Five Myths About Movie Critics
By Kyle Osborne
Film critics hold a confusing, often contradictory status among movie goers. They’re the bad guys, the snoots, the nerds with a Twizzler stuck up their…
And yet, studio marketing people know that good “quotes” that can be incorporated into the advertising of a film are provably effective—often enticing people into the multiplex for even absolute stinkers. How many times have you heard a friend say something like, “Ooh, I wanna see that movie, the critics are saying that it’s really good”? Or, perhaps you’ve thought, “This movie was way better than they said it was, what were they watching?” And anyone over the age of thirty knows what “Thumbs Up” means. If you’re over 40, you still say “Two Thumbs Up” out of habit.
And so, it’s time to clear up a few myths—set the record straight. I’ve been a film critic for nearly thirty years, and I count many critics among my friends. Here are 5 Myths that dog us.
Critics Hate Everything Except The Artsy Stuff
It does seem like it, I know. The ‘Best Picture’ contenders are often films that the public at large hasn’t even seen yet. That’s partly because of Academy and awards groups’ deadlines, and partly because many of the best films never get the massive distribution that the Blockbusters enjoy.
But critics don’t hate the movies! The truth is that we love films. It’s our passion, our obsession. Many of us don’t even make enough money from the job to live on; we work other “day jobs” to buy our groceries so that we can go to all of the screenings at night. That makes for at least a few 12 hour days a week. But we love it that much.
We actually root for films to be great. Hey, we don’t want to sit through a crappy film for two hours any more than you do. Some of my highest rated flicks this year, to my own surprise, were for “main stream” movies like “Guardians of the Galaxy” and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier.” Good is good.
A Critic’s Opinion Is No More Important Than Anyone Else’s
That’s true. Not more important, but, sorry to sound like a jerk, certainly more informed than the average person’s opinion. Why? Because we screen anywhere from 100 to 300 movies per year. And that doesn’t even cover all the releases in any given year.
Seeing several films a week gives one a perspective on what is “good” versus what is “bad.” Of course, it’s against our contrarian instincts to always agree, but there is a reason why certain films have an almost universally positive (or negative) reaction by critics. We see them all, we trust our reaction based on our experience.
For me, seeing so many films really helps me determine what is unique, what isn’t a cookie-cutter “product” that looks and feels like everything else. The film studios are notorious for churning out copies of other films that have succeeded. And so would you or I—if you own a restaurant and your customers have shown that there are certain things they love, you’ll start thinking of ways to keep giving them what they want. If I were a restaurateur that would be one thing–but I’m an eater.
We also read background material that isn’t usually made available to the general public, and trace the history of productions and adaptations . It’s true that “press notes” are written by publicity folks (not that there’s anything wrong with them, some of my best friends…) but the production information often gives us a deeper look at the material than just what is shown onscreen.
Critics Are Just Wanna-Be Directors/Actors
For the most part, that is patently false. As someone who worked in front of a camera every day for more than 25 years (and I still appear weekly on Northwest Cable News ), I know what it’s like to be criticized by someone who has never done the job you have. How can they possibly know what goes into it, right?
Film criticism isn’t a second choice for us. I am never saying I could act or direct better–what I’m doing is closer to consumer reporting; based on my experience, is a movie worth your time and money? Should you get a babysitter? Is it too intense, in spite of its “PG” rating? As I mentioned earlier, we are fans of cinema, not disgruntled rejects from the Director’s Guild. Not to say that there aren’t examples of critics who became directors. An example is my online friend, Rod Lurie, a great director. Rod was once a critic, and now he’s a director. My favorite film of his was “The Contender”, which earned an Oscar nomination for his star, Joan Allen. Rod is an exception, mainly because he was already a writer—someone who already understood the craft of storytelling. And I still pay close attention to what he has to say about any given film in release.
But many of us, myself included, are more skilled at being “communicators” rather than proper writers. To this day, I have no idea where commas go. My training is in the field of soaking up the facts, mining my own feelings about them, and then communicating that mixture of facts and opinion into something that is easily understood by the viewer/reader.
Full disclosure, I am working on a documentary at the moment, but it’s not me trying to break into the movies. I laugh just typing the line.
Critics Give Away The Movie In Their Reviews-I Hate Spoilers.
I understand this and it’s true that some critics give away too many plot points in their reviews. I hate that. As for me, I really try to refrain from giving anything away that I, myself, didn’t see coming. I mean, I might say, “And there was one thing that I never saw coming—whew!”, but that’s about it.
I generally stick to the rule that I won’t reveal anything that wasn’t already shown in the trailer. The problem with that, at least lately, is that the damn trailers give away more and more of the storyline with each passing year. I simply want to lay out the basic storyline, say what I liked or didn’t, then get out.
Just know that most of us are making a conscious effort to inform without spoiling.
Critics’ Reviews Are Over My Head. Did You Like It or Not?
Nope they’re not over your head, you’ve just been reading reviews by someone who only knows how to speak to his peers. We are nerds, I admit, but many of us are functioning members of society who know how to absorb the information on the screen and relate it to the viewer/reader.
But not all of us.
I used to read movie reviews by someone who I later learned was also teacher at an esteemed university. I never knew whether he liked the movies he was reviewing or not. There seemed to be an equal amount of snark, obscure references, and a sense that he was a voice from “On High” for every review. I’d think, “Yeah, I know that you know that the movie contained a reference to another film that was released in 1938—but, um, DID YOU LIKE IT?”
Of course, everyone has to write/speak with his own voice—the trouble is, I later met this man and he didn’t speak that way at all. He was a genial guy who had a hearty laugh and a wonderful disposition. What happened? I think he’d just been inside the bubble for too long. He knew so much about film that he couldn’t even talk about it to the average person.
Of course, he was well paid and award winning and a published author. I’m just an idiot using him as an example of why many people don’t read movie reviews.
So, give us a chance. Maybe start by reading a review of a movie you have already seen. Do you see things from the same perspective? Did she make you think of something that you hadn’t thought of before?
My personal hero, the late Roger Ebert, used to say that disagreeing with a critic all the time doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read the reviews. If anything, you can count on that critic to be an accurate barometer to gauge whether you will like the movie. “Hey, Osborne said it was terrible and he’s always wrong—I think I’m gonna go see it.”
My favorite movie of 2014 so far–and almost no one has seen it, which is a travesty–keep checking Netfix, etc.
Here’s a weird, trippy film that critics love. I admire its uniqueness. There isn’t another one of these opening this year.