I love this piece. You have no idea how many times I talk movies with a friend and get hit with "Well Rotten Tomatoes says that it's bad" and I just completely disengage from the conversation... you are the judge, don't let the algorithm tell you what you should like and not like! We would be living in such a boring world if we all loved the same things.
I'm of the notion that there's an audience for every, single bit of cinema released. I never pan a film, but also try to feature those that move me and speak to themes I'm passionate about. The best thing about art is that it's so varied and inconsistent. I hope it always remains that way and that creatives find ways to buck tradition, around the loudest critics and into the hearts and minds of those in search of their particular vision of this circus we call life. I know some of my favorites would be considered real stinkers if judged by some of the most discerning voices in the arena. Great read, thanks for sharing.
I disagree wholeheartedly, rotten tomatoes and letterboxed (to a lesser extent) is ruining it. Because, there are no critics on par with Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert, or Pauline Kael. They are NOT students of film. Or even really film lovers. Think about the Numbers. Rotten Tomatoes rates something on the basis of about 200 “Critics” mostly from obscure websites nobody’s heard of, and 200 average basement dwellers who are evidently the basis of Cecily Strong’s character on SNL “The Drunk Girl at a Party Who You Wish You Hadn’t Started a Conversation With”. We’re sort of saying the same thing, But, where you and I differ is I think you forget that Film Criticism used to be More of an art form a Champion of the New as the Critic in “Ratatouille” said. Scorsese would have never had the career he did if it weren’t for Pauline Kael. So, when Film Criticism rises to the Art form it once was, we maybe could listen to someone or anyone at all. What we need is Filmmakers Daring enough to start putting in their contracts to never ever again list their Rotten Tomatoes score in advertising their movies. And, maybe screen blurbs also. Remember Hellraiser Stephen King quote “I have seen the future of horror, and it is Clive Barker” maybe just get quotes from other writers and filmmakers who are respected, and Nothing from “Critics” until they step up their game. Letterboxed is okay, bc that’s mostly about Film Fandom, and not really to be taken as holy writ. Just Opinions. Like you said. I’m taking even your opinion with a grain of salt. You think the Greatest Film of all time is “Jaws”, a movie that I love but it doesn’t make it the Best. The claim to the title of the Greatest Film Of All Time? Obviously, 🙄 It’s a Tie Between “Fight Club” and the 1990’s Version of “A Little Princess”
Appreciate the convo Jeff. I don't agree with some of your points but that's OK. I don't think any critic or anyone is the definitive "truth" but I don't hold someone's opinion who rarely watches movies the same as someone who watches a ton and knows more about cinema. I would hold the same perspective on sports, food, any hobby. I see movies as a lot more than simply entertainment. Kids movies too. I can be entertained by something that doesn't have much substance. Eating a perfectly grilled steak is not the same as carnival fried dough, but they both are food and both might fill you up for a brief time. I hold movies to a higher standard. I also believe that personal enjoyment and preference are not equivalent to quality- I can knowingly like a bad movie, as well as acknowledging how a very good movie wasn't for me. Also - While I acknowledge many issues with Solo, it was a lot better than how you're describing it. Donald Glover was amazing. The train robbery was fun and thrilling. I have it ranked above the atrocious ep. 9, Attack of Clones, and about even with Phantom Menace with my Star Wars rankings. Nothing is worse than ep. 9. Woody Harrelson is always entertaining.
Sometimes critics are a bit too critical. Almost every movie has its good or bad sides and I feel like many movie critics zoom in on the "bad" things and leave out the good because they "just didn't like it"
Jeff, I hear you on not getting offended, but it's also important to recognize that art impacts culture, perspectives, it is downstream of politics. Movies don't exist in a vacuum. I would want to watch a movie to determine how/why it may have a problematic message, but that's different than they're just neutral and that criticism of said art isn’t important in the context of what values, themes, perspectives the movie is showing or not showing. This could be gender roles, economics, military actions etc. Birth of a Nation is an important film in the history of movies but its also horrible racist propaganda that should be acknowledged any time its brought up.
Of course. That’s the context of the movie that I’m talking about. But it also doesn’t offend me that it exists and I don’t think it should be deleted forever - we just need context and judge it based on that. It’s a horrible message, from a terrible time period, but also one of the most impressive movies for its time.
Definitely need to call it out and recognize the horrific message. 100%
Disclaimer: I have not read the article yet. Film Critics helped curate my love of movies. Siskel and Ebert pointed me to so many gems and helped introduce me to cinema my teenage self never would have discovered at the video store on my own.
I used to love watching Siskel and Ebert back in the day. They gave real in depth reviews. I remember Ebert totally loving the film Dark City and put it on the top of his best of the year list. Based on his glowing review I went to see it and it is one of my all time favorite films. So unusual, unique and beautifully shot in a noir format.
If in the 1980s I had walked into a movie rental store and the critics' ratings were listed on the covers of the movies I was renting, I'm not sure I would have developed my love of B-Horror movies. Critics have longer arms these days. When you go to watch a movie, even on streaming, the scores are often right there. If I'm picking a film, that's hard to ignore, especially when I'm picking between two movies I can watch with the push of a button. It's even worse if you're asking me to spend up to $60 to go see it.
I think the new Michael movie is showing that there is a wide gap between what current critics like and what audiences want. It used to be that there were a dozen critics, they all had different tastes, I knew who to trust, and I went with what they said. Now it's all aggregated, and it's killing movies.
I agree with your article, but I don't think you can let critics off the hook so easily. They are supposed to be the shepherds of movies, and many are exercising some sort of scholarly superiority instead of taking responsibility for what they say. Too many dismiss a movie like it's a badly printed diner menu. Movies are hard work and they deserve the care of critics who not only see the movie but read the room.
When audiences don't trust critics, critics become irrelevant. I know that's part of your point in this article, and I agree, but the part you're not saying is that critics are seeking their own extinction by not being more careful with their opinions, if they want those opinions to remain important. I think at this point you're right, and people just have to stop listening to them, and it makes me sad.
I use criteria and show the process so at least someone can see they might like something I don't. I enjoyed this article., thanks for writing it.
Great point! It's for this very reason that I don't rate the movies I review on here. Just share my thoughts and let the reader decide if it's worth seeing or not based on their level of trust in me. At least they'll know why I did or didn't like it.
Context is indeed, important. I've often questioned my own rating for a film when adding them to my Letterboxd. Rewatchability is another factor. Some movies were impressive, but I'll never watch them again. Either because they were too gruelling or tough in terms of the material, or I just have no desire to revisit that story and experience. Whereas on the flipside there are some trashy films I'd happily watch, time and again.
Well, I never trust ratings completely. How can I? I can't even completely trust my own rantings on Letterboxd, because I can be moody and random. So from that point of view, I literally don't read anything about the film before I watch it. Why bother spoiling my first impression? But after I processed the film in my head, I go and read what other people think and say. Then those opinions start being interesting for me.
I love this piece. You have no idea how many times I talk movies with a friend and get hit with "Well Rotten Tomatoes says that it's bad" and I just completely disengage from the conversation... you are the judge, don't let the algorithm tell you what you should like and not like! We would be living in such a boring world if we all loved the same things.
I'm of the notion that there's an audience for every, single bit of cinema released. I never pan a film, but also try to feature those that move me and speak to themes I'm passionate about. The best thing about art is that it's so varied and inconsistent. I hope it always remains that way and that creatives find ways to buck tradition, around the loudest critics and into the hearts and minds of those in search of their particular vision of this circus we call life. I know some of my favorites would be considered real stinkers if judged by some of the most discerning voices in the arena. Great read, thanks for sharing.
I disagree wholeheartedly, rotten tomatoes and letterboxed (to a lesser extent) is ruining it. Because, there are no critics on par with Gene Siskel, Roger Ebert, or Pauline Kael. They are NOT students of film. Or even really film lovers. Think about the Numbers. Rotten Tomatoes rates something on the basis of about 200 “Critics” mostly from obscure websites nobody’s heard of, and 200 average basement dwellers who are evidently the basis of Cecily Strong’s character on SNL “The Drunk Girl at a Party Who You Wish You Hadn’t Started a Conversation With”. We’re sort of saying the same thing, But, where you and I differ is I think you forget that Film Criticism used to be More of an art form a Champion of the New as the Critic in “Ratatouille” said. Scorsese would have never had the career he did if it weren’t for Pauline Kael. So, when Film Criticism rises to the Art form it once was, we maybe could listen to someone or anyone at all. What we need is Filmmakers Daring enough to start putting in their contracts to never ever again list their Rotten Tomatoes score in advertising their movies. And, maybe screen blurbs also. Remember Hellraiser Stephen King quote “I have seen the future of horror, and it is Clive Barker” maybe just get quotes from other writers and filmmakers who are respected, and Nothing from “Critics” until they step up their game. Letterboxed is okay, bc that’s mostly about Film Fandom, and not really to be taken as holy writ. Just Opinions. Like you said. I’m taking even your opinion with a grain of salt. You think the Greatest Film of all time is “Jaws”, a movie that I love but it doesn’t make it the Best. The claim to the title of the Greatest Film Of All Time? Obviously, 🙄 It’s a Tie Between “Fight Club” and the 1990’s Version of “A Little Princess”
Appreciate the convo Jeff. I don't agree with some of your points but that's OK. I don't think any critic or anyone is the definitive "truth" but I don't hold someone's opinion who rarely watches movies the same as someone who watches a ton and knows more about cinema. I would hold the same perspective on sports, food, any hobby. I see movies as a lot more than simply entertainment. Kids movies too. I can be entertained by something that doesn't have much substance. Eating a perfectly grilled steak is not the same as carnival fried dough, but they both are food and both might fill you up for a brief time. I hold movies to a higher standard. I also believe that personal enjoyment and preference are not equivalent to quality- I can knowingly like a bad movie, as well as acknowledging how a very good movie wasn't for me. Also - While I acknowledge many issues with Solo, it was a lot better than how you're describing it. Donald Glover was amazing. The train robbery was fun and thrilling. I have it ranked above the atrocious ep. 9, Attack of Clones, and about even with Phantom Menace with my Star Wars rankings. Nothing is worse than ep. 9. Woody Harrelson is always entertaining.
Sometimes critics are a bit too critical. Almost every movie has its good or bad sides and I feel like many movie critics zoom in on the "bad" things and leave out the good because they "just didn't like it"
Jeff, I hear you on not getting offended, but it's also important to recognize that art impacts culture, perspectives, it is downstream of politics. Movies don't exist in a vacuum. I would want to watch a movie to determine how/why it may have a problematic message, but that's different than they're just neutral and that criticism of said art isn’t important in the context of what values, themes, perspectives the movie is showing or not showing. This could be gender roles, economics, military actions etc. Birth of a Nation is an important film in the history of movies but its also horrible racist propaganda that should be acknowledged any time its brought up.
Of course. That’s the context of the movie that I’m talking about. But it also doesn’t offend me that it exists and I don’t think it should be deleted forever - we just need context and judge it based on that. It’s a horrible message, from a terrible time period, but also one of the most impressive movies for its time.
Definitely need to call it out and recognize the horrific message. 100%
Disclaimer: I have not read the article yet. Film Critics helped curate my love of movies. Siskel and Ebert pointed me to so many gems and helped introduce me to cinema my teenage self never would have discovered at the video store on my own.
All of this.
Hard agree. Loving loving things seems to be disappearing, and I’m sick of it.
Love this take - and I’m the same way! I’ll watch anything and usually like it 🤣🤷♂️
I used to love watching Siskel and Ebert back in the day. They gave real in depth reviews. I remember Ebert totally loving the film Dark City and put it on the top of his best of the year list. Based on his glowing review I went to see it and it is one of my all time favorite films. So unusual, unique and beautifully shot in a noir format.
I've been saying there are no bad movies, just boring or non-boring. Great piece.
If in the 1980s I had walked into a movie rental store and the critics' ratings were listed on the covers of the movies I was renting, I'm not sure I would have developed my love of B-Horror movies. Critics have longer arms these days. When you go to watch a movie, even on streaming, the scores are often right there. If I'm picking a film, that's hard to ignore, especially when I'm picking between two movies I can watch with the push of a button. It's even worse if you're asking me to spend up to $60 to go see it.
I think the new Michael movie is showing that there is a wide gap between what current critics like and what audiences want. It used to be that there were a dozen critics, they all had different tastes, I knew who to trust, and I went with what they said. Now it's all aggregated, and it's killing movies.
I agree with your article, but I don't think you can let critics off the hook so easily. They are supposed to be the shepherds of movies, and many are exercising some sort of scholarly superiority instead of taking responsibility for what they say. Too many dismiss a movie like it's a badly printed diner menu. Movies are hard work and they deserve the care of critics who not only see the movie but read the room.
When audiences don't trust critics, critics become irrelevant. I know that's part of your point in this article, and I agree, but the part you're not saying is that critics are seeking their own extinction by not being more careful with their opinions, if they want those opinions to remain important. I think at this point you're right, and people just have to stop listening to them, and it makes me sad.
I use criteria and show the process so at least someone can see they might like something I don't. I enjoyed this article., thanks for writing it.
Great point! It's for this very reason that I don't rate the movies I review on here. Just share my thoughts and let the reader decide if it's worth seeing or not based on their level of trust in me. At least they'll know why I did or didn't like it.
Context is indeed, important. I've often questioned my own rating for a film when adding them to my Letterboxd. Rewatchability is another factor. Some movies were impressive, but I'll never watch them again. Either because they were too gruelling or tough in terms of the material, or I just have no desire to revisit that story and experience. Whereas on the flipside there are some trashy films I'd happily watch, time and again.
Well, I never trust ratings completely. How can I? I can't even completely trust my own rantings on Letterboxd, because I can be moody and random. So from that point of view, I literally don't read anything about the film before I watch it. Why bother spoiling my first impression? But after I processed the film in my head, I go and read what other people think and say. Then those opinions start being interesting for me.