We all read reviews. How seriously we take them is another question, but we do read them. I know I do. And I find that we often take it for granted that these reviewers know what they're talking about. I mean, they wouldn't have gotten hired to review movies if they didn't know anything about movies, right? I hope not. But sometimes we forget that reviewers aren't objective movie-watching machines. They are human beings, subject to preferences and moods like everyone else. And as much as we count on them to be able to turn off that part of themselves when they watch a movie, that's usually impossible.
Think of it like taking the SATs. Is it really fair that a score that is so important be determined by one four-hour test on one day? Most kids would say no. What if I didn't get much sleep? Or forgot to eat that granola bar my mom sent with me? Or what if I'm just not a good test taker? The same things applies to reviewers. What if Roger Ebert was up until 4 the night before and in a really crappy mood when he watches Thor? Or what if he for some inexplicable reason has an intense phobia of hammers? People may base whether or not they spend their hard-earned money on how good of a day Mr. Ebert was having last Friday.
Isn't word of mouth from your peers so much more valuable than that? You know what kinds of movies your friends like. You know whether or not to take what they say seriously. You may know that when the kid who sits next to you in class says "it was the best movie ever!" what he really means is "there were lots of explosions and boobs!" I'd rather hear about a movie from a friend any day. But the thing that bothers me the most is when reviewers criticize a movie without context. Allow me to explain.
Everything has context. Nothing exists in a vacuum. We all go into movies with expectations and that, I believe, is the most crucial aspect to our enjoyment of it. Yet I find that reviewers are oftentimes quite oblivious to context. In Time Out magazine, Keith Uhlich wrote in his 3/5 star review of Scream 4: "don't go in expecting scares so much as laughs." Has this man never seen a Scream movie before? As any person who has seen at least one Scream movie can tell you, they are horror-COMEDIES. They are supposed to make you laugh. They are parodies of themselves and every slasher movie ever made. That is what made the first one so famous in the first place. So kudos to him for pointing that fact out to us potential viewers, but using that as a reason to knock the movie down a peg is, in my opinion, unacceptable seeing as how it's the whole conceit of the film.
Another recent example of context-less reviewing was a review I read of the movie Sucker Punch. Now, as anyone else who has seen this movie can tell you, it's not exactly Citizen Kane. But then again, was anyone going into it expecting it to be? I thought the previews made it pretty darn clear what the point of the movie was: over-the-top, stylized action scenes showing young girls kicking Nazi, ninja, dragon ass (among other things). Whether or not you thought the movie was effective in that kick-assing is your opinion -- but there's no doubt that was its intent. The reviewer Thomas Caldwell on Cinema Autopsy.com wrote in his .5/5 star review of the film, "This may well be the film that goes down in film history as epitomizing the very worst trends in popular culture of this era." He calls it "one of those loud, dumb, vacuous films that rely on the veneer of excitement to placate uncritical audiences rather than providing anything of real substance." Yet I was never under the impression that director Zach Snyder was out to provide anything of real substance. It seemed to me that he achieved exactly what he set out to do, which was, in Caldwell's own words, to "placate uncritical audiences." In that sense, his movie was a success. It seems as though Caldwell's half a star was more aimed at the culture in this country that demands such films and allows them to be made, whereas the film itself was actually pretty successful in what it was trying to accomplish. (Not that he didn't make some good points -- I don't disagree with everything he had to say about the movie.)
Another recent example of context-less reviewing was a review I read of the movie Sucker Punch. Now, as anyone else who has seen this movie can tell you, it's not exactly Citizen Kane. But then again, was anyone going into it expecting it to be? I thought the previews made it pretty darn clear what the point of the movie was: over-the-top, stylized action scenes showing young girls kicking Nazi, ninja, dragon ass (among other things). Whether or not you thought the movie was effective in that kick-assing is your opinion -- but there's no doubt that was its intent. The reviewer Thomas Caldwell on Cinema Autopsy.com wrote in his .5/5 star review of the film, "This may well be the film that goes down in film history as epitomizing the very worst trends in popular culture of this era." He calls it "one of those loud, dumb, vacuous films that rely on the veneer of excitement to placate uncritical audiences rather than providing anything of real substance." Yet I was never under the impression that director Zach Snyder was out to provide anything of real substance. It seemed to me that he achieved exactly what he set out to do, which was, in Caldwell's own words, to "placate uncritical audiences." In that sense, his movie was a success. It seems as though Caldwell's half a star was more aimed at the culture in this country that demands such films and allows them to be made, whereas the film itself was actually pretty successful in what it was trying to accomplish. (Not that he didn't make some good points -- I don't disagree with everything he had to say about the movie.)
Finally, we can't forget that personal preferences can have a much stronger effect on our reactions than we sometimes think. Lisa Schwarzbaum, who reviews for Entertainment Weekly, gave a B+ grade to both Twilight: New Moon and the movie that would go on to win Best Picture this year, The King's Speech. In comparison, Rotten Tomatoes (which, if you don't know, compiles every review written about a movie and averages them out to a percentage score) gave The King's Speech a 95%. New Moon? 27%. I am not making this up. Two movies that, on average, were graded 68 percentage points apart were given the exact same grade by Ms. Schwarzbaum. Apparently she has a thing for sparkly vampires and werewolves with tight abs. Knowing how personal preference can easily sway a reviewer's opinion, it is important to take all reviews with a grain of salt. I won't stop reading what Ms. Schwarzbaum has to say, but I will remember that it is just one woman's opinion, and not the universal measurement of the quality of the film.
So to recap what has turned into a much longer post than I anticipated: the history of a series, the culture a movie is made for, and the expectations and personal preferences of the viewers is all context that has a huge impact on how movies are perceived. That's why I intend to review movies on my blog based on expectations I have of the film going in. I find that to be the most helpful kind of criticism. I will let you know what I expected based on the trailer and other promotional material, and how it measured up to what was actually delivered. That way you as a reader can judge for yourself if you think the movie will measure up to YOUR expectations. I also want to start discussions about movies, not just one-sided opinions. So please, always feel free to hit the comments. That is my goal with this blog. I hope you find it a refreshing change of pace from the usual I-know-more-about-what-makes-a-good-movie-than-you-do approach.
Oh, and if you made it this far, I promise not all of my posts will be this long and rambling. I'm just still in the honeymoon phase with my blog. You know, all excited and overenthusiastic. I expect it to wear off soon...
[I'd also like to take this opportunity to explain my grading a little bit. To some, especially those who equate number ratings to grades (ie 9/10 = A, 8/10 = B, etc) a 5/10 may sound like a failing grade. However, I would prefer to consider it perfectly average. Anything above is above average, and anything below is below average (obviously). So a rating of 8/10 is actually very good, and a 5 is not terrible.]
