The US box office spits in the face of reviewers
March 12th 2008 22:39
Before I started writing about movies, I was a member of the audience. Sure, I liked some great movies, but I had also paid to see terrible movies at huge cineplexes.
The consensus in the general public is 'the reviewers don't know shit about shit', with the critics often picking apart certain films that exhibit mass appeal, then praising other movies that most people would sleep through.
I don't think that the critics are inhuman; certainly, even as a reviewer, I have my guilty pleasures... but because I'm a reviewer, I see a lot of movies every year, forcing me to compare new releases to other excellent films that I've seen recently.
As a result, the moviegoing public and the film review community are often at odds.
Last week's take from the US Box Office highlighted this separation with incredible clarity... by the time you read this, the page will probably change, so I grabbed a screenshot:
The Rotten Tomatoes list also includes the 'Freshmeter' ranking from Rotten Tomatoes, which is an estimated average score across all the critics. For popular movies, this is probably on the order of at least 100 reviews.
Notice: the top four grossing movies are listed in inverse to their Rotten Tomatoes score.
It's hysterical, almost: "!0, 000 B.C.", a caveman movie without Raquel Welch, has a score of just 7%, which is almost unheard of on Rotten Tomatoes. Out of the entire list, "Spiderwick Chronicles" has the highest ranking, with 80%. I don't have an urge to see any of the movies that are on this top ten list.
Most people would sneer at the public and call them a pack of wild, braying hillbillies that are finally happy to see a movie where a man clubs a sabretooth tiger.
I'm reluctant to draw the same conclusions - after all, this year, "No Country for Old Men", "There Will Be Blood" and "La Vie en Rose" all took Oscar honours, as well as picking up big bags of Benjamins at the box office.
What I think is responsible is much less dire - I think people like going to the movies because it's a night out. I think they like going out with friends or on a date, attending a spectacle with a room full of people. The movie that's picked is almost irrelevant... at the least, it should be entertaining.
I can relate: several months ago, I attended a preview of "The Heartbreak Kid" at the big theatre on George street... the movie was widely panned by critics, savagely burned by audiences but, at that screening, I was surrounded by 500 guffawing viewers, most of them female, laughing it up at the movie's obvious misogynistic follies.
Despite the overwhelming flaws in the movie, I came away chuckling and was forced to recommend the movie. C'est la vie...
Unfortunately for audiences, the choice of movie to play in big cineplexes is made without your input, really. Big budget films with huge marketing hype will automatically get 1 000 screens in the US, while smaller movies have to get fantastic word of mouth in order to hit the same numbers, like "Juno" did last year.
That's the only power we have: word of mouth. Enough of it will propel movies from the shadows into the limelight, but it requires that excited look of desperation in your eyes: "You've got to see this movie!", you shriek, clutching at your friend's/coworker's arm.
The consensus in the general public is 'the reviewers don't know shit about shit', with the critics often picking apart certain films that exhibit mass appeal, then praising other movies that most people would sleep through.
I don't think that the critics are inhuman; certainly, even as a reviewer, I have my guilty pleasures... but because I'm a reviewer, I see a lot of movies every year, forcing me to compare new releases to other excellent films that I've seen recently.
As a result, the moviegoing public and the film review community are often at odds.
Last week's take from the US Box Office highlighted this separation with incredible clarity... by the time you read this, the page will probably change, so I grabbed a screenshot:
The Rotten Tomatoes list also includes the 'Freshmeter' ranking from Rotten Tomatoes, which is an estimated average score across all the critics. For popular movies, this is probably on the order of at least 100 reviews.
Notice: the top four grossing movies are listed in inverse to their Rotten Tomatoes score.
It's hysterical, almost: "!0, 000 B.C.", a caveman movie without Raquel Welch, has a score of just 7%, which is almost unheard of on Rotten Tomatoes. Out of the entire list, "Spiderwick Chronicles" has the highest ranking, with 80%. I don't have an urge to see any of the movies that are on this top ten list.
Most people would sneer at the public and call them a pack of wild, braying hillbillies that are finally happy to see a movie where a man clubs a sabretooth tiger.
I'm reluctant to draw the same conclusions - after all, this year, "No Country for Old Men", "There Will Be Blood" and "La Vie en Rose" all took Oscar honours, as well as picking up big bags of Benjamins at the box office.
What I think is responsible is much less dire - I think people like going to the movies because it's a night out. I think they like going out with friends or on a date, attending a spectacle with a room full of people. The movie that's picked is almost irrelevant... at the least, it should be entertaining.
I can relate: several months ago, I attended a preview of "The Heartbreak Kid" at the big theatre on George street... the movie was widely panned by critics, savagely burned by audiences but, at that screening, I was surrounded by 500 guffawing viewers, most of them female, laughing it up at the movie's obvious misogynistic follies.
Despite the overwhelming flaws in the movie, I came away chuckling and was forced to recommend the movie. C'est la vie...
Unfortunately for audiences, the choice of movie to play in big cineplexes is made without your input, really. Big budget films with huge marketing hype will automatically get 1 000 screens in the US, while smaller movies have to get fantastic word of mouth in order to hit the same numbers, like "Juno" did last year.
That's the only power we have: word of mouth. Enough of it will propel movies from the shadows into the limelight, but it requires that excited look of desperation in your eyes: "You've got to see this movie!", you shriek, clutching at your friend's/coworker's arm.
| 71 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Maryam DiMauro
Wingy's Youtube
ThirtyInMotion
Filmsi
Word of mouth is always a good thing, and on the advent of such new media it is becoming easier to find innovative ways to get your voice heard about films.
Comment by Theresa
Vintage Culture
Technology Bloggers
Today's World
Borderless World
Penny Smart
"What I think is responsible is much less dire - I think people like going to the movies because it's a night out. I think they like going out with friends or on a date, attending a spectacle with a room full of people. The movie that's picked is almost irrelevant... at the least, it should be entertaining."
You said it perfectly for me. It's just, who can afford it regularly now? Movie tickets alone (assuming you smuggle in food - and that's kind of bum because buying too much candy & popcorn should be part of the experience
We used to take the kids to the movies, to baseball games, Disney on Ice or Icecapades, the Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Circus, Six Flaggs, the Renaissance Fair (yeah!), and Disneyland.
Then it changed to renting a couple of videotapes for Friday night, with pizza, occasional baseball games (definitely no football -not at $50.00 a ticket), occasional trips to Icecapdes OR the Circus.....
The kids grew up otherwise I'd be scouting out Triple A baseball teams (minor leagues, not The Show), and maybe monster truck rallies (still wish I'd done that one though....)
But, for awhile it was really nice to take the family out, mingling with groups of people who wanted to do the same thing, together. And we managed to afford it.
There is just something about being in a group of folks all laughing or sniffling or hollering at the same moment....
Theresa
Comment by mr_tza
Guru of Film
Everyone else just isn't right.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Theresa, the costs are prohibitive, certainly... in my hometown, on tuesdays, movies used to be $2.50. I wonder if they still are?
Comment by Theresa
Vintage Culture
Technology Bloggers
Today's World
Borderless World
Penny Smart
If movies were $2.50 a ticket, and the food the same price it was (less than $1.00 for a box of Raisenets) I'd be there every month, reviewing a new film
And no, it wouldn't have to be a classic at all.....
Just fun, or scary, or even something so bad, that all we did was go to a coffee shop afterwords and laugh about all the holes in the plot....or how bad the acting was....who cares.....
Theresa
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
anyway, my advice is to find local film festivals, pay less than you would for a new release, and enjoy something unusual!
Comment by Miswanderlust
Killer Beats
Ramble On
Hipnotherapy
Great post. I like many of your readers am appalled at $20 tickets. I have noticed that more and more folks are watching movies at home instead. I do not know how families afford an evening at the movies. Great suggestions about film festivals.
For me, I tend to drift towards the art house films. If I have to pay 20.00, I want something different.
Mis