rather than 'Are critics accurate gauges of what makes a movie good to the majority of watchers'?

Ive seen plenty of shitty successful movies (titanic the best and most hated example). Ive also seen a lot of great movies (as mentioned above) that tanked (I have to add idiocracy and dark city to that list, incase anyone looking for good unknown movies is reading this thread).

[Archetype]

But wouldnt that be a question of 'Are critics proper indicators of the success of movies?' rather than 'Are critics accurate gauges of what makes a movie good to the majority of watchers'?

Pretty sure that's the same question.

[Aegis]

Movie critics tend to rate movies on a set of criteria that makes sense to them and nobody else. But in their defense, the movies Hollywood puts out these days really don't deserve to be in theaters let alone be rated.

[hishiad]

Well the other thing you have to take into account...and I do this before I watch a film in theaters. Is it a good movie theater movie?


I mean The Dark Knight, 300, Transformers, Superbad...those films are great to watch in the movie theater anything big action or big comedy is awesome with a theater full laughing along with you, but some films like the Mementos and the Fight Clubs and so on are more of a I wanna be able to focus and stay with the movie without being distracted by the fat head in front of me or the loud "Oh he dies" voice behind me. So I think some critics review based on the experience of "is it worth watching in theaters" too.

[The GWD]

I think public opinion or how the reviewers perceive probable public opinion will sway reviewers. When Blade Runner was first released Siskel and Ebert gave it two thumbs down. Ten years later after the public collectively called them fucktarded, they turned those thumbs up.

If any movie needs to be revisited by reviewers it's Titanic. If you get past all the hubbub and exciting special effects for 1997, it's not much. It's a three hour movie in which you know the ending before seeing it. I'd give it one thumb up based purely on Kate Winslet's boobs.

[Archetype]

The average moviegoer has no valid opinion as to what's good in a movie, but they do know what they like; good taste isn't really that subjective, but perception is by default. So you have extreme variances with movie reviewers. If you don't like the reviews by the New York Times, stop being a weiner and quit reading them. Find some that go to the movies with the same purpose as you, and check what they say.

A question I have to ask is, what's so special about the average movie viewer versus the average movie critic? Do you ask a power engineering student about quantum physics?

[Aegis]

A question I have to ask is, what's so special about the average movie viewer versus the average movie critic? Do you ask a power engineering student about quantum physics?

Good point.

As far as titanic and knowing the ending before you went....that's the exact reason I never bothered sitting through the movie Zodiac.