Hollywood just doesn't get it

[Endur]

Critics are ok for normal genre movies, but are useless for non-traditional movies.

A good example would be The Passion of the Christ. That movie was far better than its average review, primarily because most of the critics were biased negatively against the movie. The Passion was the best movie released last year.

Likewise, many critics rated Star Wars lower than it should have been rated when it war released in the mid 70's. Or, to a lesser extent, even against The Fellowship of the Ring.

 

[Shadowdancer]

Likewise, many critics rated Star Wars lower than it should have been rated when it war released in the mid 70's. Or, to a lesser extent, even against The Fellowship of the Ring.

Ummm, no they didn't. Critics in the '70s pretty muched geeked all over themselves when Star Wars came out. They did the same thing for FotR. FotR was one of the best-reviewed movies of that year.

I also think good critics help steer audiences to good non-traditional movies, like Passion of the Christ. That is their most-important function.

In addition to RottenTomatoes, I would recommend going to metacritic.com. It is another site which compiles a large number of critics' reviews and ratings. It then assigns a grade to the movie ranging from 100 to zero. I find it to be a pretty good reflection of the overall quality of a movie.

Finding a critic whose opinion you agree with is also good advice. When I write a review for the newspaper I work for, I hope I am able to steer some people with tastes similar to mine toward some movies they might otherwise not see. But I also realize not everyone is going to like all of the movies I like, or dislike all of the movies I dislike. Everyone's different, and everyone has different tastes.

As for the movie reviewers who take payoffs for giving positive reviews -- yeah, it happens. They are called "tout whores" -- they will tout any movie to the masses in exchange for something they perceive as being of significance. Many of them work for small-market radio and TV stations, or low-circulation newspapers in California or the Northeast. Most are just hoping that someone with a studio connection will like what they write and give them a (better-paying) job. Some just want to see their name included on the posters and ads, thinking it will help them get a better job or at least a job in a bigger market that pays better. Some secretly hope they will get picked by a network to appear on TV regularly like Ebert or Rex Reed or Gene Shallot. Some just like being flown to premieres and press junkets so they can hobnob with the stars. And most have no training in critical analysis, and wouldn't know a good movie if they saw it unless some studio PR hack tells them it's good.

 

[John Crichton]

Actually I disagree with that. Michael Bay did The Rock and Con Air and Armageddon, three hugely grossing films that were absolute crap,
(I actually never saw Armageddon, but I suspect its crap).

Your arguement here is kinda weak. You have seen one Bay flick out of the bunch. He had nothing to do with Con Air and you haven't seen Armageddon (which was a very fun movie with no intellectual value whatsoever). I am, admittedly a fan of his films (san Pearl Harbor which was junk except for the actual attack). They are pure American popcorn summer films. To try and take them seriously is to totally miss the point. He has been associated for a long time with Jerry Bruckheimer so the Con Air association is forgivable. If Bay had directed it, I may have been actually entertained. Bay's movies are of the "shut your brain off and enjoy the kinetic action" variety.

Now fast forward to today, and sales are soft for The Island which is worlds away above the other films mentioned above, and on its own not a bad movie,(actually in the hands of another director willing to expand upon some ideas raised in the movie, it could be a very good movie). So clearly something has changed if people before were willing to shell hard earned dollars to see Bay's previous " big bang experience" and now oddly enough they are not.

Okay, I haven't seen The Island yet but I really want to. Bay plus implausible action equals fun for me. That said, he was trying to make a popcorn movie with it so I'm not going in expecting a big dramatic epic with some serious story and big thoughts. I go basically for the explosions but it leads into...

Given what is going on with America right now, I can see a plausable explanation, in people wanting to laugh.
Another intresting factor is that the action movies that have grossed the largest amount, and have received the highest critical acclaim, are also movies of a long standing brand,(Batman and Star Wars).
Sure both of those actually had compeling plots and character development, but might name brand recgonition also get people in.

I kinda agree with this but the decline of movie ticket sales right now owes more to what Ranger REG was talking about above: the rise of DVD and home theater. I rarely go to the movies to see something that doesn't have big action or the potential for it in the theater (I'm not counting random trips and dates) because I can see it for much less in the comfort of my home and much of America has been doing the same for years (I'm a bit behind the times it seems).

 

[Pbartender]

Simple, Mr. Buer is simply covering his ass. He doesn't want to help directly responsible for the movie's low movie sales, so it's easy for him and his career to state, "Comedies are big this summer!" The gullible will shallow his tripe and he will continue to be employed.

That's about how I read it too.

"Nobody wants to watch my movie, but IT'S NOT MY FAULT!"

 

[solkan_uk]

From my own view I only go to see films in the cimema if they'll benefit from being seen in the cinima.
Action films generally do, LotR certainly did (the vast landscapes and armies lose a lot on a smaller screen), comedies and drama orientated things don't lose anything.
so while I've done no research and am relying on personal experience. An action film that has done poor in the cinema, ain't going to make it up on DVD sales.

 

[reveal]

BTW, just to clear something up, I do not use critics to help me make up my mind as to whether a movie will be good or not. If I did, I would have never gone to see Fantasic Four, which was a good popcorn flick. I rely on you guys to tell me what to see.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually I disagree with that. Michael Bay did The Rock and Con Air and Armageddon, three hugely grossing films that were absolute crap,
(I actually never saw Armageddon, but I suspect its crap).

Feel free to disagree, but your opinion is extremely uninformed (Michael Bay did not do Con Air and you didn't even see Armageddon.) And none of his movies are absolute crap. I have yet to see a Michael Bay movie that I thought was truly wonderful, but I have yet to see one that had absolutely no redeeming value either (yes, even Pearl Harbor has it's moments.)

Now fast forward to today, and sales are soft for The Island which is worlds away above the other films mentioned above, and on its own not a bad movie,(actually in the hands of another director willing to expand upon some ideas raised in the movie, it could be a very good movie). So clearly something has changed if people before were willing to shell hard earned dollars to see Bay's previous " big bang experience" and now oddly enough they are not.

That argument might possibly make some sense if there haven't already been big, successful, action blockbusters this summer, some of them only a few weeks separated from The Island. I also don't believe in the nonsense idea that the American public as a whole drifts in taste from week to week between comedy and action. I do agree that The Island is not a bad movie, and the only thing close to an objective standard I can find would tend to agree (an average of 15 critics reviews compiled at movies.yahoo.com rates it a C+; a little better than average, while over 7,300 user reviews average out to B; even better). A more sensible solution is that the marketing for the movie fell flat and was ineffective. They failed to demonstrate via trailers and promotional whatever that the movie would be good enough to capture the audience, so the audience didn't come.

Oh, and you seem to be confused between the roles of director and writer for a movie. Michael Bay was the director, not the writer, so he didn't really have much influence in exploring the sci-fi parable aspects of the movie, like you seem to want to. Which, personally, I think would easily have made the movie considerably worse, not better.

Given what is going on with America right now, I can see a plausable explanation, in people wanting to laugh.

That's ridiculous. Please explain the success of War of the Worlds and Mr. and Mrs. Smith then.

Another intresting factor is that the action movies that have grossed the largest amount, and have received the highest critical acclaim, are also movies of a long standing brand,(Batman and Star Wars).

Again, please note War of the Worlds and Mr. and Mrs. Smith. And probably The Fantastic Four as well, although it's still early to tell if that'll earn in the same ballpark. Based on current earnings as of last weekend, that's a pretty good bet, though.

Sure both of those actually had compeling plots and character development, but might name brand recgonition also get people in.

Waitaminute... you're complaining about compelling plots and characters in a Michael Bay film while praising the same in a George Lucas film?

 

[Bihor]

Is any body taken in consideration that the TV spots are a bid factor.
I'm not talking of the move previews on the internet, but those on tv.


The Island, and Stealth are crap, you can't know the story and you only see explosions.
Fantastic Four you see some incadible shots (the thing falling whit doom floor by floor)
Ok the one for war of world show nothing, exept Spieldberg and Cruse. Those two would sell any thing.
Sure good story help sell a movie (would have help Kingdom of heaven ), but it's not wath make a movie sell.
Critic, good story, action etc. but not every body care or read them, but 100% of people watch TV and see comercial, and make jument on what they sees. Even, if you don't care about the ad you see it and your brain stores it.

 

[Mystery Man]

Look at the numbers above. Aside from Fantastic Four, every movie that has had low critical ratings has had a low take at the box office. Are they blind? If they continue this trend, I don't see any hope of the box office take going back up and movies are just going to become more expensive to make and more craptacular to watch.

I don't know exactly what your point is and this response is with the best of intentions, but you never, ever produce art, be it film or any other type of media to please critics. Big, huge, gigantic mistake.

 

[DonTadow]

Critics are ok for normal genre movies, but are useless for non-traditional movies.

A good example would be The Passion of the Christ. That movie was far better than its average review, primarily because most of the critics were biased negatively against the movie. The Passion was the best movie released last year.

Likewise, many critics rated Star Wars lower than it should have been rated when it war released in the mid 70's. Or, to a lesser extent, even against The Fellowship of the Ring.

Best movie last year???

It was like watching a 2 hour snuff film. OUtside of the religious aspect, it was essentailly a long torture scene drawn out, no real plot or characters. But that's looking at it as a movie. And, now its created a problem in hollywood where everyone wants to do some religious type film or tv show.