How to Read Movie Criticism

[Ashoten]

Ok yeah this makes me feel validated. I like a wide range of movies regardless of weather or not I thought they were good movies. Sometimes just one or 2 cool ideas or scenes are enough for me to enjoy a movie.

In Battle L.A. I thought the explanation of why the aliens were attacking earth was great. Because even if you just casually watch shows about astronomy you may know that liquid water is hard to find in the universe (as far as we know). There is tons of frozen water but not many planets with huge bodies of it in liquid form covering a planets surface.

Also awesome Star Trek reference. There isn't a computer Captain Kirk can't break just by being smug to it.

 

[pneuma08]

Now with that out of the way and for the rest of the article: I personally have a lot of problem with some of the stuff critics say. To me in order for someone to be truly qualified to criticize something, they should have practical knowledge of it. Theoretical knowledge is nice, sure, but until you actually go write a book of fiction or direct a movie I really don't think one should demand that their personal opinions are anything else but just that - personal opinions.

Sorry Bob, but just watching a lot of movies does not make you qualified to dissect them. It makes you more qualified than most people, sure. But just looking a lot at something is not the same as actually making it.

While I understand the sentiment, I cannot agree with this point. Making something and dissecting something are entirely different skills, and while they can be used as experience to temper one another, they should not be dependent in either direction.

I mean, strictly following your logic, that makes Michael Bay more qualified to dissect the nuances of, say, Gran Turino than MovieBob or Roger Ebert. (And, while I can't say I wouldn't read such a review, it would not be for its merit in criticism.)

It's like asking, "What makes someone good at adding numbers?" It's not "crafting addition", but rather adding them. But that can't just be it, because not everyone who adds numbers is good at adding numbers; it's adding numbers (i.e. practical experience) plus some unknown quantity "good at adding numbers". The same is true about dissecting movies: "What makes someone good at dissecting movies?" is not "crafting movies" but "dissecting movies plus some unknown quantity "good at dissecting movies"".

 

[Jenx]

Now with that out of the way and for the rest of the article: I personally have a lot of problem with some of the stuff critics say. To me in order for someone to be truly qualified to criticize something, they should have practical knowledge of it. Theoretical knowledge is nice, sure, but until you actually go write a book of fiction or direct a movie I really don't think one should demand that their personal opinions are anything else but just that - personal opinions.

Sorry Bob, but just watching a lot of movies does not make you qualified to dissect them. It makes you more qualified than most people, sure. But just looking a lot at something is not the same as actually making it.

While I understand the sentiment, I cannot agree with this point. Making something and dissecting something are entirely different skills, and while they can be used as experience to temper one another, they should not be dependent in either direction.

I mean, strictly following your logic, that makes Michael Bay more qualified to dissect the nuances of, say, Gran Turino than MovieBob or Roger Ebert. (And, while I can't say I wouldn't read such a review, it would not be for its merit in criticism.)

It's like asking, "What makes someone good at adding numbers?" It's not "crafting addition", but rather adding them. But that can't just be it, because not everyone who adds numbers is good at adding numbers; it's adding numbers (i.e. practical experience) plus some unknown quantity "good at adding numbers". The same is true about dissecting movies: "What makes someone good at dissecting movies?" is not "crafting movies" but "dissecting movies plus some unknown quantity "good at dissecting movies"".

I never actaully said any of this in my post, at least to my knowledge. If you read it more carefully, you'll notice I said that practical knowledge to me is important if a critic is trying to present his criticism as anything more than a personal opinion beyond "well I like it, don't like it". maybe it's just me, I dunno.

You do bring up another thing I've always wandered - the merit of criticism. What exactly is the merit of a criticism to you? Is it just consumer advice like Bob mentions in this article, or is it something you give someone in order to help them become better at what they are doing.

To me criticism should be the second, and in that case I go back to my point - if you do not have at least some practical knowledge in the field, how can you give proper criticism to someone? Would you ever take seriously a critic who walks up to an artist and says "Well I've seen a lot of pictures in my life, so that means I can tell you that your picture sucks."?

(Over exaggeration IS intentional in this post)

 

[Catface Meowmers]

well it looks like at least 75% of comments so far agree with Bob, so I guess this particular column is worth reading. I'll have to check the numbers on his other columns, though.

also I wish at least one would end with: Bob "Chipman" is a rejected Megaman villian whose primary attack was flinging bags of exploding Doritos.

 

[Slimshad]

Now with that out of the way and for the rest of the article: I personally have a lot of problem with some of the stuff critics say. To me in order for someone to be truly qualified to criticize something, they should have practical knowledge of it. Theoretical knowledge is nice, sure, but until you actually go write a book of fiction or direct a movie I really don't think one should demand that their personal opinions are anything else but just that - personal opinions.

Sorry Bob, but just watching a lot of movies does not make you qualified to dissect them. It makes you more qualified than most people, sure. But just looking a lot at something is not the same as actually making it.

Does one need practical knowledge in something to say whether it was good or bad? I could be driving a car, and my motor breaks down. I may not know how a motor works, but I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that either the motor or something within the motor was a piece of crap. Would you say that I shouldn't say the motor is crap because I don't possess the hands on knowledge of motor making? The consumer decides the worth of the product, not the creator. If that were true, every piece of artwork would rival or exceed the Mona Lisa, and every video game would be better than any other video game. I would say that critics aren't any more qualified at validating opinions than you or I, but I wouldn't say that their opinions are rendered invalid because they've never directed Shakespeare.

OT: Critical analysis and Summary are always used in the way of educating others on the subject rather than persuasion. This is not to say that critique is exclusively educational, but that it helps broaden our mindset on the subject just to read it. Here's a quick pro-tip: If you are ever stuck on a paper assignment such as analysis or critique, write a summary about it. A quick paragraph or paraphrase. I guarantee you that you will discover a whole lot more about the article in question once you paraphrase it. This being said, I would agree with you on how criticism should be viewed. I think that there can be objectivity in critique, however, such as concerning fallacies within movie plot. I don't think that someone could argue that a plot-hole improves a movie.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Speaking only for myself, even before I did this professionally, I found I got much more out of reading criticisms of movies I'd already seen

I find myself having the same experience. I will often look at a few reviews from sources I know I generally agree with prior to seeing a movie or playing a game just so I know if what I'm being presented in promotional coverage actually matches the finished product. When I do most of my review reading, however, is actually after I've seen the movie or played the game. I find it quite interesting to see how others experienced the same material, particularly if their opinion is vastly different than mine. It's the sort of critical introspection and discussion that naturally follows that, to me, makes reviews valuable. Of course, it's also always nice to be able to nitpick a reviewer or source when they get things actually technically wrong in a review (though this is more common in games since there is a more technical aspect to the actual play).

 

[lumpenprole]

...I personally have a lot of problem with some of the stuff critics say. To me in order for someone to be truly qualified to criticize something, they should have practical knowledge of it. Theoretical knowledge is nice, sure, but until you actually go write a book of fiction or direct a movie I really don't think one should demand that their personal opinions are anything else but just that - personal opinions.

Sorry Bob, but just watching a lot of movies does not make you qualified to dissect them. It makes you more qualified than most people, sure. But just looking a lot at something is not the same as actually making it.

I think that's pretty demonstrably not true. Saying that you can't have a valid opinion about something unless you've tried to create it is untrue for anything (like, cars), but doubly untrue about most creative mediums. A piece of art, and possibly a movie more than most, is meant to communicate an experience to a viewer. It's not made so that you can get better at making your own movies.

An educated experienced viewer can tell you a lot about what the experience of viewing a film is like. And that's what you're paying for. I don't really care about how hard it was to make any given movie (other than to boggle at). I care about why I'm watching it. I was impressed with how hard it was to make 'Piranha 3D', and though I enjoyed it, I'm not going to say it was better than 'My Dinner With Andre' because it wasn't.

(and I should point out, I say this as someone who directed a couple of shorts back in the day)

 

[Anachronism]

For me, as a wannabe film critic, one of the most useful things about reading reviews has been to learn about the filmmaking process, and how to read films more generally. I have a pretty good handle on it now, but when I first got interested in films beyond just watching them, reading critics who know their stuff was invaluable.

I found I got much more out of reading criticisms of movies I'd already seen

I completely agree that reading reviews of films you've already seen can add a great deal to the experience; it can reveal depths that you may not have appreciated, or just another take on it that you hadn't considered.

subjective opinions about art cannot be properly expressed in binary

Well said. This is the main reason why I don't like using scores when I write reviews. And why it makes me a little sad that The Escapist uses them now.

 

[Unesh52]

I think a lot of people (because most of the people I see regularly are this way) take criticism as a too black and white affair. For example, I had serious problems with the way Avatar ended, but I wasn't even allowed to discuss that because it was perceived as me being "negative." Somehow, pointing out a flaw in the movie is equivalent to panning it all around. As if I was only allowed to say unilaterally good or bad things about it.

...Actually, nowadays, because I "insist on pointing out every little flaw when it's just a movie," I'm not allowed to say anything but good things about anything I watch. Which I think it kind of bullshit.

 

[Verlander]

I agree, especially about the fact that we don't have the same film taste.

Seriously man, you crazy!

 

[the Dept of Science]

In fact, contrary to your final points, I would say that one of the great advantages of critic aggregation is that the scores don't take any personal biases into account. In my mind if a movie gets a high score on Metacritic, it will peak my interest and I will feel compelled to watch it, regardless of the genre.

This way I have discovered loads of movies that I love which I probably would have dismissed simply because they didn't sound like my sort of thing. In my mind "movie about the creation of Facebook" sounds pretty lame, but when I saw the score it got on Metacritic, I just had to check out the Social Network, and lo and behold, because of its Metascore, a movie that I probably would have never bothered seeing became one of my highlights of the year.
I can think of tonnes of examples of this, from Mean Girls to Grizzly Man in film, to

While I would be lying if I said that I enjoyed every movie which has got massive critical acclaim, I don't think I've found one which I couldn't appreciate on some level. I've always believed its possible to separate personal enjoyment of a piece of art with (some form of) objective merit. I don't think there is any hypocrisy in praising a film that you didn't enjoy or admitting that the a film you did enjoy is actually pretty crap.

 

[Evil Alpaca]

I found I got much more out of reading criticisms of movies I'd already seen

I completely agree because not only does reading a review after seeing a movie help the reader consider aspects of the film that they might not have noticed, but also it helps the person connect with the reviewer if the reasons behind their review are explained. If a reviewer states that an action scene is over the top or cheesy yet you thought it was a funny and clever then you know not only that you have a difference of opinion but a difference in specific tastes as well.

This why it drives me up a wall when people say a movie sucked or was stupid without giving context. Saving that a person shouldn't see a movie because its gay or stupid is lazy and unhelpful. A critic of any type of medium should be someone that helps you formulate an opinion, not gives it to you.

 

[JayDig]

I don't think I'm the only one who doesn't even look/notice the "score" in reviews, but there are a lot of annoying people in (especially game) review comments that only seem to want to complain about percentage differences between recent scores.

It's also annoying that Metacritic has made critics an actual authority used to determine business practices. Like game studios being 'restructured' due to B- scores as if Metacritic is certifying the safety of household appliances not determining which has the better paintjob.

But I suppose if enough consumers blindly follow review averages on MC or RT, critics really will be the economic authority determining which art-ertainment peices are successful.

 

[timeadept]

Just about everything you said works just as well if you apply it to video games as well. I think this is Yhatzee's own personal crusade, to make people stop looking at scores and start looking at the content of the (criticism?). After all, it's why he refuses to give games a score isn't it? It is tempting to follow the advice and opinions of people you admire but sometimes i walk away from a ZP with a "that game actually sounds fun, despite getting dragged through its own feces".

 

[Gunnyboy]

Showgirls isn't bad.

 

[pneuma08]

Would you ever take seriously a critic who walks up to an artist and says "Well I've seen a lot of pictures in my life, so that means I can tell you that your picture sucks."?

An important bit is missing from that quotation: because.

If it continues, "because I've seen a lot of pictures in my life" then no, that does not stand. If it continues, "because the corner here is way too bright and it distractingly draws the eye from the action in the center" then that is a valid criticism, regardless of where it came from.

Anyway, I suppose the real point of contention here is what you mean by "practical knowledge". The original post, while not explicit, implied that it involved having to do with creation of, which is what I took exception to.

 

[SatansBestBuddy]

You did NOT just end your thoughtful deconstruction of movie criticism with a winky smiley face, did you?!

Yep, you totally did.

Anyway, I pretty much agree that you shouldn't dismiss critical analysis's of movies due to the fact that those critical analysis's are the only way we'll be able to learn and appreciate movies and be able to judge not only whether or not they're good or bad, but why they're good or bad and what they could do to improve.

That said, I see no reason not to turn to Rotten Tomatoes before going over to Blockbuster to pick up something cheap because you want a movie tonight and you don't want to waste your time with something bad.

Overall, both the critical writing about movies and the numbers are useful, it's just a matter of not relying on one over the other.

 

[Ravek]

(...) the idea that every reaction to every movie can be summed up as either positive or negative, with no room for nuance, and that's the worst possible way to approach a potential viewing choice.

On the contrary, Metacritic is the solution to this problem. It's well known in statistics that taking an average of a ton of samples gives a result that is far more accurate than any individual sample is likely to be. If 25 people measure my height, each with an accuracy of 5 centimeters, then the average of these measurements gives my height accurate to within 1 centimeter!

You can do better than this of course, if you know a single critic that almost always agrees with your own experience. But since reading through the bibliography of a few dozen critics is far more work than looking at a Metacritic score, it's obvious what's more value for your time.

Of course averaging physical measurements is not completely analogous to critic scores, since the result you're interested in is how much you yourself will enjoy a work, not necessarily how well done it is in general. But since the Metacritic score averages out the biases, you need only add and subtract your own biases to arrive at a reasonable indication of what score you would think the work deserves.

 

[RJ Dalton]

Another reason why I regularly watch MovieBob's reviews, despite frequently disagreeing with his opinions on movies.

 

[i64ever]

Yes! Critics of any artistic medium do not exist to pass judgment on a creative work from on high. They are there to start discussions. You shouldn't read anyone, even Movie Bob, and think "Well, that's the way it is." By thinking about what they say, and agreeing, disagreeing or remaining undecided, you are reflecting on art. And the ability to make and reflect on art is a big part of what makes us human.