The Answer Man got a message the other day from a guy who wanted to know why the major critics all run with a herd mentality. He goes to Cream of the Crop at Rotten Tomatoes and on some films they all agree, with maybe a couple of holdouts. I've noticed this, too.
When a critic votes with a vast majority, I think one reason is that some films are obviously good or bad (in the eyes of most people). But when one lonely critic stands apart from the mob, there may be a message to be learned, and that may be the critic you should make a point of reading, assuming he or she has been interesting in the past. There may be a special expertise or sensitivity coming into view, or a film may have been made with such specialized intent that its qualities are invisible to the majority. Or, sometimes, it may be the auteur theory at work, and the critic may be so invested in the work of that director that he or she sees things that reach specifically to his wave length.
Example: Harmony Korine's new film, "Mister Lonely." It gets a 50 at Metacritic, but high praise from Don R. Lewis at Film Threat. I understand that. I was one of very few critics who admired Korine's "julien donkey-boy." In that case I think I responded to the total freedom he granted himself to impose audacious and extreme characters and situations upon us. A lot of people were not willing to take the ride, and I understand them. Another example, close to my heart: It is almost impossible for Werner Herzog to make a film I dislike, but not everybody agrees. I have determined that he is the most creative source of new and visionary imagery in the movies, and I've seen nothing to change that opinion.
The average moviegoer doesn't care about the treasured personal inclinations of a critic on a particular peculiar film. The average moviegoer just wants to walk in, get his movie, and go home. I remember when the Spudnut Shop opened on campus. My friend Paul Tyner went to work there, and noticed a sign behind the counter: "No reading!" He asked the owner what that was about. "I have 18 stools at my counter," the guy said, "Some guy could come in and start reading some book and never stop. My motto is, get 'em in, give em' their Spuddies, and get 'em out again."
That is also Hollywood's motive, although they don't care if the Spuddies are studded with nails, as long as people buy them. But there are always some moviegoers who are excited by the experience of the surprising and the new, and realize a film is reaching them in a personal way. Consider the response to my mention of "Joe vs. the Volcano" a week or so ago. I got a lot of comments from readers who have, like me, treasured that rejected and forgotten film for years. One family watches it annually. When I praised the film, I suppose I was writing for those specific readers, although I didn't know it.
Remember that most critics write without benefit of hindsight. The Tomatometer has not yet run up its totals when they review a new film, and they may be astonished to find themelves in a minority of one. They 're not running against the herd because the herd has not yet formed. They are offering an opinion that, it turns out, will be the exception to the rule. When you find a review like that, think about it. Few of us have a desire to see the same damned thing over and again, but Hollywood is never happier than when supplying it. A minority opinion (better still, a majority of critics "surprised," or, one of my favorite words, "blindsided" by a film) are urgently trying to tell you something. And for you, they may be right.
Final example. My review of "Beowulf" was largely alone in the field; I thought it was brilliant, and I thought it was intended not just as action and fantasy spectacle, but as bawdy, audacious humor. Hardly anyone agreed. But the co-writer Roger Avary wrote me that, indeed, it was written as an over-the-top comedy, and he thought it worked that way. See it in that light, and you may see a different movie. Your particular sensibility may discover gold that otherwise washes away in the flood.
While I have been watching films all through my life, the past couple of years I have been obsessed about it.
When I watch a film, I generally form my view or write it out, then look at your review. I would be greatly disappointed or even feel bad that if you liked something and I did not and the vice versa. After a while, after many films of the same effect, I realized that how much of independent view one does get and peer pressured to hate or like a movie. To appreciate and acknowledge becomes the ultimate understanding of a film. And for people who go to theatres and come out with a "Good" or "Bad" single word opinion, IMDB ratings and the Tomatometer are the indication or authentication to watch a film. That is sad but still not many are ardent movie goers or ready to flex themselves to closely observe the nuances of a film. It is a miniature representation of a society we live in as such I think.
I'd like to direct your attention to a feature that the great Nathan Rabin has been running at the AV Club for the last year and a half. My Year Of Flops does exactly what you're advocating, reviewing movies that have been disregarded by both critics and audiences (including Joe Vs. The Volcano http://www.avclub.com/content/blog/my_year_of_flops_case_file_40_joe), and seeing whether the stomping was warranted.
It doesn't hurt that Rabin is a truly excellent critic, with sharp instincts, and great wit. The project makes every other Tuesday something to look forward to.
http://www.avclub.com/content/topics/My+Year+Of+Flops?page=10
More than critics taking a herd mentality on Rotten Tomatoes, I am concerned about the IMDB users over-enthusiastic grading of newly released movies which simply means it's hard to count on such to decide whether or not to go to a specific movie. High %'s of users will give any new release a "10" grade which leads me to believe studios push their employees to go out and spread the positive word through this site (or some other similar explanation to this effect). I've also noticed with time (and thousands more votes) movies tend to obtain a more accurate grade in this site.
"Monkeybone," anyone?
I actually passed this one up in the theaters, and failed to watch it on video until years after its release -- partly because of Roger Ebert's negative -- but still fair -- review.
But I picked up a DVD copy on the cheap and have since watched it about 10 times. It's smart, hilarious and highly creative.
It deserves a lot better than 19% on the Tomatometer.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/monkeybone/
We were sort of having this conversation at lunch. Sometimes, a film is enjoyable for reasons that aren't in line with others. I have a huge soft spot for films that are visually dynamic. I'm excited about Speed Racer in part because I just think that visually it will be a knock out. People didn't like DIck Tracy, but again, I thought it was stunning. Same with Fifth Element and Gattaca.
I've also always been a fan of Ishtar, which has become a joke. It's a good movie. It's funny. I've watched it again, just to see whether I was wrong. Nope. I still liked it. (I was very young when I saw it the first time.)
Joe vs the Volcano is another one that I think is outstanding. Better even than similar movies like Brazil (which isn't an exact parallel, but they are similar in my mind in terms of themes.)
Thanks for this post.
If I am not mistaken you just explained what we have always known was the genius of the original Siskel and Ebert show. You two didn't like the same movies. You both had your own tastes. You would be willing to give in to a goofy fun action movie. Siskel almost never would. But he may like some films that you didn't as well. I would always look at the type of movie and weigh your reviews based on what you thought of that type of movie in the past.
Hence, for example, if you always agree with say Chris Gore at Film Threat. Then who cares what the other critics say? You should weigh his opinion more because he is the most similar to you. If you know nothing about the critic, how can you possibly judge his review? How many times have you seen a great art film and had somebody you didn't know say, "Wow that was boring". If you know nothing about the person saying it you cannot possibly use his review.
I think readers of reviews are two quick to assume that if their local paper gives a movie 1 star that it is terrible. Or even worse if MetaCritic gives it a 50 then it is mediocre. But the true answer is, it may not be mediocre to you. So unless you usually agree with the local paper you are probably better off looking to friends for reviews.
To me the bottom line is this. Reviews from critics you know nothing about can "sometimes" be useful if you actually read the review and analyze what they say. For example they may say this movie was terrible because it was all slapstick comedy. And you may say hey, I love slapstick comedy. So the review was useful to you but the star rating or thumbs up or down or whatever was not. But if you know something about the reviewer and he is the loan hold out on a movie. Then sometimes their review may be worth its weight in gold.
A wonderful blog! I love to read those "exceptions" to either highly-praised or highly-panned films. I think the only "bandwagon" critics often join in is the retrospect of the year, as in ten-best lists or the worst of the year. Often times the reader (or viewer) sees contradictions in the critic they've followed in their choices, wondering if they truly had a new reflection based on the film itself or how they view the film based on the popular point of view.
I remember Lisa Schwartzbaum's review of "Elizabethtown" being mixed. She saw the Toronto cut first, then the theatrical. Once she saw both cuts and wrote the published review she graded it a C+ (since EW rates on the grading scale), and that rating signifies a mixed review, but ultimately negative. Yet when she did her worst of the year she thought that film was the number two worst film. Was it THAT good a year that a film she had mixed feelings about was the second worst film of the year? Or how about her C-grade review of "When Will I Be Loved" which caught the ire of James Toback, and how his words seemingly got it fated to her "worst of the year" list (his response to her review was something she even addressed in her "worst of the year" write-up).
But again, I do appreciate the lone critic who voices against the tide. Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle often goes against the tide. He thought "Click" was one of the best of that year, and he recently caught controversy when he wrote about how he only recently saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" for the first time and found it terrible. Carina Chocano was the only top critic at rottentomatoes.com to pan "Knocked Up", making claims of sexism that would come to consideration later on in the year, around the time when "Juno" was released and viewed as a "feminist" version of "Knocked Up". "Juno" though had no pans in the Top Critics section. I wish it did. It would have made me feel less odd for finding the structure and characterization completely flawed to a large fault.
Though back to Mr. Ebert, who himself has gone against the grain many a time to praise a film that was otherwise trashed. I remember really enjoying a film that came out as a teenager called "Fear", with Mark Wahlberg and Reese Witherspoon. Critics by and large trashed it. My friends HATED it. But I thought it was a great piece of pulp--smart in its psychological portraits, while over the top and fun in its execution. Mr. Ebert, on his show, gave it a thumbs up (the late, great Mr. Siskel gave it a big thumbs down). I think this coupled with Mr. Ebert's lonesome one and a half star review of " Usual Suspect" made me respect the guy even more. Ebert's left-field perspectives gave me validation, while making me realize that those minorities who go against the grain of popular opinion in film should be considered. Often times, because they are so singular, they are the most memorable.
I've stopped referring to Rottentomatoes for a while now (which is all the more reason for you to come back!), because of the herd mentality. Though it (and Metacritic) may have been founded on good intentions, they both bypass the personal feel a film critic is supposed to convey.
I think it was Phillip Lopate who said that a film critic is supposed to give you a unique perspective of a particular film, and that it's wise to refer to few preferred critics whose views can give shape or insight to what an audience is about to experience on the big screen. A lot is lost in the details if we're going to base a movie's worth on a cumulative score or rating.
I never really thought that movie critics had a herd mentality. I think if a movie has the general plot elements to make it good, then of course the majority of the reviews will be positive. Usually movies that try to be too original or artistic receive mixed or generally bad reviews (I'm thinking of Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" as an example).
When I read a review, I'm not expecting the critic to agree with me. If I'm interested in watching a movie and the critic says it sucks, I'll still go watch that movie, unless I'm given really strong reasons to avoid it.
Actually, from the (probably) hundreds of reviews I read/watched in Siskel&Ebert and Ebert&Roeper, usually you disagreed with me. I find it kind of refreshing, getting to know another point of view from someone who knows so much more than I do regarding cinema. Of course there were many times when you agreed and gave pretty much the same arguments as I did.
Greetings from Portugal. :)
My favorite example of this: Both Pauline Kael and Martin Scorsese prefered the much-maligned "Exorcist II: The Heretic" to the original. Kael liked the imagery and Scorsese liked the spirituality. I can see the argument for both but, personally, was unable to get past all the silliness. Obviously Kael and Scorsese could and were able to see something in that movie the rest of us could not.
And once again I totally agree with Mr. Ebert.
I wish that some of my German colleagues could read that. I remember being almost the only one who give Tom Tykwer's "Perfume" a positive review. At least I did not praise it to the skies, but it worked very well for me.
But after that huge wave of negative reviews I confess that I started to think about my own opinion (something I never want to experience again).
Today the question "Am I right or wrong?" occurs to me just marginal and irrelevant.
I agree, and I always appreciate seeing a reviewer having a few "black sheep" favorites (like your Beowulf). But I more prefer to see the rare protest to an otherwise well-reviewed movie.
My tastes are fairly similar to yours, Mr. Ebert. (Long live "Dark City"!) I also like to check James Berardinelli and Stephanie Zacharek for input. But there are two films in particular that everyone seems to love that I essentially despise: "The Last Picture Show" and "Das Boot." However it's precisely the rarity of my opinion that makes me want to understand why everyone else thinks they are so great. I want to be able at least to appreciate them, even if I will never like them.
If we are only so lucky that the average movie goer would blindly follow the Tomatometer. I think those of you who read Roger Ebert are a bit more sophisticated than the typical movie goer. Seems like being a bit "elite" makes you forget that the huge majority of the movie viewing public is rarely interested in fine cinema. They go to whatever movie has the best marketing hype, the biggest stars or the brightest special effects. How many times have you heard someone say "There was too much talking in the film, not enough action."
Why do so many of you feel the need to feel "liberal" by accepting garbage positive review on garbage movies? Why are you defending movie critics that give positive reviews to movies like "10,000 B.C."??? FYI, "10,000 B.C." grossed about $100 million domestically (who knows how many times that internationally), got a 9% on Tomatometer with an average of 3.2 out of 10. Those reviewers are one of the following: (1) self-absorbed contrarians (2) totally irrelevant as evaluators of film or (3) on Warner Bros' payroll.
Do you know how many average movie goers are philosophically opposed to movie reviews? I know a large number of people who say that they never care about movie reviews because movie critics don't know anyways. What I'm saying is: YES, sometimes a movie is just BAD. And yes, sometimes a movie is just GOOD. Critics who gave positive reviews to "Meet the Spartans" and "10,000 B.C." are simply WRONG in those situations. Just as the movie review who gave "The Godfather Part II" a negative review is simply WRONG.
Yes, 90% of the movies out there I will accept that it's worth debating. But sometimes, just admit you made a mistake and you were wrong about a movie.
This post encapsulates why I read your reviews, essays and Answer Man — when there's time. Why I often take you at your word and am seldom disappointed. Why I sometimes really ponder what you didn't see that I loved about a film. And, why I sometimes change my mind about a film based on your review.
Joseph raises your review of The Usual Suspects in his comment. I had not read your review until recently and it really surprised me. I loved that movie — I still enjoy it to be sure — but I do think less of it now. Especially when compared to one of your Great Movies, David Mamet's House of Games. Two cons that diverge in that one — Mamet's — is grounded in reality and the other is not. Though I still enjoy the entertainment of The Usual Suspects, I am able to see its short comings better after reading your review.
A.O. Scott lauded your authenticity in his wonderful article about you from April in the Times. That authenticity is no doubt a key factor in your #1 ranking on the list of most influential pundits.
I would like to think that critics, much as any other movie-going group, tend to have their own individual tastes and preferences. Certainly the idea of the 'herd mentality' seems to be one that on first observation may be valid, but when you look at the individual reviews themselves, you'll find that the critics have differences on the very movies they all enjoy.
Using a recent example, take Iron Man. Nearly all of the reviewers liked the movie (with two very notable examples in the negative from the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times) but the opinions on the characters in the film itself ranged widely. Some critics thought the interaction with Tony Stark and Pepper Potts was excellent, others felt it was dull. Views on other supporting characters ranged just as wildly, making you wonder sometimes if the reviewers were even watching the same film.
But the key is that movies are entertainment. As far as Hollywood is concerned, if you paid the money, that's all they care about. Whether the movie was good, bad, dull, exciting, arousing, appalling, those aspects the executives could care less about. (After all, if they had seen the final product before releasing it, they might have stopped some movies from seeing the multiplex, saving us all the nightmare of finding out for ourselves how really horrid it was.) As for the movie critic, his job is to try and explain just why the movie was good or bad, and why you would want to see it (or avoid it at all costs.)
At least from my perspective, you have (as a critic) tried hard to balance the personal enjoyment of cinema with the realization that sometimes bad cinema is good and that at least warning the public beforehand is necessary. And I also recall that in some of the old "Guilty Pleasures" you listed the movie "Infra-man" as one of those 'so bad it's good' films. (I chalk that up to the fact that you're an old-time sci-fi fan and that fans love to do the MST3K bit to films like this. I also recall once showing the old "Plan 9 From Outer Space" at a con, in which the title of the segment was 'Why You Should Not See This Film.')
Bottom line? Love what you enjoy, enjoy what you like, and if the critics drive you crazy, well... you don't have to listen to them.
I think a great example of the "stands apart" reviews is one A.O Scott rave review of "Freddy Got Fingered", a film widely despised for its gross-out humor. He called it brilliant, in the tradition of surrealism. I wonder if Tim Green had rocks to throw back at the audience too?
It is funny, that unlike most other mediums, we are forced to be critics when watching film. In many cases, we're not really sure about our opinion of a film until it's over, or even a week later when thinking about it. This contrasts with say, eating a McDonald's hamburger.
But for many average movie-goers, the expectations are light, if non-existent. A movie is a commodity, like eating a Hamburger, and you're simply asking it to blow 2 hours without challenging your moral relativity. As a serious film viewer, I am constantly given the following line from others: "All I want from a movie is to be entertained." As if the rest of us do not? I think the only thing I could say in response is, "I'm not questioning your right to be entertained. I'm questioning what entertains you."
I don't think there's a herd mentality with the critics on RT. Like Roger, most critics I've talked to won't read reviews until after they've written theirs. Most critics watch movies in advance anyways , when there are few, if any, reviews on RT. Like one of the users here said, if a movie is generallly good, of course, it'll get positive reviews.
Jim Emerson had a post on his blog that touched on this, and I nearly replied to it, with what I'm saying here.
I like reading your reviews, Mr. Ebert; I've read (and heard) enough of them that I have a pretty good grasp of what you like and what you don't like. Sometimes, by the way you praise a movie, I can tell I'm not going to like it even though you did.
For example, I have a horror of "character studies" and "flashbacks" ever since being forced to read "Mayor of Casterbridge" and "Stone Angel" in high school. I don't mind a character study of a character I already know from another movie or book - but why would I want to get involved in a character study of someone I've never met before? The challenge, to me, is to make a movie where the character is interesting enough to hook you early, so you want to know more about him/her. This is, in my humble opinion, difficult enough that it is seldom done well enough to satisfy me.
So when you praise a movie as an excellent character study, I'm likely to avoid it. On the other hand, there are (extremely rare) times when you've panned a movie, but in such a way that I think I'll enjoy it.
So in that respect, you are functioning in the ideal manner a reviewer should - someone who is able to light the way for others, even if others see what is on that path and choose to follow a different one.
As for the TomatoMeter, I've found that it is fairly reliable as a general guide - but I find myself reading the contrarian reviews more often than those that echo the general sentiment. If a reviewer doesn't like a movie that scores more than 80%, I find it interesting to find out why they didn't like it; and conversely to find out why a reviewer liked a movie that scored 20% or less. It's all in the "why".
But overall, as the Romans said, "De gustibus non est disputandem." What makes your (and anyone else's) opinion valuable is its honesty.
I remember the time "Femme Fatale" by Brian DePalma was released. Most critics hated it, Roger Ebert loved it. When I left the cinema I didn´t understand how anyone could be disappointed by this movie. I found it great and visionary, as if it were a very original work of art by a very young director. So I thought to myself: You should listen more often to the critics who have a different opinion; they are the ones who can surprise you with their choices and with your choice to watch the movies they recommended. I enjoyed "Speed Racer" too. A surreal film for smart kids, in my opinion.
I guess my question would be, is there something unique about cinema that allows for there to be absolutes or certainties which all critics (or audiences for that matter) SHOULD be able to agree on? I've often thought musical preferences, for example, are not that different than tastes in food. You like what you like, and you really shouldn't have to explain it any further than that, just as you shouldn't try to convince other people that their musical/culinary tastes are all wrong and that they should listen to YOU or else they're missing out or just plain stupid. You can tell me until you're blue in the face that lobster is better than steak or the Stones are better than the Beatles but no matter what arguments you drag out, I'll never agree with you. So are films different in some way?
I personally feel that the film criticism sections of papers, magazines, or websites are these days overloaded with opinions from people who, when reading their commentary, prompt the question of who they are and why we should care what they have to say. A lot of critics will praise a film like Rain Man or Mozart And The Whale without an inkling of the idea that people who are affected in real life by their subject matter consider Rain Man the 1980s equivalent of Triumph Des Willens. Yes, I happen to be one of those people, and I can happily quote you chapter and verse as to why.
Your review of the third X-Men film, or X-Men By People Who Do Not Grok X-Men At All as I like to call it, is a good example of this. What if you were to discover one day that your ability to write critiques that people want to pay good money for was all because of one variation in your genetic structure that people purporting to represent your interests wanted to take away from you? Millions of people around this world are being confronted with that ugly scenario every second of every day, and a good majority of them found X-Men 3 insulting when stacked up against what I like to call the real X-Men films. X-Men 2 was not made for people with short attention spans, but for people who can fully understand what its characters feel. X-Men 3 was made by people who think X-Men 2's primary audience, when confronted with the knowledge that a government is weaponising a cure for what makes them unique from their past abusers, would lift a finger to save that cure's makers from their own. Hence, as you might imagine by now, it took me quite some time to read your reviews more receptively again after reading your reviews of these two films side by side. That you do not grok the real X-Men films is hardly your fault, but the point is that it also makes it harder for someone who does to take your opinions of them seriously.
Hence, when I am asked by others to offer my comments about a film or other piece of entertainment, I tend to offer people a bit about why they should take my opinion seriously. "Rain Man is a bad film" has little weight on its own, but "I am autistic and I can tell you that Rain Man has caused me and those like me more grief and anguish during my lifetime than almost anything else I care to mention" bears thinking about. It is my opinion as a struggling author and individual caught up in the latest heretofore hidden civil rights struggle that an opinion on its own is always worthless compared to an opinion accompanied by some explanation of why it should be taken seriously.
Hence, I agree with one of your conclusions. Sometimes a solitary writer will run against the herd and offer an assessment that does not resemble anyone else's in the slightest, and their understanding might make their opinion worthier than the herd's. Understand, though, it can cut both ways. Disagreement with the herd is never as important as your reason for disagreeing with the herd.
I'm an aspiring critic who in the last two years has done some writing for a website and attending advance screenings and encountering herd anxiety. Two times last winter I saw a movie and thought, "Everybody is going to hate this, but I like it." Those movies were "P.S. I Love You" and "The Bucket List" (you, indeed, hated the latter). In my head, I imagine a mass of more established, seasoned, experienced critics regarding my reviews and snickering. (Of course, this is self-important, because I may be the only person actually reading my reviews.)
The irony is that every critic, as every audience member, forms his opinion independently before the herd forms. And there will always be the odd man out. But a quality of a critic is determined not by what he likes but by how he likes it. I've agreed with a lot of critics I don't respect, and disagree with many I admire.
Hello Roger,
I've spent the better part of today reading through your blog archives and have enjoyed it immensely. I have written to you three times in the past dozen or so years and you replied each time, which I really appreciate.
This comment isn't really appropriate, I don't think, for this blog entry, but I wanted to share a story with you about Werner Herzog since you seem to be such a fan.
I attended College of Marin in the early 1990's and my favorite English teacher, John Taylor, also taught the film history course. It was his class, combined with the annual Ebert film review book, and the inspiration that really turned me onto movies. Mr. Taylor's favorite filmmaker was Werner Herzog. As a result, I watched about ten of his films, enjoying each of them.
A few years later I was working at Captain Video in Mill Valley. A customer- Kathryn Ng- came in and asked if I had ever heard of a director named Werner Herzog and if so, could I recommend any movies. I took her through the store, and after introducing her to a handful of films, and fully aware that she had no idea who he was, I had to ask her what sparked her interest.
She said that her boyfriend had written a book in the early 80's that wasn't successful nor in print and that he had received a call from this Herzog fellow who wanted to meet for dinner to discuss making it into a movie. She said she was relieved to find out he was a real director. I was very excited and remember telling her that this was one of the most-revered directors and took her to his page on the old Cinemania disc we had set up for customers.
Every few weeks she would come in and update me. They had had dinner. The movie was going forward. The movie started.
Then one busy Saturday, she caught my attention and apologized for interrupting me, but that she had told Werner Herzog the story of when she first came into the store. And he was standing there and he said "I told Kathryn I just had to meet the man who helped me get my movie made. Thank you." Of course, I was flabberghasted and touched and well, you get the idea.
I actually didn't view Little Dieter until a few years later on DVD. It was a thrilling experience, and a jolitingly heartbreaking one to see the addendum of Dieter having passed away, and seeing Kathryn at his funeral.
I've never put much stock in hoping that my favorite film directors are nice people, but Herzog's gesture is one that I will always remember.
Ebert: That is a wonderful story, and one typical of Herzog's generosity and humanity. There are a few directors (Paul Cox is another) who apart from their work seem to me like secular saints.
To appreciate and acknowledge becomes the ultimate understanding of a film. And for people who go to theatres and come out with a "Good" or "Bad" single word opinion, IMDB ratings and the Tomatometer are the indication or authentication to watch a film. That is sad but still not many are ardent movie goers or ready to flex themselves to closely observe the nuances of a film. It is a miniature representation of a society we live in as such I think.