Does Anyone Listen To Critics Anymore?

Here is a question for you guys. Do you think anyone listens to film critics anymore?

Obviously people watch critics (ratings are higher right now for film review shows than ever before), obviously people read them (just look at all the traffic film review sites get), but does anyone actually follow critics recommendations?

Just look at the box office. A film like Slither (That’s the theme for today) gets HUGE FANTASTIC reviews… and yet no one goes to see it. Poor films that get blasted by the critics end up making hundreds of millions… all while the people who saw it grumble about how bad it was.

Here’s my answer to the question. Take it or leave it:

I personally don’t listen to the critics. So why do I read and watch and listen to them all the time??? Because I love the movies, and so I love conversation about the movies. I love hearing what other people think about them even if I don’t agree. Give me a room where 5 people are hanging out and just chatting about film, and I’ll be a happy man (I’d be even happier if the room was populated by Elizabeth Banks clones).

But that’s just me. What about you guys? Do you take critics advice when choosing what movies to watch? To you not take their advice but still read/watch/listen to them? If so why?

Comment with Facebook

35 thoughts on “Does Anyone Listen To Critics Anymore?

  1. I think I have an innate sense of what might be good and what will not. For example, it is unlikely I will see a movie with Rob Schneider anywhere in the cast.

    However, I do rely on critics to help me sort out the morass of potential films. It’s a simple matter of economics.

    An excellent source of opinions is rottentomatoes.com, which offers metaanalysis of films. This is quite useful in situations where I may not be too sure of how to spend my $9.00.

  2. I listen to critics selectively… Ebert is good, even if I dont always agree; and of course “The Regular Guy” (see Going to the Show with a Regular Guy at http://www.wxrt.com under features). Regular Guy did like Slither and his reviews are pretty reliable… He will tell you why or why he did not and why you might still like it or not… He does two films a week.

    jim

  3. I read the critcs. I also listen to the critics: my friends, “the critics”. But what I really do think is that, the more you see, the more you know, the more you like. Is that simple. All the “standard movies”, eventually will tired you. That’s when you move further, reachin’ to “new horizons”. I do agree with you. Your sickness will drive you so many ways as long as they say somethin’ ’bout movies.

  4. I’m hit and miss. If I know NOTHING about a movie, I’m more likely to read a few reviews here and there but for the most part, I make my own decisions about the movies I see.

    I don’t like going in with expectations after reading what someone else has said. I find that I usually read more reviews AFTER I see the movie and have formed my own opinions. I like to compare what I thought to what “critics” who get paid for their slander or praise thought.

    In the end, it all boils down to personal taste and as much as I like or hate a critic, the bottom line is that I have to sit through the thing so I watch what I want.

  5. Lol i find it funny because you ask it as though it’s a serious question. Some films with great reviews make little money and some films with poor reviews make lots of money. So by no way does say a 80% at rotten tomatoes mean that a film will make over 100million. I and many I know don’t bother reading reviews because in no way does it reflect how good a movie is. For all the cases where good reviews predicted that a movie would make lots of money, there are just as many for the opposit. So go figure. The way I see it is I think rotten tomatoes is better at predicting the legs or longevity in theatres. But even that is a stretch.

  6. Why don’t you get a life. You are a LOSER. You have so much time to comment on every little stupid thing about the whole stupid celebrity business. Make sure you find out about Sean Connery so I can find out from you! You fucking loser…

  7. I’ll happily listen to critics, since I check out RottenTomatoes and Metacritic often. However, even they are fallable. Even the worst crap out there will have a blurb from a critic on it’s DVD case about how good it is. I mean, Oceans 12 was crap, but it scored pretty high on MC. Otherwise, MirrorMask was a great movie, but they didn’t like it as much.

    I like Ebert and Roper, but they are not gods. Same goes for local critics who are usually helpful — if not always right ;)

    Personally, I think a backlash against critics will come sooner or later. People dislike being told their tastes are too stupid week after week, and we’re seeing it with the Tyler Perry movies that come out. The huge disconnect between the Oscar nominations and what people actually watched last year is another example of the problem. People like going to the movies for entertainment, and many of us go out to a movie 3-4 times a year..unlike reviewers that see 3-4 movies a week. We’re going to see things differently, which sometimes shows the difference between the two.

  8. “I have been working at theaters for over years and have been an advid movie watcher. Most Critics form thier opinions on several things: 1) Their personal preference , 2)Technical stuff or industry info to show how “smarter” they are to the average joe, and finally 3)Most critics think that it is only art and treat it as such instead of entertainment which is what Movies are.” – MovieInsider

    Art CAN be entertaining. I am so so tired of this arbitrary separation of “entertainment” and “art” so that plebians can respond to reasonable criticisms about bad script, plotting, character development etc. with a “Gee Miss Snotty, remember this is just “entertainment”, not “Rashomon 2”. Naturally films are made with different intentions and purposes, and such things should be taken into consideration but that’s an entirely different point.

    Also do you have anything to back up this assertion you’ve made about most critics, or are we just suppose to digest the meaning of your moniker and swallow it whole? I’m curious ’cause I read about 0.1% of the film critics out there. Generally speaking I thought the average movie reviewer at your local paper was just some intern/reject who got stuck with the job, probably watched the Godfather and…that’s about it.

    “There are many films out there that are great and horrible, but critics should be giving a report so to speak to thier readers.
    Since one person loves horror movies and some people have secret loves for cartoons or animated films or even romantic comedys.” – MovieInsider

    No. Critics are critics not reporters. http://www.dictionary.com, http://www.answers.com etc.

    Here’s a nifty little post on criticism btw, and while it’s about literary critics, to a certain extent it can also apply to film: http://noggs.typepad.com/the_reading_experience/2006/04/according_to_te.html

  9. I mainly go to see a film based on who made it, especially who directed it.

    Here’s a good way to judge a film. Go to the user comments on IMDB and use the Love/Hate feature to sort them into high and low reviews. If the haters are mostly illiterates and the lovers make good points, the film is probably good. But if the haters make good points and the lovers are obvious fanboys, beware.

    I find that the two and three star reviews are the ones to look at, since the people who give one star reviews are often deranged.

  10. I have been working at theaters for over years and have been an advid movie watcher. Most Critics form thier opinions on several things: 1) Their personal preference , 2)Technical stuff or industry info to show how “smarter” they are to the average joe, and finally 3)Most critics think that it is only art and treat it as such instead of entertainment which is what Movies are.

    There are many films out there that are great and horrible, but critics should be giving a report so to speak to thier readers.
    Since one person loves horror movies and some people have secret loves for cartoons or animated films or even romantic comedys.

    The critic in our city has been so negitive that many patrons at my theater go to the movies he hates because they have started to figure out that he only likes certain movies, but every now and then he will do an actual review that is matched by the moviegoers of our fair city.

    So he has started to confuse his “followers” on what they should go see. All he has to do is give them a glimpse and figure out who it is best targeted towards and rate it on what the average joe would want to see it.

    There has been a lot of talk about movies having problems with B.O. draws. Almost every excuse has been used including the theaters are not doing more to intice patrons to come. The only reason that they are not willing to admit is that the public is looking for a few good movies instead of being force fed movies that Hollywood thinks is worthy of our eyes and ultimately our wallets. Which brings me to another point in the troubles with movies right now. It costs on average for a family of four: $25-$50 per visit depending on their tastes and where they are in the country. People are starting to get tired of having to pay that much money to sit in a theater where a bunch of people talk, babies cry, and cell phones go off, because of discourteous patrons who don’t care about the movie that they just paid to interrupt.

    There has been alot of blaming on many people but a Hollywood with people like Sharon Stone and Tom Cruises of the world are the ones to blame because they feel that they know what is good for us instead of working to better their craft and truely making movies into an artform instead of just keeping it as an entertainment venue.

  11. I’ve been following the critics since I discovered the Internet several years ago. My weekly Friday morning trip around the Net is great.

    I listen to critics, but I take it with a grain of salt.

    I know what kind of films Ebert & Roeper like, for instance, and I try to read between the lines and decipher if it fits into my movie-going tastes.

  12. I like hearing people’s opinion’s but I wouldn’t say to myself ”Hey I’m not going to see that movie because so and so said it was rubbish”. I’ll go to a movie and judge it for myself. But if there’s about 4 movies on at the same time I want to see then I’ll check out the reviews and see what movie got the strongest rating.

  13. “On a more personal note, recent movies Hostage, Saw 1 and 2, The Grudge and The Day After Tomorrow all received bad reviews by a number of different critics. Am I just not picking the right one to listen to? Probably. But the point is, don’t let critics determine what movies you see. If a critic that you usually trust slams a film that you have been wanting to see, don’t take any notice. Go and see it and if it’s shit, so what. Ten bucks, 2 hrs…it’s not like you need them. At least you found out yourself instead of listening to the critic.” – Cody

    Yep, that’s what I’m talking about: “”don’t listen to them!!! don’t…don’t let them tell you what to do!!!!!” Fight the power! Stick it to the *man*.

  14. I doubt that the majority of the audience that frequent this site are going to let what any critic say, affect whether or not they’re going to see a movie. However, I think if you can find a critic with the same tastes as yourself, then I don’t see a problem with that. It keeps them employed and it saves you money. Not all of the critics are bad. Some are very good at their job. The problem is that there are so few of them out there.

  15. I pretty much agree with Nox. I think most people watch Film Critics to find out what a film is about,etc. Every film looks brillant when you watch the trailer or listen to the advertising hype but trailers and hype often lie. Critics at least give you an idea what the film is really about.

    As to whether a film is worth seeing or not. I rarely listen to what the critics say about that, as most critics are just plain cynical, and often biased. I’m surprised by how much some critics will attack a certain actor or film maker for things they do which have nothing to do with the film they are supposedly reviewing. Also a lot of critics seem to evaluate films in terms of politics, which really annoys me. Who cares if a film is politically on the left or right. I’m sick of left leaning critics with their politically correct distorted reviews, and I’m sick of right leaning critics who see everything as being either pro or anti American.

    Critics it seems are a necessary evil.

  16. There was -and pretty much still is- only one area where film critics influenced me and my movie viewing: when attention is called to a new director, actor or film in general. If it were not for critics like Ebert and the late Gene Siskel, I might not have easily embraced Spike Lee’s early films, might not have hunted down Carl Franklin’s “One False Move”, or some of the early films from John Dahl (“Red Rock West”, “Last Seduction”), Jim Jarmusch -or some other indie film or filmmaker.

    Like some of the comments above, some people do listen to critics (pro or con) to see what the film is about/more info about the film. Sometimes you’ll see the film before you see he review. and you might have missed something. For example, while I loved one film called “Dead Poets Society” from 1989, there was something in the film’s third act that bugged me. I never heard or read Ebert’s review of the film until years later. Ebert singled out the film’s faults, and indentifed the problem I had with the film.

    Having also been an amatuer film reviewer for two sites (The Projector Booth and, currently, Choking On Popcorn) I don’t think I really influence anyone, although I’ve been quoted (!) and been told I’m pretty good in debating films. Part of that is due to having a film studies class (and yes, I still have the textbook- ‘Understanding Films’, Louis Giamatti) and involving myself in trade publications, news sources, and so on. When I do online reviews, I also, when applied, take into the history of production into account after I see the film. Did they have a low budget, and get more bang for th buck? Did they have a film that cost 100 million and the production value looks more like a reject from Roger Corman? Do the filmmakers even try to make a halfway decent movie? Why are the exploitation filmmakers of today, with the exception of a few, not even trying to make a good cheap nuts and bolts picture? Why have some filmmakers abandoned the psychological aspects of filmmaking, while others have not?

    Madness to some, the love of film to others.

    A few days ago, there was a big stink about the failure of not ‘Slither’ but the sequel to ‘Basic Instinct’. Critics trashed it; they were all called a bunch of right wingers. The audiences skipped it in the states. News folk interview Paul Verhoven- director of the first film (and three of my favorites,’Flesh +Blood’ ‘RoboCop’ and ‘Total Recall’), and implies that the audiences stayed away from the Basic Instinct sequel and erotic thrillers in general (which he did not direct the sequel) because of the ‘right wing US political climate’

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/03/film.erotic.reut/index.html

    The arguement is flimsy: audiences didn’t go not because they are left or right, hell, ‘Hostel’ was number #1 earlier this year. ‘Showgirls’ (which nearly took down people’s careers) flopped under a Democrat in office. (The genre was also dominated by several B DTV B films that starred Shannon Whirry; the erotic thriller/drama simply shorted out.)
    The article also asks Niclolas Meyer, who was an uncredited polish writer on ‘Fatal Attraction’, and he chimes in, yeah, ‘it’s the right wing climate’, yet, ‘Attraction’ was released and was a hit in 1987., when a Republican -Bush Sr no less- was in office.

    Audiences didn’t go. Were they influenced by critics? Maybe. I think word just got out it was a bad film, nothing more.

    Your post, John, is impeccable in timing. It seems another question comes up—I’ll quote this news item per vatim. It’s off the WENN feed used for the IMDB and Daily Variety:

    *******************************
    “After the ‘Meltdown,’ the Flood”

    “Analysts are predicting with some confidence that Fox’s Ice Age: The Meltdown will remain at the top of the box office for the second week in a row and become the first movie of the year to earn more than $100 million. The runner-up is expected to be Sony’s The Benchwarmers, starring David Spade, Rob Schneider, and Jon Heder.

    The movie was not screened for critics — save one, Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel, whose reviews are often syndicated by the Knight Ridder Tribune wire service. He gave the film one star out of four, writing, “It’s dopey, crude and lowbrow, but harmless.” The Kansas City Star later reported that after the screening, the Star and other papers subscribing to the wire service, were contacted by Sony’s ad agency and advised that Moore’s review was ‘unauthorized.’

    Moore, however, insisted that he had attended a typical screening arranged by the studio, returned to his office, wrote his review, and sent it out. “Three hours later someone from Sony called me and said there had been a mistake, that I wasn’t supposed to have seen the movie,” Moore told the Star. “Well, too bad. The train has left the station. The Titanic can’t be turned around. … But then this is the studio that a couple of years ago invented critics to write good reviews of their movies.” In any case, Moore added, “The crazy thing is that this is a critic-proof movie that’s going to do business no matter what I or anybody else writes about it. I don’t understand why Sony has its panties in such a bunch.”

    ***********

    -Sealer

  17. For me a critic must prove themselves. I read a lot of books. I don’t listen to the NY Times or USA Today. But if an author I like reading says it’s a good book, then I’ll be more likely to pick it up. I’m the same way with critics. If I know the critic and agree with what they’ve said in the past, then I’ll listen to them.

    But I agree on the aspect of discussing movies. I don’t think my opinion is the always the best one or the only good one. So I see what others have to say, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. That’s a good point and I’m glad you made it.

  18. Thank Christ you bought this up, John. I’ve been waiting for a discussion topic like this one.

    There is no critic that I listen to. I don’t care if they hate or love the movie, I will find out what it’s like myself. I brought this up in a different post but I’ll repeat it now for those you of playing at home. Remember the Rocky movies? If you don’t please kill yourself NOW. One of the greatest film franchises ever, and guess what? It was slammed by critics. Up until a year after each movie was released, they constantly harped on about how bad it was. Turns out the Rocky films are some of the most popular and famous of their kind.

    On a more personal note, recent movies Hostage, Saw 1 and 2, The Grudge and The Day After Tomorrow all received bad reviews by a number of different critics. Am I just not picking the right one to listen to? Probably. But the point is, don’t let critics determine what movies you see. If a critic that you usually trust slams a film that you have been wanting to see, don’t take any notice. Go and see it and if it’s shit, so what. Ten bucks, 2 hrs…it’s not like you need them. At least you found out yourself instead of listening to the critic.

    That’s my two cents.

  19. The only film critic I pay attention to is Maryann Johanson at Flick Filosopher. Our tastes aren’t identical, merely similar, but even when they diverge her writing is sharper and smarter than most of the crap that appears in print or on tv. She and her colleagues at Cinemarati usually steer me towards interesting films that I might not have seen if they hadn’t mentioned it.

    I love how some people get defensive and prickly when this topic comes up: OMG like I’d NEVER let a critic make a pick for me I can think for myself! I’m a decisive *individual*. So clearly have they forgotten (or perhaps never understood) exactly what the role of a critic is.

  20. I listen to my local critic. Mostly because i’ve read his stuff for the past 5 years and I know his tastes are nearly identicle to mine. I also listen to Ebert. but other than that, i don’t listen to critics. I’ll listen to what they say, but if i’ve decided that i want to see a movie i will, no matter what.

  21. I am still a Roger Ebert guy. I may not agree with him all the time but I think as a general sense of what is a good movie or not a good movie I trust his thumb. Oh but I never read to much of his reviews on his website. he gives away way to many plot details. I have been super busy lately so I don’t read TMB as much as I have in the past, what would be nice is if you guys made a way to keep all movie reviews in one nice area.

  22. Well, sometimes a movie gets really bad reviews and I want to see it for myself. For example: Bloordrayne. My first Uwe Boll film. I did not see AITD or HOTD, due to bad reviews and not relly interested in them, but a third strike you just gotta see. Boy, I want those 90 minutes back :) But, hey I liked Underworld, and will probably like the sequel as well.

    Usually i read the reviews to compare my thoughts with the “critics”. But I don’t know why I should listen to them if I want to see the movie. I did not want to see House of the dead or Alone in the dark, so who cares, but I want to see Ice Age 2 and your lousy review won’t change that. So, there. :) However, the review might change whether I want to see it in cinema or rent it or wait for it to show up on TV. Or use alternative methods :)

  23. I don’t listen to critics at all. There isn’t a critic out there who’s taste matches with mine, only only only sometimes there’s an agreement. Most of the time what they reject, I accept and vice versa. It’s been like this for years. I go to the theater like 7 times in a year. I know what I want to see and will see it regardless what any critic says. Example: Superman, MI3, Pirates of the Carribean, X-Men 3. If any critic gives these movies bad reviews, will it stop me from seeing it in theater myself? No way.

    Recently themovieblog has influenced my thoughts, as they’re taste resembles mine at times. So I sometimes look twice about renting or going to a theater for a movie. But in the end, I end up making my own decision based on my personal preferences and the trailer.

  24. I personally do not listen to critics, cause there seems to be a overload of people who get blogs and little website to be known and post there opinion about what movies should and shouldn’t be. there also seems to be alot of personal intrest in certain genres like horror geeks, or comic book movie fans, and not alot of movies that focus on whether technically the movie was good, or is it good for orginal story elements and whatnot.

    Ebert is ok, but in order to be a great reviewer of things it almost takes a knowledge of pop-culture. you can’t watch a comic book movie without prior knowledge of who these chracters are, if not the review is very one sided based only on the context of the movie itself. it also seems that alot of “critics” have predjuces with certain genres, they will say everything they “hate” about the movie without giving further explaination over what could’ve been done better in thier minds.

    in this age, anyone can be a critic, and alot of people have the misconception if thinking that a critic is someone who states a opinon about what a movie is. suddenly you don’t have to be knowledgeable in film to understand why a remake is might be bad in such cases, or why actors/actress these days always look good looking, instead of finding a blend of not so great look and advage people who act good. all of a sudden you have a person who says: “star wars sucks” and when asked why they say : “well…cause jar jar was annoying” proving nothing that the film could’ve been bad from story or techincal points of view or without knowing reasons why elements are put into films in general.

  25. I like how Rotten Tomatoes pools the reviews and gives you a freshness rating (the ratio of positive to overall reviews). If I’m on the fence about whether I’ll see a movie, I’ll use this as a barometer. Example: I decided against seeing the remake of “Assault on Precinct 13” after a low tomato rating even though I loved the original. It was the right call. I shouldn’t have even rented it. I may go see “Inside Man” because it’s currently 88% fresh even though it wasn’t on my radar. But I like Denzel and I like the sound of it.

    I read individual reviews as well, but usually only after I see the movie. Why let someone else’s thoughts interfere with my enjoyment? I saw “Slither” opening night and avoided all reviews beforehand. I really really really wanted to see this film. I don’t want to read something negative – or positive – that I’ll take to the theater with me and subconsciously let influence my enjoyment. But afterwards, as John wrote, I prefer a good movie discussion. Reviews are one form of discussion.

    Sometimes though I’ll use reviews differently. I’m fairly conservative. I visit National Review, Townhall and Libertas regularly. Libertas, being a film opinion site, spends a lot of time discussing films as they pertain to the political and social climate. I didn’t want to see “V for Vendetta”. I lost faith when the Wachowskis screwed the pooch with the Matrix sequels and I’m not a big Alan Moore fan. When “V for Vendetta” cames out, the aforementioned sites were unkind. But when it gets 75% at Rotten Tomatoes, I like to see what’s up. I still haven’t see it (nothing in the positive reviews convinced me it was worthy of my time), but I’ve been privy to various discussions regarding the films qualities and merits.

  26. It’s stupid to let a critic convince you of whether or not a movie is any good. I have yet to find one that has the exact same tastes as me. If I like the trailer or the premise, I’ll see it regard less of what I read or hear about it.

  27. I choose my critics. I get influenced by critics that have the same taste than me on certain kind of movies. So if all the critics that like SF say : “Don’t see that one. I hated it.” then i will probably won’t see it. If one says : “There is something not so bad.” then i will think about going.

  28. I watch Ebert and Roeper every weekend, I read Ebert’s reviews, but other than that, critics don’t affect me. To be honest, E&R don’t really affect my moviegoing decisions, but I like hearing their opinions. If a flick looks cool to me, I’ll go see it, regardless of what a bunch of old men think of it. I listen to my friends’ opinions more than the critics, honestly. They know my taste in films much better than some gusy I’ve never even met. Besides, EVERYONE’s a critic. Everyone will bitch about this or that in a movie, so who really cares in the end? See it for yourself and then judge it.

  29. I am not that affected by an individual critic, but if enough critics all agree that a film is poorly made then I will think twice about seeing it. The real reason I listen to critics is to find out about a film, your review of Slither convinced me not to see it because you described a movie that I don’t believe I would enjoy seeing.

    I have enjoyed many movies that have had near total negative reviews and hated many movies that have had near total positive reviews. A UK movie critic called Barry Norman was excellent at describing a film rather then just giving a positive or negative statement about it, that style of criticism seems to have been replaced by overly opinionated reviews.

Leave a Reply