Review aggregators. Love them or hate them, they seem to be sticking around for the long run. Personally, I’m not a big fan of these sites because they take away from the relationship one builds with critics and around these parts, the argument has often been made that the interesting films are those that sit in the middle range of the critical pact but what do critics think of these sites?
For an upcoming episode of CBC’s Spark, Nora Young spoke with New York Magazine film critic David Edelstein. The two discussed the benefits of film aggregation sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes but for the most part, the conversation turned to Edelstein sharing some thoughts on the disconnect that these types of sites cause between critics and film fans and though he doesn’t say it in so many words, I found myself wondering if these sites could have some effect on the slow and painful death of film criticism as we’ve known it to this point. It’s a double edge sword since it could also be argued that the sites allow individuals to read a cross section of criticism they may not usually even consider but who actually goes through and reads the full reviews based on the 2 sentence snippets provided? I know that for the most part, I don’t. I prefer to go directly to the source and read critics who I’ve come to know based on their writings/ravings/rants.
It’s a great interview which you can listen to the entire thing online at Spark.
Thanks to Dale for the heads up.
Rotten Tomatoes bugs me to some extent because they flash this huge number at the top of each film that most people (I’ve come to find), believe that this is the number with which critics regard the film. In other words, people think that 98% means that the film is rated a 98/100. Not so obviously.
If every single critic gave a film 3/5 stars, that would make it 100% at rotten tomatoes – even though each critic actually thought the film was just slightly better than mediocre.
I like metacritic a little more as it takes all of the critics “star ratings” and averages them together to come to a more reliable consensus number (rottentomatoes does this too, you just have to know where to look).
Still, both site (and others like them) are useful tools if you know how to dissect the data and look it at it correctly. Or, as you mentioned, it may be an avenue to get to some critics’ reviews you may not have looked at before.
I personally love Rotten Tomatoes (I don’t really like the style and feel of Metacritic so I don’t use it) because it allows you somewhere where you get all the major critics opinions in the one place and if you so wish you can go from their to each review and read them in full.
I specifically love the feature “my critics” where you can view only your favourite ciritcs’ opinions together instead of sifting through those which you might not have interest in reading.
I agree, Andrew, that a lot of people just look at the 90%, for example, in large at the top of the page (this is the first thing you notice on each page) and they think that means the overall consensus is that movie is a 9/10. But I guess they expect you to “know the rules” and realise that it’s just a % of how many gave it positive/negative. However probably a fair chunk of the visitors have just come across the site casually while browsing for movies – so it’s understandable this mistake is made often.
Marina, I don’t think these types of sites are a major reason why film criticism is dying but it’s certainly got some sort of effect. I mean as you say most people don’t go and read full reviews because they can get the consensus from each critic just from the two-to-three sentence opinion that RT gives.
Like you say it’s a double edged sword but personally I like these kinds of sites, particularly RT.
Well, I know Campea uses the percentage as the be-all/end-all to film criticism. Juno was at 97%, thus it is the most critically acclaimed movie of the year = WRONG. This drives me crazy. His favorite movie is always the film with the highest Rtomatoes % and then he uses this to back it up that he is “right” (the home of correct movie opinions – sigh).
I don’t mean to pick on him specifically. Lots of people/sites do this. Hell, I even did it in my post about the five films that SHOULD be nominated for Oscars. But I don’t use it as a measuring stick. It is a semi-useful tool if used correctly.
@Ross – I never said that these sites are a major contributor to the death of film criticism; as you point out – just that it has some effect. And I still don’t like these sites even if they have some sort of intrinsic benefit because they *are* often misleading and most people don’t bother to look any further than the score at the top of the page. And those snippets from the reviews are mostly a joke. Sometimes it feels like the site has a formula for which sentence to use.
Since when is film criticism about math equations?
What Andrew said: It’s a tool.
You either use the hammer to build a house or you go Old boy on a room full of gangsters.
Personally, I’ve discovered a couple of critics I’d never have found due to Rotten Tomatoes. I happen to think that the most interesting films at RT are 50%-60% films because they tend to split the critical consensus. Otherwise, I really have about 10 critics I read regularly, and Use RT as sort of a portal to read these critics, as Ross said above.
Also, RT has gotten a lot more bloated in the past few years, and as a result I find I go there less and less. Never really went to Metacritic ever.
@ Marina: That same argument has constantly been cited with Siskel & Ebert since the 1970s when film criticism went towards the Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down shorthand (ha, pun intended).
I happen to think that lazy people who use Rotten Tomatoes in that fashion, aren’t going to be any less lazy if you took that away, they simply wouldn’t care and probably just go by Radio and TV snippits advertising #1 box office movie of the week.
/cynic.
@Kurt – and you’re absolutely right. If the sites weren’t there, I’m not sure it would make any difference. It just seems to make it even easier for people to go with the masses. Ah well, it IS a good tool and one I’ve used in the past.
I didn’t know that about Rotton Tomatoes, that the % is just the number of positive reviews, as opposed to an actual score. Thanks for the heads up. I don’t like that site anyway, I find it very messy. I much prefer Metacritic, I know how their scoring system works and I trust it. But like everyone else here, I don’t generally use it as the be-all-end-all. I like to see what scores each movie is getting on Friday morning, and then for the movies I’m really interested in, I read the whole page of review snippets. I often find that a good number of the critics have very similar things to say about the film, what they liked or didn’t like, and that, more often than the actual score, helps me decide whether I want to see it. I’ve also found a few critics that I wouldn’t have known about without the site, and I’ve also found a few to avoid. I almost never agree with Salon.com or Joe Morgenstern from the Wall Street Journal, but I read their reviews anyway, just to amuse myself. Morgenstern especially doesn’t really like anything, it’s always funny to read his cranky reviews. In the end though, I have my same 5-10 critics that I read in full regularly. These sites are just the starting point.
Kurt is right that most people don’t care about the criticism, they just want the snap shot. One of the most often questions we are asked at the theater is what the star rating of a film is. They don’t want to know anything else, just something simple so they don’t have to think.
Print critics like to complain that criticism is dying because newspapers are. Criticism is no where near dying, as its become a freaking cottage industry on the Net. It’s just that most critics have little to no presence on the net, and don’t care to have one. Thus, as readership dries up with the newspapers they are sitting their with their dicks (or vaginas as the case might be) in the wind whining about how no one reads critiques anymore. Its all self-aggrandizing bullshit.
That may sound conflicting but it really isn’t. There is a market for well written critiques, it just has moved from the print medium to the Net, where it is more easily accessible and allows for a far greater amount of diversity of reviewers and readers. You can now have as many movie critics in one good sized site as you would have in an entire metro region. Row Three probably has as many as Minneapolis does, and Minneapolis has them spread between 2 major dailies, and alt-weekly and several Minneapolis metro themed sites. Yet somehow people keep claiming criticism is dead.
It isn’t, its just moved.
on Friday, February 6th, 2009, Matt Gamble wrote:
“Kurt is right…”
@Ashley:
“I find it very messy…”
Yeah, it is horrible in terms of usage, navigation and aesthetics. I hate the site on that level. Not to mention it is slow as hell.
@ ’ve also found a few to avoid. I almost never agree with Salon.com or Joe Morgenstern from the Wall Street Journal
I don’t think the point of criticism is to agree with the criticm. My favorite critics are Vern and Devin Faraci. But I wouldn’t say I particularly agree with them. Devin often likes utter shit like Behind The Mask With Leslie Vernon and The Wackness.
I think of it more like having a back and forth debate.
Stephanie Zacharia at salon is good.
Never need to “agree” with critics, but it’s nice to find a critic you can identify with and trust his/her opinion.
Also, Behind the Mask is a fine movie.
@ Criticism is no where near dying
As long as people are look at art and discussing it, then criticism is not dead.
I hate the pragmatism that says rotten tomatoes is good as a tool. It’s the same people who think violence is justified at times. I’m against idiocy, no matter how convenient it is. Rotten Tomatoes is not as much promoting critics, as it is encouraging them to come up with good snippets.
It’s not criticism that’s dying, it’s thought. People are being helped to think more and more, but in the end you know, stupid is stupid, no site will change it, but there is no reason for thinking people to try and find use in the help of the stupid. Just think, and you won’t need this bullshit. It has nothing to do with art, it has to do with selfrespect.
@ Rusty
I never said I have to agree with certain critics, but I do agree with Andrew that there are certain ones whose opinions I trust. I just think the two I mentioned above are funny to read because I almost never agree with them.
Rotten Tomatoes is not as much promoting critics, as it is encouraging them to come up with good snippets.
Yes, because if there is one thing print media despises, is good copy.
I don’t understand what you’re saying, but just to be clear, I am speaking of critics, regardless of whatever pointless real-world media bullshit they adhere to. Criticism is not encouraged through RT, it is belittled.
@ and trust his/her opinion.
do you really think a critic is going to be able to predict what films you’re going to like?
Which critics are able to do that for you?
@ It’s the same people who think violence is justified at times.
don’t be daft.
I never asked a critic to “predict” what films I’m going to like. But to me, a trusted critic is much like a trusted friend (when it comes to movies). Hypothetical: If Richard Roeper and I tend to agree on movies about 90% of the time, I’m going to listen to him when he starts talking about some movie he saw at Cannes that I’ve never heard of. Of he says it sucks, chances are, that for me it will.
don’t be daft.
@ Hypothetical: If Richard Roeper and I tend to agree on movies about 90% of the time
I remember there’s an old episode of your solo podcast where you called Roeper “the best critic in North America” or something. I guess I agreed with him more often than not but I would never consider him a good critic.
On the other hand, Ebert’s taste is often completely inexplicable but I hold his opinions in high esteem.
@ [if] he says it sucks, chances are, that for me it will.
who are these critics?
@ But to me, a trusted critic is much like a trusted friend (when it comes to movies).
I guess I don’t understand what you’re trusting them to do. Because it sounds an awful lot like you’re trusting them to tell you if the movie’s good.
Campea could agree with me a hundred percent. But his criticism is shallow. This was boring, that had good acting blah blah.
I might agree with Devin about one in three times but has an opinion worth listening too. And when I talk to my film buff friends we’re usually as likely to agree as disagree.
This conversation reminds of a social engagement I was at recently. Some friends of mine were discussing film. Specifically, the films of Martin Scorcese and how he was much more “hollywood” than most people acknowledge.
Then they all agreed that Water World was a particularly terrible film. But not as terrible as the truly worst film ever made; The Thin Red Line, which was just boring and had no point.
I just sat there quietly and brushed it all aside. You just can’t expect everyone to have good taste in film.
Then someone compared TTRL to the only other film that could possibly challenge it for the title of worst film ever… Master of Disguise staring Dana Carvey. Then next thing I remember was waking up covered in everyone else’s blood.
Rusty, I’m not sure how to explain my point to you. When I say there are certain critics that I trust, I simply mean that I will pay more attention to their opinions because I’ve become familiar with them and I understand their tastes. Whether I agree with them or not is a different story, but I know where they are coming from and so I have faith in what they say more than I would a random stranger. Film is so subjective, even professional critics can’t help but let their personal prefences affect their reviews.
I find it’s an interesting at a glance tool to see what the general opinion of a film is. Sometimes I like looking at the bad reviews of the 98% scores or the good reviews of the 10% scores just to see who has a different opinion.
I trust Metacritic more than Rotten Tomatoes though. I like their formula explanation. But I don’t use either site a lot, maybe once a month.
Rusty, I’d like you to find the show where I said that Richard Roeper is the greatest critic in N. America. I can guarantee I never said that. There was a time when I listened to the Roeper/Ebert podcast (which was just a recording of their TV show and they don’t podcast it anymore) and found it odd that Roeper and I agreed on a lot of things film. Not just this film or that film, but he liked the same specifics as I did in certain films. Maybe he liked Deja Vu, for example, for the same reasons I did. Sure there were weaknesses, but the car chase was more interesting than most, etc. etc. He also really liked the Squid and the Whale for the same reasons I did. Then when they did the show in which they would pick the winners, he and I agreed almost to the T.
So no, I never said Roeper is a “great” or even “good” critic. I just said that he and I agreed quite often (and again, this was a couple of years ago) and therefore I would respect his opinion more than I would of someone like say, Henrik. I also trust Kurt’s opinion. If he says it is a really good movie, chances are I’m more inclined to check it out than some other nimrod who has a review on RottenTomatoes. Not because Kurt is smarter or has more experience, but because I’m familiar with his tastes comparative to mine. Much like a critic that I “trust.”
Also, Moxie I do the same thing. I love to go through the reviews and find the one person who stands out among the rest. They’re either usually an idiot or someone with a unique perspective or saw something I’d never seen before.
@ Rusty, I’d like you to find the show where I said that Richard Roeper is the greatest critic in N. America. I can guarantee I never said that.
You win, because I’m definitely not going to go look for it. But you also used to claim you never called comic books trashy until I pointed you to the post where you did. At which you claimed it didn’t count because you only said it once.
I don’t think I said it didn’t count. I said you were right and I took it back. And comic books as I remember them from when I was a kid ARE trash. As they have grown and become a bit more polished, they definitely have more depth and artistry. The Superman and Spiderman comics I looked at when I was a kid were shit.
@ And what is the point of this anyway? Aside from your one little “out of context” comment you found, no one on here bashes comic books.”
Andrew James September 23, 2008
Here’s the link.
http://www.rowthree.com/2008/09/19/friday-wtf-moment-stephen-chows-comic-book-movie#comment-16610
As they have grown and become a bit more polished, they definitely have more depth and artistry.
Oh Andrew. You silly silly boy.
I don’t understand what we’re arguing here. I think everything in the comment you linked to I stand by.
I enjoy Rottentomatoes as its great to see so many reviews on any given film on one site. If I like a film and the majority does not, I like to find critics who agree with my point of view. That site makes it easy. I remember running to the news stand on Friday mornings 20 years ago to read the reviews of the movies coming out that day in the NY Post and NY daily news. That was before the internet. BOY have we come a long way! One more thing- There is no one critic better than others as opinions are always subjective.
chuck
@ One more thing- There is no one critic better than others as opinions are always subjective.
whaaaaaaaaaat?!?! booo sir, booo.
There are plenty of critics that are utter shills for the studios (Peter Travers, Rex Reed, Jeffrey Lyons, Peter Hammond and more) and should never be trusted. Hammond especially is a scourge that should have his entrails strung about Hollywood as a warning to those who might otherwise follow in his douchey footsteps.
On the web this is way out of hand, Erik Childress over at eFilm Critic chops down non-critics like wheat to a scythe:
http://www.efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=2346
Earl Dittman and Shawn Edwards being two of the absolute worst.
I don’t look for critics that agree with me, I look for critics that have interesting and insightful things to say. If anything, I’m more interested in critics with a very different opinion and how they got there. etc.
Wow, that efilmcritic article is weird. It’s spot on, but damn it must’ve taken three months of research to put all that together. I have a bit of a problem of publicly attacking people like this, but if his examples are correct then he is justified somewhat. – How about #7 who has two completely different top ten lists depending on which site he writes for (not just a couple differences, but totally different).
Apropos of nothing: the two critics I find I agree with more than with most are Glenn Kenny (Some Came Running and Ex-Premiere Critic & Walter Chaw (Film Freak Central). i also like Jim Emerson over at Scannersblog (who took over for Roger Ebert when he was in the hospital). Ebert is too darn forgiving.
Also, Outlaw Vern is also a favourite, and has been discussed at length in one thread or another.
Anyone else out there have favourite reads?
I loved Glenn Kenny when he wrote for Premiere, but since they stopped printing the magazine I haven’t been able to find him. Kurt, do you have a link to his reviews?
I also like the two in Entertainment Weekly and the People reviews. Their opinions aren’t as refined since they both write for broader audiences, but they make some good points. Liz Braun and Bruce Kirkland are also a lot of fun in the Toronto Sun.
Well, obviously Mark Kermode for sheer entertainment value (I never miss a show). But I also like James Berardinelli – his reviews tend to be a little more rote and objective, but before I see a film I like that, as too much thought and opinion may skew my thoughts or give me pre-conceived notions.
For after I see a movie I don’t have any particular favorites, but I do like to go to the IMDb and just skim through all the reviews posted there, or sometimes head into the message boards.
Heh. Doesn’t #7 host the Roger Ebert show now?
The IMDb boards are a total f’n wasteland of stupidity.
Ashely, Glenn Kenny’s blog is liked on our side bar (See: Some Came Running) – same great quality stuff, with the bonus of conversation and such in the comments sections. I lurk there often.
“The IMDb boards are a total f’n wasteland of stupidity.”
Some are, some are not. Depends on the film and also depends which thread you hop into. There are some people in there that are true film fans witha some intelligence. But yes, hop into the Zoolander message board and it will hurt your head (more than a 3D movie even).
Thanks Kurt. Never thought to look there, lol.
@ Some are, some are not. Depends on the film and also depends which thread you hop into
I’ve found some really smart discussions going on in the Von Trier message board. And especially in the cinematography / editing pages. It’s often people with some considerable background in the field discussing the finer points of the medium.
I was surprised as anyone.
I’m not at all a fan of Berardinelli. He showed up on the scene at a time when no other online critics bothered to obey the rules of grammer and he’s been coasting by on the merrits of his spell check ever since.
He’s Gallant to Harry Knowles’ Goofus. He writes the review equivilant of scanning the rotten tomatos page.
He writes reviews for people who are wondering what the most mediocre person on the planet is thinking about Zack and Miri Make a Porno:
“If 50% of the material in any comedy generates laughter, that movie is an unqualified success. Smith is well over the 50% mark here, provided this is your kind of comedy.”
So enter you variables and calculate the hillarity quotient.
He writes reviews you can read before you’ve seen the film. His milquetoast anemic opinion will be in no danger of influencing your viewing of the film.
Call me crazy, but I’d rather read the opinions of someone with something worth saying. Jim Emmerson, Devin Faraci, and the inimitable Vern (Kurt, you should really check out his Steven Segal book).
I also recommend the comments section of Jeff Well’s site. That bloviating jack-ass has managed to attract a top tier brand of trolls to antagonize him.
Obviously I’m lurking in the wrong corners of the IMDb. Occasionally there is a good user comment or review buried in there but in my experience the threads are pretty knuckle-dragging. I guess it is like most things, the more you are willing to dig, the more you get out of it.
Hmmm, Not a fan of Jeffrey Wells, (In fact I’m so little a fan, I can’t fathom reading his comments section for having to navigate that ‘pastel-grey-vomit’ of a website hollywood elsewhere. It makes me happy on some level that people are antagonizing him. He is about as relevant and interesting as rex reed – which is to say, not at all. I truly don’t know how he makes a living at blogging on film.
@ Not a fan of Jeffrey Wells
Neither am I, that’s why I called him a “bloviating jack-ass”. The comment section is good because it’s other people, not him.
My favorite commenter over there is a guy who goes by jeffmcm. Here’s his site:
http://whenthedeadwalktheearth.blogspot.com/