The Lonely Critic

Doesn't it come down to what you hope to get out of film criticism? You (probably always) and the rest of us (often) want to delve into various views on a complex movie that is worth discussing, whether or not it seeminlgy succeeded or failed in its intentions. Last year, for me, The Reader fit that bill. I enjoyed the disparate reactions: Ebert's discussion on his blog, A.O. Scott's in the Times and on Charlie Rose, as well as Ron Rosenbaum's declaration in Slate that it was the worst Holocaust movie ever made. I found the movie flawed but with enough going on in it to deserve the discussion.

However, sometimes you just want to know if a movie is worth your time and money. When a movie is in the fifties or sixties on rottentomatoes, you're right that it's a movie that will have to be read about to make a final determination. Sometimes those movies are amazing (The Fall anyone?) and sometimes they're just mediocre. But it's rare for a great film to fall below 30%, just as it's rare for a movie to score higher than 90% that isn't at least worth your time and money. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it definitely tells you more than the box office take as to whether a film should be seen.

JE: I'd re-phrase that a bit: It all comes down to what you hope to get out of movies. If you're looking for a consensus choice, for what "most people" are liking and choosing to pay money to see, that's what the box-office tallies provide. They tell you if a movie is popular at any given moment, and the running total tells you how popular it has been over time (expressed in terms of weeks of theatrical release, at first). But there's no reliable correlation between reviews and popularity. "Paul Blartt: Mall Cop" (32 percent on the ol' TomatoMeter) has grossed nearly $150 million in theaters so far. A significant proportion of ticketbuyers must have thought it was good on some level, or word-of-mouth would have killed it off.

First of all, "Knowing" is not just bad, but numbingly stupid. It's one of those movies (there are several a year) I walked out of feeling insulted by the staggering stupidity right from the basic concept of the movie to its execution. Or as my friend put it more succinctly "How in the hell does a movie like that even get made?"

Having said that, the reactions to Ebert's review, inexplicable as it is to me, have reflected the lack of respect people have for film criticism. Ebert has been called senile or has been accused of shilling for Proyas, etc. because of his glowing review of a film that is likely to appear on quite a few "Worst of" lists.

It is, of course, the argument that matters. In this case, virtually every reason Roger wrote to support the movie was a reason I found it to be truly insipid. But I find anything in the realm of Bible code/astrology/numerology to be utterly moronic, so perhaps it's fair to say the movie wasn't meant for me.

The question of the film, as Roger says, boils down to "Is there a reason everything happens or does it happen by chance?" My answer: "Chance. That was easy. Next question."

But apparently it's a question that Ebert find to be profound, or at least he believes it's explored in a profound manner in this life. A thought which, again, I find inexplicable in this silly, high-concept rubbish, but he makes his argument clear. And that's what you should be reading for.

Having said that, I do think aggregators have their uses and that gross percentages are meaningful. They are, however, only one piece of the puzzle. Goodness knows I have detested many a film at 95% on the Meter.

JE: I can usually get an idea of where a good critic is coming from even if I wind up feeling differently about his/her argument or the conclusions. I'm not saying that aggregate critical scores (or even box-office numbers) are utterly useless pieces of information -- just peripheral to the way I approach movies, not unlike trailers or other forms of advertising. I saw a TV spot for "Knowing" over at some friends' house and I asked out loud: "Hasn't that movie already been made several times before?" I think I was associating it with the Jim Carrey thriller "The Number 23" and maybe the TV show "Numb3rs" (for which I've only seen advertising), and thought they looked similar. (Something about using numbers to make predictions or solve mysteries.) But, as we all know, trailers often completely misrepresent the movies they're trying to sell -- because they're just advertisements aimed at target audiences.

I couldn't care less about any of these rating systems (numbers, stars, thumbs or tomatoes). It seems to me that most critics like to use these numerical scales to give a movie some kind of assigned value. I sometimes do browse through websites like metacritic, but just to keep track of the great variety of reviews.

I'll watch Spirit despite the horrendous reviews it received. I'm interested in that film. I'd rather see an experiment go horribly wrong than no experiment at all. It's even better when the experiment succeeds, see Crank. Most of the critics dismissed it as simple video-game violence, but I think it's near perfect, one of the most progressive genre films of recent years.

One of my favorite film articles is this one: http://www.slate.com/id/2194532/

The article argues fairly convincingly that total box office is a misleading figure, because you're comparing movies that opened on 3,000 screens to movies that opened on 300 and expecting that to mean anything. However, look at the per-screen average, and you find that it matches critical perception fairly well (albeit evaluating that by those RT aggregate percentages).

Raw box office isn't the same sort of indicator as critical reception because critics are often viewed as having "expert" opinions, whether that's the result of knowledge of film history, experience and skill at analyzing artistic films, or simply being a writer and therefore a smart person. Tell me a movie made 150 million dollars and I will say, "So what." Tell me that the critical establishment liked it a lot, and I will sit up and take notice. Even if the latter isn't the end-all be-all of motion picture prognostication, it's still a better system than watching the box office ticker.

--

By the way, I also find the films with split opinions to be some of the best and most fascinating. What's especially fun is when everybody agrees on exactly what it is, but nobody can agree on whether that's a good thing or not. You see that a lot with experimental films, like Speed Racer.

It all goes to show that a consensus number is where the film evaluation process begins, not ends. If you really want to know whether a film is worth looking into, you have to listen to what people say about it and not just what direction their thumbs are pointing.

What may be most frustrating about the rating systems you describe is that it is starting to choke out meaningful conversation about movies on a ground level. I have a friend who, minuets after a movie is done, will declare what his star rating is. Sometimes for him this can be the end of the discussion. I know that he is an intelligent individual, capable of compelling opinions, and his inability (at times) to get past some moronic rating can be frustrating. I can recall a time when, living in Michigan, another friend of mine would engage me in a two or three hour conversation about a movie after we'd taken a look at it.

This said, I have to agree with DVC. While looking at rottentomatoes or metacritic may not throw us into a stimulating conversation about the finer nuances of opinion, it can act as a sort of guidepost. I generally don't like to read much on a film that I haven't seen - this is why sometimes I post a comment well after the article is dead and buried. So, what criteria should I use when asking myself If I want to lay down my money to see a movie at the theater? It's here that these sites can be useful to me. DVC is right, though - the system is far from perfect. If people in the general public can begin to recognize the limitations of these systems, maybe we can use them for those limited purposes, and start talking about movies again.

I like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for two reasons:

1: They don't tell you much about the films in of themselves, but they can give you a valuable piece of information: How likely is it that I'll find this movie worth my time and money? Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but on average I'm simply much more likely to enjoy a high-rated movie than a low-rated one.
2: They provide links to dozens or hundreds of different critics and reviewers, so when I want to see *why* people liked or disliked a movie I can browse easily. This has introduced me to any number of worthwhile critics, and convinced me to totally ignore any number of others.

I don't think of RT and Metacritic as a substitute for actually reading reviews, just a helpful guide to decision-making and a useful starting point for finding a wide range of opinion and analysis.

For years before the internet streamlined expanded on the practice, several newspapers and magazines - Entertainment Weekly, USA Today, Newsweek, etc - ran comparison charts on critics' reviews of various films, often tallying them up, devising scores, and attempting to measure their general acclaim. The TomatoMeter is, in a big way, an improvement: at least it links back to the original content.

I think any review that comes with some kind of numerical rating is fair game for the Tomato Treatment. After all, once you've started quantifying any data, it's perfectly intuitive in geekland to seek patterns and means.

As for what these patterns should mean to the reader, I'd suggest that they're quite instructive when it comes to films that are supposed to be crowd-pleasers. When a film that you can just tell really, really wants to be loved to recover its budget - for example, "Australia" - tanks on the TomatoMeter (54%), it's a very good sign that it's a failure on all counts. And when it does as well as "Slumdog Millionaire," you can safely predict that the crowds will largely be pleased (I liked it at the time too, but it left a sour aftertaste). With a film that's obviously divisive and controversial - say, "Dogville" (70%) - it's a completely useless barometer. Popularity contests only work when you want to be popular.

If the meters were really making that big of a splash, though, "Waltz With Bashir" (96%) could be an even bigger hit than "Slumdog." But even by limited-release standards it's virtually invisible in the box-office charts.

I like using Rotten Tomatoes as a good indicator of what movie I should spend money to go and see. It's not perfect, but it gives me a good indication, all things being equal, what I might like to see in the theater.

On the other had, there are critics I really like, like Roger Ebert, and I want to read what they have to say. Even if I know I won't agree with them, their opinions interest me and matter to me.

I think there's room for both and I don't really conceive of one as replacing the other.

I guess I view criticism/reviews for different reasons than I view the RT score or a critic's star rating and I can see value in both systems. I don't read the reviews until after I've seen the film unless I'm reading the review for pure entertainment value, knowing ahead of time that I will most likely not see the film (e.g., I always read Ebert's reviews where he gave one star or less because of their entertainment value - I rarely end up watching the film). If Ebert gives it fours stars, I'm very likely to throw it into my Netflix Queue even if I've never heard of it before. At best, I will skim his opening and closing paragraphs to get a sense for his enjoyment of the film without learning any plot details other than the highest level of synopsis. I sought out The Descent in the theater simply because Jim blogged about it several times in a row (which I initially skimmed to not learn too much). To some degree, the quantity of posts about The Descent is what drove me to see the film. Without even trying, you actually assigned a mathematically high rating to the film! =)

The star/rating system is pretty valuable to me. I tend to avoid trailers so rating systems are a good way to steer me towards good films. I understand the argument of pitting ratings against criticism, but they really are two completely different animals. I would guess that only a minority of people who would (or did) read reviews have converted to just scanning the consensus rating. And surely, some of those high marks in RT have driven people to go see films they would have never seen before.

Bravo, Jim. This post is a good example of insightful observation, plus reflectiveness as to why the writer has arrived at his opinion. Those are characteristics that have steadily waned in film criticism over the past 30 years or so. I don't suspect that aggregate sites like Rotten Tomatoes are doing them any favors.

I find value in reading the same critics' reviews over a period of time. It's one thing to try to form an opinion about a film from a single review from an unknown reviewer, and quite another to form an opinion from a reviewer whose tastes you have come over time to understand. I haven't seen "Knowing," but my general disinterest in Nicolas Cage and my understanding of Roger Ebert's tastes (he tends to be more forgiving of science fiction films -- like "Knowing" -- and so-called "black cinema" than I am) leads me to believe it probably isn't up my alley. I know this only because I've been reading Ebert for years and have come to recognize his preferences.

I find Rotten Tomatoes helpful, because I usually can go and find the contrarian opinion. If a movie has a good score I usuallly focus on reading the negative reviews. I'm not sure why, other than a general disinterest in what the common herd of reviewers are saying.

Personally, I'm always more interested in why someone likes or dislikes a movie, and I'd rather listen to that lone voice in the wilderness, because at least that way I know I'm not getting the opinion of someone on some kind of band wagon.

I wish I had paid attention to the Tomatometer before I saw Knowing. It would have saved me two excruciating hours. I generally avoid movies that receive anything below 30%, since anything in that range tends to be there for a very good reason. But the trailers and Ebert's rave review compelled me to put aside this policy. Now I know better, since the reviews were right on. So good job, critics.

This is why consensus ratings are actually more valuable than those of a single critic. Just because a movie is loved by a critic whom you enjoy reading, it does not mean it's worth seeing (Knowing being a good example). I use Rottentomatoes to determine which movies are worth my time (or not worth it), and then after I've seen the film I go back and read the actual reviews of my favorite critics to get the "texture of the experience." This also works for me because I like to go into movies "cold," with as little knowledge about it as possible.

I think that it can be useful to distinguish between film criticism that is read to give the reader an informed opinion on whether or not he/she wants to see a film, and criticism that is read without regard for decision making, but rather for the purpose of seeing another person's reaction to the film.

Obviously, the arbitrarily assigned "scores" given to films on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic fulfill none of the desire of the reader who wants to read about another person's reactions to the film; that number doesn't really tell you anything meaningful. In fact, even if the number somehow DID magically correlate exactly with the critics' views on the film, it STILL wouldn't really tell you anything valuable. It would be the equivalent of a aggregate "accurate" star rating (and - by the way - for my money, a four or eight point star scale is more valuable than a 100 point scale anyway; how am I supposed to tell the difference between a film that scores an 82 vs. a film that scores an 83?), and a simple number like that - as you pointed out - doesn't really tell you what the critic's reactions, thoughts, and feelings about the film were.

For "predictive" value, I would agree wholeheartedly that the "scores" presented by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are largely useless as a predictor of whether or not I'll like a movie. Largely, that's because of the arbitrary assignment of the score given to the review. I can't REALLY tell, looking at that number, what the majority of the nation's critics thought of that movie. In that regard, these sites are a failure. That said, I'm not at all given to thinking that ANY film criticism can be a totally accurate predictor of how I will respond to a given film. I've read a fair amount of criticism over the years (Ebert and Kael especially), and I've learned that even with critics who I have found to have sensibilities close to my own, personal opinions differ sometimes. The best you can make is an educated guess that you might like the film based on the review. My advice: Find a critic or two you like, and - if you are deciding whether or not to see a picture - read the views of those critics. You won't agree all of the time, but - you'll be better off than if you rely on Metacritic.

I would stick by my assessment of what one wants out of film criticism. I'm never interested in what "most people" are liking, but I am often interested in what most critics are liking. Box office tallies (especially opening weekend grosses) usually just tell you how good the marketing campaign was and not how good a movie is. Again, it has its flaws, but rottentomatoes at least gets closer to telling you not how popular a movie is but how good it is, even if all that means is how popular it is among critics.

JE: "How popular it is among critics" -- that's exactly the right phrase, I think. It's true that the critics are the first people who report on a film independently of the marketing apparatus behind the film. I'm just emphasizing that the scores don't actually tell you what anybody thought about the movie, or even what they liked or disliked about it.

Thanks for this blog Jim. This is the type of article I love your blog for.

I'm mostly thankful we have Rotten Tomatoes, as a tool that compiles reviews and for making film criticism more accessible to the world BUT, you're absolutely right, the tomato-meter should not be the end-all-be-all, just as star ratings don't mean much next to the review itself. But we're living in this 'rate it on a scale of one-to-ten' culture that won't take/make the time to actually READ let alone consider what somebody is saying. (And I'm guilty of it like anybody else, much to my shame and loss...)

In the last week Ebert has been called 'senile' countless times on RT, on Metacritic, in Entertainment Weekly comments underneath Owen Gleiberman's 'Cage is teh suck' article. But how many of those people saying Ebert has lost it actually took the time to read Ebert's review? How many of those who read it took the time to think it over?

You look at those boards and the discussion revolves around how many 4 star reviews he gives out these days... Or how he liked this 'crappy' movie or that 'crappy' movie so, therefore, any and all insight he has, as a 40+ year critic, is useless and his recent opinions are bullocks.

It's part of this mentality of writing things off and/or accepting other things as given to make life easier on the brain. And looking at RT or Metacritic for 'consensus' is a manifestation of that mentality. "Well, looks like they're all sayin' it's junk so it must be junk."

I can't help but wonder if this mentality is what killed "Knowing" critically as so many seem to feel the movie is 'you silly atheist' religious propaganda. It could be read that way, just as "The Big Heat" could be read as a straightforward good-guy-takes-down-bad-guys flick, but that would only be one reading. (Sort of like how "Watchmen" could be taken seriously but I was laughing the whole time... and was the only one in theater doing so.) And Ebert's right that the film's ideology shouldn't have ruined it as entertainment...

But that's just his take on it and mine. I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts, Jim, on "Knowing" but I know you're a busy man and "Goodbye Solo" is coming out too. In any case, I like where this discussion is going. After some heated discussion on "Watchmen" and "Knowing" with my film friends over the last few weeks, with me always being on the 'losing' end, I have felt like the lonely critic.

But what it's made me realize more and more is that film criticism has nothing to do with right and wrong or numbers of stars or consensus of opinion. You're not writing to sway those who disagree. I guess you're sending your writing out into the cosmos, hoping someone out there will 'get it' but then nobody will. In the end, you're writing cause you're writing. The writing is all.

Good thoughts Jim. I consult rottentomatoes and metacritic occasionally, because I am a curious person and want to know what is being said about a film. However, there are several writers whose reviews hold greater weight for me than others. Roger Ebert is one, and has been one for me since I was probably 11 years old or so (I remember eagerly awaiting his review of Jurassic Park when I was 11!!!). His reviews "weigh more" to me than 5 or 6 other critics combined.

I was looking forward to Knowing simply because it was Proyas. When negative reviews starting pouring in, I got a little nervous, but when Roger published his review, I could tell (not simply because he liked it) based on his reasoning for liking it that it would be fine. I saw it. And I agree with Roger.

You make good points regarding consensus and sound-byte reviews.

The big lie that sites like Rotten Tomatoes pushes is the very idea of critical consensus. Each individual opinion is a discrete unit that has a set amount of value to a given readership. By bundling them all together into a single point on a sliding scale you tend to lose that.

But people assume that a very high or very low number indicates that the critics 'agree' on the film. Which would suggest that every critic is evaluating the film on the same set of criteria. Which is patently absurd. What does a 'rotten' rating for a political drama mean if it comes from a critic who loves horror movies?

Taken on its own merit, it can mean a great deal, both to the people who enjoy and share that critic's opinions AND to people who don't.

But as a single figure in a list it means nothing at all.

I suspect that those that value `tomato meter` over essay are　not that interested in investing so heavily for whatever reasons.

But what about those endorsements provided by critics on dvd covers? People decide to rent a dvd based on them. Is it a matter of time before those are shared or replaced with a tomato meter percentage?

And there is a third option, of course -- why not see a movie sans influence from tomatoes and critics? A critic has an opinion. So do I.

JE: I like to avoid knowing much of anything about a movie before I see it -- although it helps if people I know have recommendations one way or another. Sometimes they'll withhold their opinions and just say: "I'll be interested to see what you have to say about it." That, of course, makes me feel semi-obligated to see the movie!

Once reviews are being excerpted and aggregated and served up in ads and on box covers, it's all... advertising. You've seen those TV spots where they cut together bits of interviews with (ostensibly) "real moviegoers" after a screening, talking about how much they loved the movie? I've seen print ads where they quote audience members; they've probably done it on DVD boxes, too.

Great thoughts, Jim, on a good and necessary discussion. I think this is all part of the obsessive online world we now live in, where every opinion (including mine, right now) has to be gathered up and disseminated, even if never actually read. The collective movie reviews are a perfect illustration of this: rather than even take the time to read the review, the instantaneous "information" of the internet can now just give a person a distillation, even if it really means nothing other than a disingenuous statistic (which others here have very nicely explained).

I still read reviews by a handful of critics, including Ebert. I've grown to trust their opinion, and feel I get an accurate sense of what the experience might be like -- based on how I interpret their history of filmgoing. In this case, I did see "Knowing" based on Ebert's review, and I ended up not liking the film very much. I'm not disappointed in Ebert in the least. On the contrary, it showed yet again why we all appreciate films for different reasons. On this one, we had a radical difference. In my personal reader-relationship with his reviews, this isn't the first time, nor will it be the last, that we disagree on something.

My favorite example of a Metacritic reader not getting the review and assigning it an inaccurate numerical value is on the page for the re-release of This Is Spinal Tap. Assigned a disapproving 50, the Village Voice review by Jessica Winter is actually a tongue-in-cheek appreciation written as if the film were a real documentary about a real crappy band that's been shamelessly cashing in on every trend to come down the pike in its 30-year existence.

I mean, what better compliment can you pay to a mock-documentary than playing along with the joke?

Part of the point of reading critics is that you know the individual and how their opinion relates to yours. So you might read something negative from a critic you like, but since you routinely disagree with them on certain matters, or because it sounds like the film fails in an interesting way, you go check it out for yourself. You essentially lose that with an aggregator—you just get a vague, broad consensus that, while very valuable for certain applications, doesn't actually tell you anything about the movie.

I too prefer to go into a film knowing nothing about it (I managed to see "Gosford Park" without even knowing its genre going in, and so was a bit more surprised by how it unfolded than most). I generally don't read reviews until after watching the film for myself and finishing my own write-up. But even if I'm not reviewing it myself, I like to go in ignorant, so ratings can be helpful to me on that front.

Through all this though, Roger has promoted and become synonymous with the "Thumbs Up!" or "Thumbs Down!" rating. This is even worse than star ratings and is effectively like grunting.

JE: Depends on how you look at it. Some publications that don't award star ratings (LA Weekly, The New Yorker, etc.) have long used a symbol to indicate a "recommended" film. That's all the thumbs mean: "I recommend..." or "I don't recommend..." And that's where the TomatoMeter gets mushy. It's one thing for a single critic to recommend or not recommend something, but when you throw together a whole bunch of fresh and rotten tomatoes from different sources, what kind of puree do you end up with?

Part of the reason I go to Rotten Tomatoes is to see bad movies get trashed. After suffering under the weight of an advertising campaign that tells me a coming movie is the best movie ever made and I have to see it or they'll come to my house and murder me in my sleep, it's good to see the movie get ripped to shreds. As for deciding what movies to see, the rating is only one factor. I look at the plot summaries and trailers, too. If it's a well-praised movie about ordinary people doing ordinary things, I might file it away to see eventually. If it's a moderately praised movie that looks truly unique, I'll be more likely to check it out. I agree with Herzog's position that we are starved for new images. For this reason I tend to shy away from a lot of the simple stories about ordinary people. If they could start promising me images....

And I shy away from schlock, too. If the movie looks like schlock, I don't want it. I don't want movies that follow formula with no real inspiration. I don't want ordinary.

Let me add furthermore that I am considering switching over to watching those highly-praised movies about ordinary people doing ordinary things. I think I might be more satisfied that way. But I still have this appetite for the spectacular!

Critics are not useless in the internet age. I check the aggregates on rottentomatoes and metacritic and also read one or two individuals reviews if I like the critic's writing.

Just to clear up one minor detail, when a critic submits an review to the Tomato Meter, he/she is asked to indicate a rating on whatever scale he/she wants to use. So, while there may be some exceptions that I'm not aware of, it's not the folks at Tomato Meter who determine whether a movie is "fresh" or "rotten."

I know one of the major publications, perhaps Village Voice though I may be misremembering, posts not only a "Best of" list based on votes, but also some kind of "excitement" index (I'm getting the term wrong) which indicates just how much critics liked the movies that they liked.

Um, I may not have worded that right. In other words, there's a difference between films that critics liked and films that critics REALLY liked. And an aggregator like Tomato Meter won't distinguish the two. Metacritic will, but you have to read the individual reviews rather than looking at the mean score.

I have to say that while it's fairly common for me to dislike a film that is 90%+ on the Tomato Meter (Dark Knight, Slumdog) it's pretty rare for me to like a film that's below 30%. I can't think of an exception off-hand though I'm sure there are some.

I love lists, I like the aggregators, but it's always the individual critics that matter most. At my web site, I put together our "best of" feature and I refuse to average out all the votes. I just edit the individual lists. Because when you average things out, you tend to get average results. And consensus only breeds more consensus. The sole critic who picked a somewhat-neglected film will simply see his vote disappear into the ether when things get averaged out.

The once-a-decade Sight&Sound polls are fantastic, but you have to suspect any system that produces the same film, "Citizen Kane," as the best film of all-time each time for 50 years running. And I say that as a huge fan of "Kane." But there should be no way that any single film is the no-holds-barred consensus champion for half a century. That's why you need the individual submissions.

JE: For me, that is the real value of RT and Metacritic, that they provide an index of links to the reviews. I've used MRQE (the Movie Review Query Engine) for longer than I've been aware of the existence of the other two. But not everybody "submits" reviews to RT. I've seen them get NY Times, Salon, New Yorker and Slate reviews absolutely wrong on occasion. None of them publish ratings.

Emerson: I'm just emphasizing that the scores don't actually tell you what anybody thought about the movie, or even what they liked or disliked about it.

Absolutely, Jim. I do remember reading some of Roger's reviews of movies that were generally panned, and Roger gave them positive reviews, because he fell in love with one aspect of the film. Be it quirky energy, the beauty of the cinematography, a performance or the dialogue, something triggered a reaction in a person who decided that the film was worthwhile.

I've read many of Roger's reviews where he offered his opinion on the film, and based on what he wrote about the movie, I was able to tell that I would disagree with him. I can't get that out of a "thumbs up/down", a "1 or 4" out of 5 stars, or a percentage of a tomato.

I admit I haven't read all of the comments here, so I don't know (or I'm not Knowing) what the consensus is but for me, I find Rotten Tomatoes useless. For a couple of years now I've just gone by the reviews and opinions of my fellow bloggers. The Cream of the Crop on RT is getting a bit sketchy and the non-cinephile know-nothings that populate most of the rest of the "critics" are, in my experience, mostly idiots.

I now believe most cinephiles are online blogging and most critics are people in the journalism game who got the job "Film Critic" thrown at them. Personally, I've noticed more and more of a disconnect between what the critics think is good and what the bloggers think is good and I think that's why. And with the bloggers I can even talk to them and question them about their reviews. Rotten Tomatoes? It's the equivalent of a tv schedule star rating system used by people who, for the most part, don't want to be bothered with reading a review or engaging a blogger on the topic.

[And to avoid confusion Jim, since this is my first comment here since abandoning my pseudonym last week, I used to be Jonathan Lapper. Now I'm me, Greg. Same blog, just go by my real name now.]

Jim, you've got a blog, Roger's got a blog, how soon till you two join forces and use them to debate each other on film? When one of you delivers a post on a film, I'm curious to know the other's thoughts on the subject, though readers haven't seen much back and forth between you two. I would love to see you two discuss films that one loves and the other hates (Dark Knight, Crash [Haggis]). It would generate additional buzz for the site and without the limits of television, could lead to deeper discussions than At the Movies could ever provide. By the way, I'll be interested in what you have to say about Knowing.

JE: I'm the editor of RogerEbert.com, but we both blog independently. We kinda like it that way.

JLD: "My advice: Find a critic or two you like, and - if you are deciding whether or not to see a picture - read the views of those critics. You won't agree all of the time, but you'll be better off than if you rely on Metacritic."

I agree with that but I also suggest you keep a roster of critics you like - for when you need them. What I mean by that is, you like their writing but don't often agree with them but when you do they are able to brilliantly express how you feel about a film or get you thinking about what exactly are the things that make-or-break the film. Jim is such a critic for me. I think his "Funny Games" review hit the nail on the head and his reviews for "Chop Shop" and, especially, "Half Nelson" are some of the best I've ever read... and I'm not just saying that. Actually, I wish Jim still did do regular reviews. But then I'd miss the blog...

"For a couple of years now I've just gone by the reviews and opinions of my fellow bloggers."

I find, more and more, that's becoming what I do. And I agree also with what you said about the online opinion differing from RT. My own online posse rarely aligns with it. Hell, we can't even align ourselves! Which is an interesting thing cause we all use the 5 star system and we all seem to have a different understanding of it. We understand each other so much faster and easier by reading each other's reviews. The star ratings are actually more useful as a rough way of organizing tiers of films for your own understanding, not everybody else. Just my opinion/ I know that's how I look at it because I'm always rating versus another rating *I* gave to a film. From that perspective, the rating should look like an alien code to somebody unfamiliar with my reviews. No wonder it's useless.

****

Ps. Minor note of little relevance to anyone but in my previous post I messed up one line and left out a few key words. The line should read: I guess you're sending your writing out into the cosmos, hoping someone out there will 'get it' but then it's possible that nobody will. So, in the end, you're writing cause you're writing. The writing is all.

I just wanted to separate this question. What does everybody here think about Ebert's rather liberal approach to 4-star reviews? Is it just me or do other critics not *strongly* like much/ low-ball? Not that that's bad. It's all relative and it's easier to praise something more later than to take back praise. So is Roger too easy?

My feeling is that, although he hates the star rating system as much as any critic does, Roger has one of the best sense of ratings of all critics. (Another reason I like him.) I don't mean that if he gives something 4 stars it undoubtedly is. I mean that his praise does seem to line up with his rating (with a few exceptions). His rating usually feels about right compared to what he said about the film.

I would have thought “Recommended” would refer to top tier films. More than often there are films that fall in the middle ground, perhaps where their ambitions are great but execution is poor, or vice-versa. However to recommend or not recommend every single film goes down a very myopic path. It is as if a reviewer is willing to not qualify their opinion at all, and promoting this behaviour.

Obviously star ratings are a pain, but I feel they are a necessary evil. In a simple way it qualifies an opinion, and it can be a good, even enjoyable way, of trying to compare films and the experiences they yield.

However I certainly object to the idea that star ratings are comparable for different films over time. The ratings must be seen in context and are by no ways absolute. To maintain an absolute system would be insane, and it seems to be one of the main criticisms the narrow minded level at Ebert.

The question of the film, as Roger says, boils down to "Is there a reason everything happens or does it happen by chance?" My answer: "Chance. That was easy. Next question."

In a post in which you say a film is numbingly stupid, it's probably best not to say something that is numbingly stupid. Next question...

That said, Knowing IS a dumb film, but it's dumb fun, and stylish in a cheap way. The only explanation I can come up with for the hate is that the film plays as Evangelical porn; the scene after the plane crash, for instance - none of those people would have lived, let alone run around on fire - it was Christian hell/rapture imagery. That, the shallow, silly depiction of science and scientists, and the film's cheap statements on faith are why people hated it, I think. Other than that, to be honest, it was a lotta fun.

And Jim, the ads that led you to think it had anything in common with The Number 23 might also be part of the pure hate people have for it. It ends up being something it didnt advertise itself as - to the delight of Evangelicals (who, being none too bright, probably took the film seriously and responded to it enthusiastically) and the consternation of film critics (who, being anti-religious snobs, were really really unhappy when it dawned on them what the movie was actually about).

I'll add that while I admire Roger and his enthusiasm and participated in his discussion of the themes of the film, when I finally saw it myself I found it too dumb to cause much thought at all. The film's 'take' on determinism (ie, that the universe being deterministic somehow means there's an ultimate purpose- the strict determinists I've known have been as likely to find the whole thing meaningless as anybody) is idiotic, and there arent really any ideas in the picture. I guess I admire Roger's ability to mine for ideas that the film itself was too childish, dumb, or superficial to really cause most people to think about. He did the same with Watchmen.

But hasnt this tomato-consulting mentality at least in part originated, and extended, the notion popularized by critics of providing a grade-point system? Ebert downplays the use of stars or thumbs but he not only employs them, he (and his then partner Siskel) one could argue made their reputation on them.

You can read the enthusiastic `two thumbs up!` or, indeed, `two thumbs way up!` on dvd covers. Its a handy (no pun intended) gimmick: short, catchy. It seems advertizing is not limited to movie producers. The `thumbs-up/down` was genious - an instantly recognizable brand.

Lou Reed once, during a concert, derided by name a popular music critic for providing a negative review of Reed`s latest effort. To paraphrase, Reed suggested trying to imagine working on something for a year only to have it be `graded` by a critic. I can imagine the emotion must range from irritation to outrage, when one considers the selling power and thus income is perhaps affected by such pretension.

So, you guys started it, no doubt leftover from your college GPA-influenced days (when you were trying to figure out how to make money without working for a living. Congratulations!) ;)

What about when a critic's review doesn't match their own star rating or letter grade? Whenever I happen to read Entertainment Weekly's film reviews, I often find that what is written doesn't seem to match the letter grade they give the film at the end of the review. They'll write what reads like a C review to me and at the end give it a B+ and I'm left wondering what the good qualities were that they failed to mention. If this only happened once or twice I'd think it was a fluke mismatch, but it happens over and over. Unless maybe their critics aren't the ones giving the letter grades, but since their names come afterward, I assume they are.

I glance at Metacritic and RT every now and then but I much prefer to read full reviews. And I find it most helpful to read the reviews of the handful of critics I follow regularly. I know their tastes and thus know how well mine matches theirs or not. Random reviews from critics I've never read before are generally meaningless to me, but if they're well written and insightful, I may come visit that critic again. Metacritic and RT can sometimes help me find that new critical voice.

The column I write comic book reviews for has a ratings system for their reviews, and I often find setting the rating to be the most difficult part of writing the review. I will start with an initial impression of a rating immediately after reading a comic (if it's say a flawed but entertaining book I may initially gravitate towards a 3.5/5 ranking) then as I write my review, the rating begins to fluctuate. As I think about and process the story, the artwork, the packaging, external factors like anticipation or past experience with a writer/artist/character, the rating can grow stronger (sometimes tremendously so) or weaker because of it. It's the process of thinking and contemplating a work of story and/or art that matters, the rating that follows doesn't permit for any of that, and the fact that something can go from feeling like a 5-star book upon first reading to 2.5 after thinking about it a little bit in depth shows the star-ranking system is fallible and doesn't accurately represent an opinion.

I haven't seen Knowing yet, but everyone I know who has liked it or loved it.

I guess the last time you were in such a position was when you named the 39% fresh Birth as best film of 2004. However among that 39% were some very prominent critics like Roger, Maltin, and Lemire.

I am guilty of visiting metacritic from time to time. But usually after I see a movie and hardly ever before. I do usually look at the star rating a movie gets before I see it, but never read the full review until afterwards so as not to affect my opinion of it. By just looking at the numbers of stars it gets from the Boston Globe and Roger Ebert I still go into the theater with some expectations of what I'm about to see. I think it's difficult to go into a theater without any expectations of what I'm about to see, with trailers, commercials, etc. But I'd like to know as little about a movie as possible besides that hopefully it'll be good.

After seeing Ebert give "Knowing" 4 stars and reading the first couple of sentences I was interested to see what others thought so I waited for the Globe review the next day. Ty Burr didn't like it at all so I went to metacritic to see if the consensus was closer to Ebert's or Burr's review. I was surprised to see that basically no one agreed with Ebert and almost everyone thought it was awful. But that's not too shocking of a revelation because Ebert has previously written a journal entrry about the perception that he gives out too many stars. I remember one weekend over a year ago when there were five new releases and Ebert gave three out of the five 4 stars. So he has been generous with the stars for a while now and always gives his reaction to a movie not taking into account how others will react to it.

In todays up to the minute, just give me the bottom line kind of world places like RT and metacritic can be useful. But like you said, it's usefulness all depends on what you're trying to get out of it, (the movie and the review). I prefer movies that are thought provoking and thus enjoy reading reviews with substance because they add to my owm thoughts and help me formulate my own opinions. So while I'm more likely to see a film that gets generally great reviews and I'll glad a place like metacritic exists, I'll always get more out of a well thought out review that an arbitrary number that speaks to a movie's greatness or lack thereof.

The majority of time I agree with Ebert, which is why I'll glance at his review before I see a movie and read it afterwards. It is because he always gives well thought out reasons for why he likes or dislikes a movie, and if I disagree with him I am forced to formualte and defend my reasons why in my own mind. That's one of the reasons I enjoy movies so much to begin with, they can provoke thought, emotion and strong opinion.

Ebert downplays the use of stars or thumbs but he not only employs them, he (and his then partner Siskel) one could argue made their reputation on them.

Ebert won a Pulitzer for his film criticism before he ever gave a film thumbs up or thumbs down. You meant 'popular' reputation. Among people who really care about film and film writing, Ebert's reputation was made well before the TV show became a hit, and hasn't changed much among knowledgeable film fans.

I find RT and MC useful in drawing my attention to smaller arthouse fare that I might, naturally, not be aware of, due to their often limited marketing budgets ("hmmm...90%"). And if a mainstream release that looked somewhat promising (in trailers) receives a really low (say, below 40% on RT or 50 on MC) grade on either site, chances are it probably doesn't deliver the goods. Generally speaking, I don't find most critics to be all that, well, critical, with their ratings; if they were, you probably wouldn't be seeing most critics serve up a dozen Three-And-A-Half-or-more Star reviews each year. So when something's getting roundly trashed, in most cases, it's either considered morally reprehensible and/or (more likely) totally disposable. Now, when it comes to the many films in the middle ground (say, between 60 and 80% on RT, or 60 and 75 on MC), there you probably need to skim the reviews more closely before seeing the film, to get an idea whether or not it'll (likely) cater to your sensibility. Nothing replaces a well-written review, but if you want to be relatively unspoiled prior to seeing a movie, number scales can be useful. After seeing the film, if you were engaged (or annoyed) by it enough, you'll probably seek out other reviews that had a similar reaction, and dissect those of a contrary nature, to determine whether you can get more out of the experience in hindsight (and possible future viewings).

Moving on, I have to admit that I actually prefer Rotten Tomatoes as, to me, it gives a much broader sense of how the culture at large (whether they be long-time critics, bloggers, cinephiles, whatever) is responding to a film, and the numbers (not just percentage positive, but average grade, which is of considerably more interest to me) reflect the average more honestly. One thing that really annoys me about Metacritic is its use of weighted averages. To me, if you're going to include this or that critic in your select group (usually around 40), they should all be weighted the same. It's really annoying to see the average grade of a highly praised (by most) film be dragged down by some critic (that's been weighted higher than the rest, for some vague reason) who's just looking to play the contrarian, rather than offering an honest, evenhanded assessment of any given film. To those who suggest such critics don't exist, I offer someone like Armond White as an obvious example.

Yes, it's absolutely true that a number can never fully represent a critic's reaction to a film, but aggregrate scores on these sites can often help to weed out the unworthy (roundly panned) films in the marketplace vying for your hard-earned dollar, and point you in the direction of something (highly praised) that you might not have been aware of previously. And in the latter case, even if the critically-acclaimed (by most) film isn't appealing to you, at least you can thoughtfully get in on the conversation.

The lengthy reviews themselves aren't going anywhere, and if you have more than a passing interest in the art of film, chances are you'll read more than a few of them (easily accessed on those sites) after having seen an interesting or provocative film. A collection of grades can be a useful guidepost, sometimes more useful than a one or two local newspaper critics who only align with your personal sensibility 60% of the time. Most things even out in the end anyways, and it's interesting to see how your personal opinions align with the zeitgeist.

fascinating that a film is apparently not allowed to take themes of faith and religion seriously, or else it is considered preachy or pandering. today's critics and (apparently fans) would have had a field day with the great american writers of the 19th century.

imagine if Moby-Dick or the works of Hawthorne were published today. they would be dismissed.

Didn't Roger Ebert call Eve's Bayou the best film of 1997?

I agree! Dang I agree so much. Recently I've seen a lot of movies that I've taken heat for enjoying so much; such as 'Watchmen', yes 'Knowing', and recently 'Miracle at St. Anna'. In each conversation the T-meter was used for reference.

JE: So as to lump you in with a supposed "minority" (or "majority") sentiment? Rotten or fresh, regardless of your reasons? That's just silly.

The Tomato Meter is a convenient short-hand measure of sentiment, but as Justin mentions above, it's a tool people use for convenience. When I expressed my distaste for "Slumdog Millionaire" a few months back, I was told by a reader that I obviously hated movies and that I just wanted to be contrarian in order to sound smart and obviously virtually everybody except me loved it because it was at 94% on the Tomato Meter. The same person has previously used the Tomato Meter as evidence of how snobby and out of touch critics are because a very popular film received a low Meter reading.

As for Ebert's generous ratings, I admit that, like many people, I find myself sending e-mails to friends saying "Can you believe what Roger gave 4 stars to THIS week?" To me, the top rating on a scale should go only to films you think are truly great. Ebert sees it differently. Since you know he uses his scale differently than many critics do, what's the problem? His methodology is consistent, so you know what top-rated review means to him - he's given many a 4 star review to movies that don't even appear on his end of year best lists. It is what it is, and hopefully you're reading his reviews, not just looking at the star rating.

Jim, you're just going to have to accept the fact that you're a totally "Rotten" critic. ;)

Rotten Tomatoes is where you go to get a number, not a review. It's like fast food. Remember back in the day when if you wanted a hamburger, some fries and a coke you had to say -- Yeah, I'd like a hamburger, some fries and a Coke. Now, you just say -- Gimme a number three, please. Vital information is being replaced by numbers. For crying out loud, were eating numbers for dinner, people! Well, I think you get my point.

fascinating that a film is apparently not allowed to take themes of faith and religion seriously, or else it is considered preachy or pandering. today's critics and (apparently fans) would have had a field day with the great american writers of the 19th century.

imagine if Moby-Dick or the works of Hawthorne were published today. they would be dismissed.

This is nonsense. Ebert mentioned, in his blog discussion, other canonical works of film and literature dealing with Christian themes - and he also seemed to not make the distinction between those works (say, East of Eden, or Moby Dick [which is not Christian at all, but Gnostic]), and a film like Knowing. Knowing doesn't 'deal with religious themes'. Or at least it doesn't deal with them in a thoughtful, mature, or intelligent way. So far as one can take it seriously, thematically (and frankly this is NOT the best way to watch the movie, it ruins it), it's Evangelical wish-fulfillment fantasy. And Evangelicals have the least thoughtful, intelligent, or reality-based take on Christianity, EVER. And the film's stupidity reflects that. To compare this big, dumb action movie to classic American lit is disingenuous at best. Those took real ideas and dealt with them thoughtfully, and were good art. When they only used religious motifs, still they used them more or less tastefully. Knowing uses a bit of Ezekial (wasn't it?) to justify what, looked at thematically, is dumb, hateful, anti-scientific REVENGE religion, the kind that's never done anybody any good, the kind that has spawned Fred Phelps, violent screeds by victimized peoples passed off as prophesy, and Bible Camp. It is probably NOT best looked at as a Christian film, or as a film about ideas, period. As the former it's reprehensible and as the latter, inept.

"It is probably NOT best looked at as a Christian film, or as a film about ideas, period. As the former it's reprehensible and as the latter, inept."

You spend many words talking about how much you hate the christian faith and not many words talking about why the film is inept. And does anything you're saying prevent the movie from being entertaining?

(What blows my mind is that "Knowing" is so hated but "Independence Day" and "War of the Worlds" are both fresh... )

"I admire Roger's ability to mine for ideas that the the film itself was too childish, dumb, or superficial to really cause most people to think about. He did the same with Watchmen."

Or is the audience childish, dumb and superficial? Should the movie make it more obvious for them so they 'get it'? But I know what you're saying. You feel he saw things that aren't really there.

"He always gives well thought out reasons for why he likes or dislikes a movie, and if I disagree with him I am forced to formualte and defend my reasons"

I agree. If you think, then his reviews are easy to understand but challenging to argue against.

"As for Ebert's generous ratings, I admit that, like many people, I find myself sending e-mails to friends saying "Can you believe what Roger gave 4 stars to THIS week?" To me, the top rating on a scale should go only to films you think are truly great."

I actually prefer what Roger does. I feel like other critics are always saying "I guess it's alright" with their plethora of 3 1/2 reviews. Roger's 4's - in the past anyway - more or less end up being his top 10 list and I always assumed his Great Movies essays are his highest praise, not his 4's. But I like how his comfort with 4's communicates "see this movie" versus "well, it's pretty good but many films are pretty good and...". As far as ratings go, Roger is bold and he doesn't hold a movie back. He commits to his praise. (But that doesn't mean he doesn't have second thoughts later!)

"What about when a critic's review doesn't match their own star rating or letter grade? Whenever I happen to read Entertainment Weekly's film reviews"

Owen Gleiberman has said before that he is frustrated by grading and has trouble with it sometimes. I like him as a writer so it never bothers me.

There Will Be Blood --- the greatest film of the 21st Century. Way off subject, but I couldn't help it.

What film, thus far, do you think is the greatest of the 21st?

Paul--I agree with you. I think you read a bit too much into my post. I intentionally did not say "Christian" because I did not mean "Christian." I also agree with your statements on distasteful use of religion in film, for whatever end it may be.

Moby-Dick is a religious work, that cannot be debated, and yes you are right it is basically a Platonic work. My statement was in response to another comment earlier in the section that I cannot remember at the moment. I was speaking more generally about the state of religion in film today, and how critics tend to react to it.

Religion is used as a weapon (shamefully) by the religious often in the cinema. However, I find that themes of religion are decried in the critical arena as cliche, moralistic and old-fashioned. Not always.

My only point in bringing in Melville and Hawthorne was not to compare them to Knowing, but rather to speak to the larger issue I have with the critical community (and intellectual film goers) in general. These writers dealt with issues of existence and the spiritual on such a profound and fundamental scale that they would be dismissed as "trying to hard" or "not subtle."

I fundamentally agree with pretty much your entire post, but I don't think you were responding to ME, but rather another version of what I wrote (but didn't actually write).

"What film, thus far, do you think is the greatest of the 21st?"

Way off topic, yeah, but...

I might go with... "George Washington" because it's so unique and so understanding and one of the most beautiful films ever made.

Another personal favorite is "Adaptation."

You spend many words talking about how much you hate the christian faith and not many words talking about why the film is inept. And does anything you're saying prevent the movie from being entertaining?

This shows that you didn't read my posts. I specified which kind of Christianity I 'hated'. I was very, very specific. I also said (I'm the same Paul from the earlier comments about the movie) that Knowing was a lot of fun. I defended it. I think it's a good entertainment provided one leaves his brain at the door.

(What blows my mind is that "Knowing" is so hated but "Independence Day" and "War of the Worlds" are both fresh... )

This has been gone over. Those films didn't reveal 3/4 of the way through that they were celebrations of Evangelical-type Christian 'faith'. Now whatever some of the critics have written to justify their hatred of Knowing, what brought the claws out is the religious stuff - and not because it's religious, but because of which religion, and what the message would seem to be.

Or is the audience childish, dumb and superficial? Should the movie make it more obvious for them so they 'get it'? But I know what you're saying. You feel he saw things that aren't really there.

Make what obvious? The people panning the movie get it. In fact as I've said, those who don't understand the 'point' Knowing ends up trying to make are the ones most likely to enjoy it.

And no I'm not saying Ebert saw things that weren't there, I'm saying he gave the movies credit for singing whole songs when they only sang the first note of each. Watchmen and Knowing are both shallow movies that include something about - but don't actually explore in depth, or particularly intelligently - big ideas such as determinism, free will, the nature of time, and whether the ends justify the means. But again those things are not really explored in the movies at all, nor should they be, since neither film is equipped, or intended, to deal with that kind of stuff. They're big, dumb (and in the case of Watchmen, dull) movies. That Ebert was able to take the merest shadows of big ideas these movies included and run with them, as if he'd just seen a real exploration of those ideas in a film made by serious filmmakers, is more a credit to Ebert than anything. He's watching movies right now and sucking them dry. Whatever a movie contains, even if it only contains traces of it, Ebert is getting, and going with. But let's not pretend these aren't dumb movies.

>>What film, thus far, do you think is the greatest of the 21st?

I can't speak for the blog owner, but boy-o-boy, is that a head-scratcher. We've had Cuaron's "Children of Men," Tarsem's "The Fall," George Miller's seminal "Happy Feet," and yes, Anderson's "There Will Be Blood," to say nothing of a few others.

Does there need to be a contest, though? They're all wonderful films for different reasons.

But, those are the ones that have racked up the most points with me, thus far.

nathan m: You describe your friend who can only talk about what star rating s/he would give a movie as intelligent, yet they are clearly behaving in a moronic fashion. Is this the canary in the coal mine warning the rest of us we're surrounded by a poisonously dumb culture?

"This shows that you didn't read my posts. I specified which kind of Christianity I 'hated'. I was very, very specific. I also said (I'm the same Paul from the earlier comments about the movie) that Knowing was a lot of fun. I defended it. I think it's a good entertainment provided one leaves his brain at the door."

Sorry, Paul, that you did. And, yes, you did specify your disgust with the *Evangelical* interpretation of Christianity. My bad. I did not read as carefully as I should have. But you still didn't discuss *the movie* itself much, not in detail using any evidence from the film itself anyway. But that's probably cause you were already down that road on Ebert's blog and this blog is not really about "Knowing" so you're not going there. You're just trashing *Evangelical* Christianity. That's alright though, I got your bottom line: "But let's not pretend these aren't dumb movies."

"Make what obvious? The people panning the movie get it. In fact as I've said, those who don't understand the 'point' Knowing ends up trying to make are the ones most likely to enjoy it."

I'm just throwin' out the idea that others feel there is a different point than the point you feel is being made.

A friend today tried to tell me the *SPOILER* alien landing/ end of the world indicates a retelling of the Noah's Ark story. I agree it looks like that on the surface but the aliens don't say that's why it's happening, nor do we have any evidence that the aliens or a god or anything of that sort is responsible for destroying the planet. So, I felt anyway, since they give Koestler's son the chance to 'choose' whether he stays or goes, they could be conducting a 'free will' experiment of some sort. But, even that, I do not know for certain. What I feel I do know is that there are other interpretations a person could have than simply "Oh, it looks Noah's Ark so therefore it must be".

But what I pointed out there - the aliens giving Koestler's son a choice and the aliens not claiming responsibility for the end of the world - these are subtle things that people might not consider if they jump to conclusions. Maybe the film should have made these things more obvious for such audience members. Maybe then you'd feel that the movie was 'dealing with' its ideas, instead of suggesting them. But I prefer what the film did because it didn't feed me the message. I had to look for it myself.

In that way, I'd compare "Knowing" to "The Big Heat". Both stories seem to be obvious and straightforward... until you stop and think about some peculiarities, what is shown and what *isn't* shown, what a character does and *does not* do, that you start to see another, more complex level to the film, hiding beneath the first.

For example, when Koestler tells his son they'll be together, does he really mean that? The Evangelical reading would say yes. I would ask, or is he just telling his son that because he knows that'll increase the probability that his son 'chooses' to go? (Which could be evidence of something somewhere between determinism and randomness happening... something 'probabilistic'...)

"That Ebert was able to take the merest shadows of big ideas these movies included and run with them, as if he'd just seen a real exploration of those ideas in a film made by serious filmmakers..."

If that's what ya think. I think Proyas is a serious filmmaker and his latest film has intriguing visuals. For example, giving the aliens angel wings suggested to me the idea that angels are about as real to us as aliens - we have no physical evidence of either existing. (Though, we do have the Drake equation for determining the chances of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe...) I think this is what prompted Ebert's "do angels have wings?" question. We've never seen an angel and don't know what it looks like, no more than we've seen an alien and knows what it looks like. To me, that's what the aliens with wings image communicates - or inspires me to think about. To others, it simply means Evangelist propaganda.

I personally think that ratings (stars, tomatoes or otherwise) can actually be helpful especially if you trust a specific critics taste, but I do hate it when seeing a rating without any substance to back it up or give further details.

I like Alex Proyas and think Dark City is a masterpiece (and enjoyed The Crow, Knowing and even I, Robot), but look at that list of films and tell me he's a serious filmmaker. As his career goes on it might be time to admit that he's pretty much an adequate commercial filmmaker, a capable stylist who just happened to hit one out of the park/ be part of a perfect storm.

Comparable filmmakers (to my mind anyway) such as David Fincher (who I actually think is overrated and kind of an idiot, to judge by the thematic and intellectual content of his films) and Tarsem (a monster talent) followed up stylistic masterpieces with better films, and perhaps more importantly, no absolute duds, no films that made the viewer wonder if it was really the same director. Proyas seemed to peak with Dark City. I'd welcome another masterpiece from him but I don't know that he was ever that sort of filmmaker.

Everything else, I think we'll agree to disagree.

eyeswiredopen,

The friend I've described is very intelligent. Intelligent people aren't always perfect, and this business about giving star ratings in place of meaningful conversation doesn't happen all the time. He always gives a star rating, but it's only SOMETIMES that the conversation ends there. Maybe in these instances he really has little to say about the film.

My point in mentioning him was to give an example of how these ratings systems have stunted meaningful conversations in some instances. If conversations with my friend were always and only a star rating, with no further discussion - I would probably find less time to hang out with him.

(Late comment - sorry!)
Had I relied on TM concensus and ignored Ebert, I would have missed two films that he praised, which were released at about the same time - Solaris and Femme Fatale. I have trouble convincing anyone that they are worth watching, so I just keep that to myself these days. On the flip side, had I only listened to Roger, I would have missed "The Girl Next Door" which re-imagined Risky Business with an ingenious twist at the end (He gets caught, and garners praise from his parents).