Reader response wrap-up
Though I promise I wasn’t fishing for compliments when I asked for examples of movies you’d seen (and loved) solely on my recommendation, it was nice to read some of the lovely testimonials that some of you posted.
You’ve convinced me! I’m not going to give up reviewing movies after all!
Just kidding. I wasn’t considering it anyway. I was contemplating suicide, though, and you’ve talked me out of that.
Just kidding! You haven’t talked me out of it.
(Just kidding.)
I was somewhat taken aback to see how many of you claimed not to make a move, film-wise, without first consulting me. That’s simultaneously the nicest compliment and worst curse that a film critic can get. “I always check with you first! So you’d better not let me down….”
No, seriously, I’m flattered that anyone puts stock in anything I say, and I hope the times I lead you astray are few and far between.
My first reaction on seeing all those comments was, “Wow! I need to take into account how much faith they have in me when I write my reviews!” But then I realized that was looking at it the wrong way.
Occasionally you see articles asking whether American film critics are “out of touch” with the general public. It’s usually at a time when some movie that all the critics hated has made $200 million, or when a highly touted critical darling has flopped.
But the question of critics being out of touch with the public suggests a misunderstanding of what a critic is supposed to do. It ain’t my job to reflect public opinion. That’s what theater polls and box office reports are for. A critic’s job is simply to report his own opinion of the movie, and to describe it well enough for readers to discern whether they would enjoy it. The only person a critic needs to be “in touch” with is himself. A critic who altered his opinions based on what he thought the general public would think would be useless.
So I’m glad some of you think I’m doing a good enough job of expressing my opinions to make me a dependable reviewer. As always, I welcome your mature, non-angry feedback.
(A final note: It was enlightening to see which movies I’d recommended that some of you hated. “Far From Heaven” and “Across the Universe” didn’t surprise me, since they’re very stylized, and you either go with it or you don’t. Some of the others, though … wow! Hating “Waitress” is like hating a chocolate chip cookie! And if you hated “Anchorman,” then maybe you should go back to your home on Whore Island. SO THERE.)
March 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I often consult your critiques before going to a movie and it often affects whether I go or not. The thing I find amazing is how often (probably 85%+) I find myself thinking verbatim (is that possible?) the exact things you wrote about the movie, regardless of whether I’ve seen the movie before or after I’ve read your critique. How do you get so spot on with your descriptions? Get out of my head! (just kidding)
March 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I use your reviews to help me determine what movies to see too. That NOT to say I agree with you on everything. There are some quirky elements in your opinions that don’t jive with me. However, I find your reviews have a consistent clear tone and well defined opinions, which makes it easy for me to compare them against my own set of movie opinions. I read all of them and on some points I know I will agree with you, and on some I know I will think the opposite.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
What makes you dependable is that you write independently of outside influences. Not just from what you think the masses will like, as you said in this post, but also from what your fellow industry geeks will think.
While you often agree with what other reviewers say, there are numerous instances where you review a film and say something to the effect of –It actually isn’t that bad. It does what it set out to do and it turned out all right–. “Nancy Drew”, for example, which was almost universally panned by everyone else, you said was a fun little movie. Not A material by any means, but not C or below either. I took my two girls to see it and we all enjoyed it. It was exactly what you said it was. You didn’t play the “I’m too cool to say this movie is okay” role which is what I despise about many movie reviewers (honestly people, if you’re not Pauline Kale, give it up–not everyone can be as scathingly cool).
Also, you’re not afraid to say a movie that was universally praised is actually not that good. “Crash”, for instance. It had a great message, but it just wasn’t believable enough to be as poignant as everyone said it was. I should have listened to you.
Finally, I’ll just add myself your loyalty list. I don’t see any movie until I’ve read your recommendation. One problem: I hate waiting until Friday morning!
March 5th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
as to whether or not movie critics are out of touch with the public…if they ever were, i think the gap may be closing, at least somewhat, due to the fact that “the public” is perhaps becoming more versed in the exercise and discourse of artistic criticism. as late as ten years ago, most of what people could turn to were ebert, maltin, and their ilk (not bad sources by any stretch), but now there are seemingly infinite and more readily accesible sources of film criticism and art criticism in general. last year as i read comments to movie reviews and listened to water-cooler conversations about No Country and There Will be Blood, i was surprised at the advanced level of discourse surrounding these two movies. that may be saying more about the merit of these movies than the relative artistic intelligence of “the public”, but i suspect there is generally more familiarity with your craft than there used to be.
not to say you should stsop what you’re doing at all…me and my blackberry need you on our next trip to the redbox.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
“The only person a critic needs to be “in touch†with is himself. ”
Please, sir! There are ladies present!!
March 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
You bring up an interesting topic. You say a critic has only to be “in touch” with himself an not necessarily “in touch” with public opinion.
To truly trust a critic, a reader must believe that the critic is free from outside influence. and that he speaks without any hidden secondary agenda (e.g. promote a film to a get a printed poster quote or to return a favor for a paid-for junket trip.)
However, if a critic stays true to himself but regularly falls out of step with public opinion, he is in danger of losing respect and losing readers. If he alters his opinion to match those of others then he loses credibility; if he keeps it he loses relevance.
A good critic still has to speak to the common person. Or if not common, at least to a specific group that he represents. The critic’s role is that of the scout who goes ahead of the party and then reports what he finds; warning of danger, or reporting good tidings. If he regularly fails to warn of impending danger, or conversely, warns of danger where there is none, he will quickly be replaced by another, more trusted scout.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
“A critic who altered his opinions based on what he thought the general public would think would be useless.”
I’m sure that if that critic was always spot on, the studios would love him - hire him to internally evaluate movies, and forecasts would be much more accurate.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Whew! Thanks for hanging in there, Eric. I feared that all that “Waitress” hate might drive you to abandon your writing career and open your own pie shop just to prove everyone wrong. I’m not sure how that works, but my point is that pie is delicious.
If every review you wrote was in line with public opinion, we would be so bored! We would never see comment gems such as those in response to your review of “The Covenant,” and we would have thought that “Crash” was a good movie. Plus we would call you a sell-out behind your back.
I love lamp.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Oh, really? Eric wasn’t a fan of “Crash?” Yay! After I watched it, I wondered what the big deal was. It was okay, I guess, but definitely not best picture material. Going to read the review right now…
March 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
…going back to my home on Whore Island. I didn’t really like Anchorman.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
You know, “Anchorman” was really, really good, but even I had to think “WHOA!” when I saw how much Eric loved it.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Oh man. Anchorman STILL makes me laugh.
I have taken to also looking at RottenTomatoes.com — I find that very useful (although you have to be careful reading random reviews — some people have no idea how to review without spoiling).
March 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
whore island huh… It’s gonna look really funny on my christmas cards as a return address.
It’s true that I don’t always agree with Eric, but I do appretiate that I can generally tell from his reviews if I will like the show or not…that’s all I need. Especially since here on whore island we don’t get a lot of different media.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I see a movie based on what I gather from the following criteria:
1. What the story is.
2. Who is in it.
3. Who directs.
4. The trailer.
5. Any buzz (which includes asking Eric what he’s heard).
6. Its Metacritic and/or RottenTomatoes score.
7. Eric’s review.
I rarely read any other complete reviews of a movie.
Interestingly enough, when I reviewed movies for a paper that shall remain nameless in this post, Eric and I often had the same or similar letter grades for it.
And he’s talked me out of suicide 11 times. (Kidding.)
March 5th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I’m sorry. I gotta say it. I LOVED CRASH. I don’t care if the film had a bad view of the public in general. I don’t care if it was contrived/coincidental. That movie MOVED me. I hadn’t felt that much emotion in a film since “The Shawshank Redemption”. I lived in LA at the time I saw the film and it truly resonated with me. Of all of the films that year, “Crash” really did stand out, and I was very happy it won Best Picture.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:17 am
How about a time I didn’t listen to you?
I remember when I thought to myself, “Hmm, maybe Eric is wrong about Man of the Year…” I cry myself to sleep each night thinking about the ten bucks I could have spent elsewhere…
March 6th, 2008 at 4:00 am
I religiously refer to your reviews Eric and we rarely don’t see eye to eye. The only “meh” to your “wow” I can think of recently is A History Of Violence but then again I looked eye to groin [or whatever] with lots of other reviewers over that one too.
My wife used to tease me about my strict habit of never choosing to watch a film that hadn’t been ok’d by Eric and a few other select critics [regarded as slightly obsessive and weird in my neck of hicksville Australia] but recently I have caught her out by asking me “what did that Snider guy say about this one?” as we peruse titles in the DVD store.
A victory for Eric. A victory for me. A victory for common sense and nerdiness.
March 6th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Most of Eric’s reviews are on the money. I wouldn’t have watched the Waitress, if not for his review. It was one of those movies my wife wanted to see and I could’ve gotten out of it based on the Sci-Fi Movie rule, where she doesn’t have to go to Sci-Fi movies with me if I don’t have to watch chick flicks, but I figured if Eric says its as sweet as a baby chick dipped in honey, then I’ll give it a shot.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:39 am
The most important thing Eric does is provide well thought out opinions of movies. I may agree or disagree with his ratings, but I know from his review of a movie that he has thought about the movie, its “message,” and its success in telling that “message.”
I often read Orson Scot Cards “blog” to get his opinion on books, but I don’t like his review of movies. He seems to think if a movie has a social commentary or entertains his 8 year old daughter, it’s a good movie. Read his comments on the movie “Why Did I Get Married?” here: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2007-10-21.shtml.
He seems to be saying it’s a good film because it has a good message, not because it’s a good film.”
I don’t mean to go on a tangent criticizing Mr. Card, I respect his work and have probably read every book he’s written, my point is he’s blinded by the “good message” and doesn’t realize the movie sucks.
From Eric’s review: “”Why Did I Get Married?” is blunt and ungraceful in the way it presents its messages.”
See? Even though Eric probably agrees that married people shouldn’t cheat on each other, he was able to see past the “good message” and see the “bad movie”
Anyway, thanks Eric.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I don’t watch a lot of movies, but I will watch any movie that Eric gives an A or A-, regardless of how uninteresting it seems, because I know he reserves those grades for films that are well made.
I like Eric’s reviews because he focuses on quality, and whether a film succeeds at what it’s trying to do. Whenever I watch a well made film, I’m glad I did, regardless of what it was about or whether I “agreed” with it, and Eric has an eye for well made films.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
It’s funny, I rented Bend It Like Beckem for myself based on your recommendation. I assumed the Husband wouldn’t care for it so planned on watching it alone. Then the husband asked, “Well, what did that Snider guy say about it?” He watched it with me based on that alone. And he loved it and was summarily insulted that I was going to watch it without him. Go figure.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I use Eric’s reviews in almost all of my movie decisions. Even if I watch a movie without knowing Eric’s review, I almost always go to the review after the movie is over (or sometimes while the movie is playing if we rented the dvd).
Thinking about all this brought up a question in my mind:
Eric has never given a movie an A+. Is that grade so very rare that no movie so far has actually attained that status? Or is it just not a grade contained within his rating system?
March 12th, 2008 at 8:46 am
I will echo the many who regularly consult Eric’s reviews before seeing a movie, and pretty religiously read new reviews to see if I’m missing anything good. And I appreciate that Eric is consistent…I know where our opinions will regularly differ: I absolutely love chick flicks. If Eric gave it a C or higher, I will probably enjoy it thoroughly. Also, I cannot understand his love for Will Ferrell…the only movie that I have honestly really liked him in was Stranger Than Fiction. All his other movies are funny for about 30 min., then become incredibly boring…a 15 min SNL skit drug out way past the joke is funny. And yes, that included Anchorman. Other movies that got a “meh” response from me that Eric loved were the oft-mentioned (in these last few threads) History of Violence and also Eastern Promises (I hope I am correctly remembering that those were directed by the same person). Both of them had wonderful performances by Viggo, whom I adore, but left me with a “that’s it?!” feeling at the end.
On the other hand, I absolutely adored Juno and Waitress, both of which I may not have seen except for Eric’s reviews. In fact, Stranger Than Fiction may be in that group, too…although I do love Emma Thompson, and that may have eventually overcome my non-affection for Will Ferrell eventually.
I apologize for the long uber-post. I was much to lazy to respond to each thread individually
March 12th, 2008 at 8:47 am
and wow..please also ignore my redundancy and typos…see what I get for not re-reading before hitting ‘post’