The Hot Blog

Dave-after your Erik Lundegaard post, my question is this: who are you claiming that Variety is setting the tone for? I don't know enough about LA culture to comment, but it would seem that since 99%+ of average Americans don't read the trades, the only people Todd McCarthy's reviews matter to are film lovers, the Hollywood crowd, and according to your claim, fellow reviewers. Why would you, and critics across the country, feel pressured by McCarthy either way? I see your point that everyone is trying to be first, and that sets the tone for other people who haven't seen the filme, but the whole point of identifying and reading a good film critic is knowing that they will write a review based on their own opinion. Are you saying that small and large market film critics read the opinion in Variety, and decide that they should alter their opinions to appease their audiences, because the first review went thumbs up or thumbs down?

According to your post about the Slate piece, you're arguing that Lundegaard both approached his methodology in the wrong way about the importance of critics, and that critics aren't that important in your opinion when determining box office. So why would it matter to you, and how you write your review, what McCarthy wrote?

Not sure all these ideas actually mix together.

This is what I think, Jack. I think that early reviews that are severe, positive or negative, become a talking point about a film for days or weeks. A tone is set that seeps into a lot of coverage. The obvious example is the NYTimes doing a whole story around an early "review" on AICN.

In the case of Hancock, not only did Todd McCarthy review, but Pater Bart wrote about it, both repeated the "Last Action Hero" line, questioned Smith, and posted both to the front page of the website in tandem... in that case, I feel, trying to establish a form of leadership in tearing down that film.

As I have written over the years, I also think that studio marketing has a lot of control over this problem. I think that if Erik Lundegaard did the legwork, he would actually find a causal relationship between critics' reviews and expectations of the film - via media and marketing, including press notes - most powerfully on the issue of "surprise." There is vanity amongst critics about "getting it" right away... big insight... absolute understanding. And when a movie takes them by surprise, that's usually when the biggest knives come out.

Now... the specific phenomenology of "the first reviews" is, as we can see daily in the presidential race, is about approving an idea. If Variety says it's a car wreck, there is a tacit approval of that idea floating out there. Same if they rave it. This doesn't mean that every critic or even many critics will follow Variety as a bible. But very few critics I know go into movie theaters in this era without some foreknowledge. And to not have any, you really have to make the effort I ascribe to Manhola and others.

There are all kinds of pieces of the puzzle. Had Sony given away the third act twist before critics saw the movie and prepped them for the idea that Hancock, while in a 40-year-old body, is a big kid who needs to grow up, as opposed to Bill Willie/July Superstar, they probably would have gotten some slack. Critics like to be in on the joke as opposed to ever admitting that they failed to see it coming.

Yes… generalities. Yes. I admit.

But I do feel, strongly, that a half dozen or so times a year, a kind of group think takes over film criticism on a national level. There are variable influencers. In this case, besides Sony’s keeping of a secret, there were a lot of hero movies with understated (read: non-movie-star) hero actors. And not only did Hancock come into the week with its own baggage, but it would inevitably be compared relentlessly to the pleasure many critics had with Iron Man and others.

Are the same critics who giggled like 12-year-olds when Tony Stark swished around his scotch and blew stuff up real good now complaining about Hancock being too raunchy… really? Are the same critics who embraced the simple, stupid fight between Hulk and Abomination now complaining about the action sequences in Hancock… really?

I mean… I can completely accept the idea of criticism… but they – including our own Mike Wilmington – are so deeply committed to hating this film and never, ever touching on the film’s not-terribly-shaded themes, and obsessing on this “is it a blockbuster or is it a deconstruction” crap, that it seems clearly out of proportion to any objectivity.

The final answer is… it doesn’t matter to me what Todd thinks. But when there is a giant wave of repetition of tone, I have to check myself over and over and over again to make sure I am not writing with or against that tone. It is human nature, no matter how little I care about what other say. And all of those who like to scream that critics don’t get swayed by all this… they are the ones I really worry about because they don’t even realize that they are drinking Kool-Aid every day (except for the very few who are not).

Horsefeathers.

If it doesn't matter to you, don't read them and don't write about it.

If you do, then it obviously does.

No critic anywhere influences what I write or how I write it. I really don't care. And the proof of that is obvious in how often I write giant pieces about other critics and what they think.

Hint... it's never.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything you say here, David. In fact, I disagree with a lot of it. But I will say this: I’ve reviewed movies for Variety for the better part of two decades. And I can’t tell you how many times over the years I’ve written a review of a film, and then noted some of my comments appearing only slightly reworded (and, occasionally, not reworded at all) in other reviews of the same movie by other critics in markets large and small. You’d think that, with the advent of the Internet, writers would be afraid to do something like that, something that could be so obviously spotted. But, trust me, it still happens.

It's just one windmill after another 'round these parts.

I feel like Poland saw a completely different movie. Or maybe he was high. Maybe he had a bad day? You're completely off the mark in every way. How can a movie that ends with that freeze frame or has the Hellboy and Abe drinking scene be all about spectacle? And shame on you for comparing him to Lucas. That's fucking low, man.

I think you are being too unkind to Lucas, who is much more of an artist than people want to credit him with.

"How can a movie that ends with that freeze frame or has the Hellboy and Abe drinking scene be all about spectacle?"

I didn't say it was all about spectacle. I just felt it was too much size and not enough Abe and Hellboy drinking.

As for being off the mark, that is why they make vanilla and chocolate, Baron.

P.S. Guillermo's vision is really more like the great artists who have inspired so many filmmakers... Giger, Escher, Da Vinci, and others. It's a remarkable coincidence that he is a filmmaker and the comparisons to working filmmakers are more Gilliam and Burton.

Still, my point was my point. And Lucas has become the symbol of too many toys. I think GdT can more than take the low-grade heat.

Jeff: that's the damn truth. The man is always up for another one of his plumb foolish crusades.

DP, you're missing an S.

Posted this in the front thread...

It's a common problem, people disliking a movie because it's not what they expected it to be. I have a coworker, a relatively intelligent guy, who didn't care for Flags Of Our Fathers because it wasn't the 'Saving Private Ryan for the Japanese portion of WWII' that the trailers made it look like. I wasn't super crazy about the movie either, but that was his primary annoyance, that the film didn't match up with the marketing materials. The film Bug got several pans around the office for the same reason.

Of course, as I've mentioned here and elsewhere, it's tough being objective if the movie you see isn't the movie you were expecting or wasn't the movie you wanted to see (I always use the Matrix sequels as prime examples of this).

But then, critics should be able to do that work as a matter of their profession. Or at least they should damn well admit in their reviews that it was an issue for them and thus their criticism should be judged accordingly (remember - as Roger Ebert likes to say, a good review doesn't just tell you whether they liked the movie, but whether you will).

No critic anywhere influences what I write or how I write it.

This is more surface level than the subject at hand, but you did correctly point out the hyperbole for The Dark Knight in early reviews could be damaging. Critics listen to one another, and go from there. Yes, there is shameless group think a few times a year as Poland points out, but sometimes this can be beneficial to finding a film's true weakness or strengths. The hope is that it is never used for laziness.

And yeah, Poland's Lucas dig is barely a dig at all, but more of a framing.

Rothchild, just because somebody didn't care for a movie as much as you, doesnt mean they were here on drugs, or having a bad day.

Sometimes people just don't like movies. At least Dave explained his issues with the film. Care you elaborate on why you think he's wrong instead of just saying he is and being done with it?

Sometimes people do not like movies? BULLSHIT. Most of the time, people come with an AGENDA towards a movie. IF it's not their bullshit expectations that have to be met. It's their piss poor fucking attitude that usually ruins the experience. No one ever just dislikes a movie. There's always a reason behind. Heat just sucks at giving really good reasons as to why he's ONCE AGAIN STANDING OUTSIDE IN THE COLD on a movie.

So when I hate Movie X, I had an agenda and bullshit expectations, but when somebody else hates movie Y, it was the movie's fault for being sucky?

Jeff: you so do not get it, that if you ever got it. The universe would stop for .0999987585 milliseconds. Which is a very long time given universe standards.

The point I am trying to make outside of your horrible analogy is: most criticism of anything has more to do with the person than the art. If you ever really listen to anyone bitch about a movie. Most of their complaints stem from their own bullshit and not the film.

You rarely -- at least I rarely -- find anyone who hates a movie on it's own merits or demerits. Most of the time it's totally subjective bullshit, that makes for hardly worthwhile discussion.

Oh yeah... do not take my statement above as my stating that I am above that sort of criticism. Lord knows that I am not, but I at least try to avoid it as much as possible. Unless FUCKING CLOVERFIELD IS INVOLVED! HOW ON EARTH COULD HEAT-SEEKING MISSLES NOT KILL THAT FUCKING THING? HOW? EXPLAIN IT TO ME DREW! EXPLAIN IT TO ME NOW! YOU HORRIBLE BUFFY SEASON 8 ARC-WRITING SON OF A GUN!

IOI, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but my question is what implication are you trying to make from your statement? Because surely...there are movies that are just 'good' and movies that are just 'bad' and nobody's 'own bullshit' will change those.

Enjoying a movie or not is always going to be subjective. Lots of people loved Cloverfield. So you must be wrong in disliking it.

By your logic IO, it sounds like you're saying that all movies are inherently good and people only dislike them because of their own preconceived notions. So do people only like the same movies because of preconceieved notions?

I personally love that IO tells me I'm blatantly wrong by stating an opinion that he can in no one confirm or statistically prove is correct. Bless 'im.

that he can in no "way" confirm...

IO, if anything what you're saying is don't listen to just anyone. It's never about liking or not liking, it's the spelling out, and when you still feel the way you do, ask yourself if it's your defense mechanism for not being able to get past the thumbs up or down you perceive as being what it's about.

Holy nipples of Zeus! Freakin Holly figured it out. Thank you Holly. Thank you very much for GETTING IT.

Again, most movie discussions online stem from a defensive position. You, or I, are dealing with a faceless opponent. Who we know very little about outside of what they are putting on the screen.

So we have to extrapolate something from this comments, but most of the time we are left feeling like Rothchild does about Heat's review. Rothchild could be very wrong in this feelings about Heat's response to HBII, but he could be dead on. You just do not know.

This is why people get defensive Kame. This is why people treat you or me like they do, when we like something they do not like. It sucks, it blows, but this is how the net works. Until some bright person figures out how to make using video for something like this... not creepy.

Or we could just all treat each other like grown-ups.

Jeez, Jeff, you're really reaching for the moon on that one!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: