What did Bryan Singer got it wrong for Superman Returns where Nolan got it right for Batman?

[Myskin]

So I ask you, why are critic opinions more valid than the audiences who go to see a movie multiple times and buy it on home video?

It's complicated, but let's simply say that professional critics are supposed to have the cultural tools (because of their professional experience, personal culture, knowledge of arts, etc) which allow them to give a deeper, multifaceted judgment about the object they are talking about.

That doesn't change the fact that aggregation sites like rotten tomatoes and metacritic are not reliable, because the idea of "score" flattens and trivializes everything. According to their respective scores, The Avengers would be almost as good/important as Taxi Driver, and of course it isn't. As far as Sharknado is concerned, I can simply suppose that they contextualized it: they can't judge it as if it was a serious movie, because it isn't. It is an openly declared cr@ppy movie, and - within those limits - they think that it is well-done.

On the other hand, public, non-professional judgment about movies based on cultural properties which can count on a large fandom (Superhero movies, for example) are equally unreliable, because the fans' loyalty to those characters can disproportionately improve, or worsen, their judgment because of silly or trivial things (how many fans hated Nolan's TDK because the Joker didn't have his perma-white skin?)

I'd say that the best critics are those who are cultured, and have common sense at the same time. That is, not a lot of people.

[Jim Kelly]

I don't recall that the actual paid movie critics were any more negative in their review of SUPERMAN RETURNS than any other movie of its kind. I do remember that Roger Ebert was not impressed by the movie--and I remember that, because it's the one review that all the posters on message boards were linking to, to "prove" they were right. But Ebert was fairly negative about a lot of comic book movies and other movies I liked.

If someone would hire me, I think I would be a good movie critic. I did film studies in school and I had to watch a lot of movies and write about them--and I even did film reviews for some of my classes. What is wanted in a proper review for an entertainment publication or website is different from what might appear in books about movies as a serious subject of commentary.

I tend to look at the first and last paragraph of a movie review in the paper. Because the main body of the review often gives away spoilers I don't want to know. I just want to know if the reviewer liked the movie and if it's the kind of movie I would like. With someone like Ebert, you got to know him over the course of his life and you could tell what kind of movies he would like and whether those were movies you would also like. The best reviewers for entertainment purposes are those who tell you if you would like the movie, not if they liked the movie.

After all, a lot of movie reviewers are coming from a different place than the average movie-goer. They see a lot of movies, they have a lot of inside baseball information on movies and hopefully they understand film theory and the history of cinema. A typical ticket buyer is not looking at a movie with that base of knowledge. So it's up to the reviewer to take a step back and look at the movie from the perspective of Joe Average. Is this movie doing what it has set out to do? Does this movie deliver on the expectations it has set up for itself? Will the average person be able to follow the plot and is there enough of a pay off at the end?

The problem these days is that you have a lot of self-appointed movie reviewers online. They don't care about anyone else's opinion, they're very much locked into their inside knowledge which they want to show off, and they have no ability when it comes to writing well--although, if they're vloggers, they can talk very fast, using lots of expletives, in a shrill voice, so you have to pay attention to what they say. Sometimes it's like your high school bully just got his own forum to brow beat you into accepting what he says must be true.

The best judge of a movie is the person sitting in the seat watching it. You know best what you like. That's why I try to avoid reading too many reviews before I see a movie for the first time. I want to see the movie for myself and judge--I don't want someone else in my ear, telling me what to think. But a nicely written piece of commentary that explores the movie in more depth, in terms of theory and history, is worth reading after I've seen the movie.

[DochaDocha]

Totally agreed with Myskin and Jim Kelly.

The problem isn't that non-critics aren't capable of writing good reviews. There are plenty of lay people who can do a great job. Likewise there are plenty of critics who occasionally do bad jobs reviewing.

The issue, though, is that professional critics have to go through a series of screening processes (i.e. get hired for the job), and have to maintain a standard, generally speaking, to keep their job. Any of us can set up a blog, and if we review enough movies and work on our writing, we'll do some good jobs here and there. On the other hand, when you look at review aggregator sites and see some fan scores have trimodal distributions, you see clearly that some fans are more interesting in pushing their own agenda than actually trying to communicate to vast audiences and actually dissect the film and attempt to see the big picture.

I believe that there are elitist reviewers who are also kind of problematic, and I do wonder if movie studios ever buy positive reviews, but overall I think there's enough checks in place to keep professional critics, collectively, from running rampant the way some fans end up doing.

[TomServofan]

Agree completely. I wish I could go back in time and somehow convince the WB to get Brad Bird on the Superman reboot. Imagine a film that was inspiring and true to the character but with the fun, excitement, and sense of adventure seen in The Incredibles. DC/WB would have beat Marvel to the punch after a hugely successful Superman film that would have become the foundation of a new DCCU.

And you don't think dark and gritty works for Superman and he's not Batman right?

[Cipher]

I'd say that the best critics are those who are cultured, and have common sense at the same time. That is, not a lot of people.

While we're on this, the best (in addition to being clear and capable writers), also have criteria they adhere to as consistently as possible when reviewing. There's a skill the best critics train themselves in to approach each film fairly, and justify their reactions, in context, against set of expectations their audiences can rely on. Ebert was big on this kind of consistency.

They're also versed in the history and craft of the medium they're reviewing.

Or, as Ebert once said to a college-age heckler during a campus visit, "Would you want to listen to you?"

[The Darknight Detective]

He probably means the the millions of people who like and supported the film by paying to see it.

Box Office Gross of: $667,999,518
DVD and Bluray gross of: $105,699,432
and those annoying product placements netted WB $160 million.





Allow me to illustrate my point, with regards to critics.

The highest rated CBMs on Rotten Tomatoes are The Dark Knight, Iron Man (2008) and Spider-Man 2, all have a score of 94%.

You know what film has a 93% on RT?



In descending order I will list other CBM, starting from the year 2000.

Avengers 2012 - 92%
GOTG - 92%
X-Men DOFP - 91%
Captain America TWS - 89%
Spider-Man (2002) - 89%
The Dark Knight Rises - 87%
X2: X-Men United - 87%
X-Men First Class - 87%
Batman Begins - 85%
X-Men - 82%
Captain America TFA - 79%
Iron Man 3 - 79%
Thor - 77%
Superman Returns - 76%
Avengers AOU - 74%
Iron Man 2 - 73%
V for Vendetta - 73%
The Amazing Spider-Man - 72%
The Wolverine - 69%
The Incredible Hulk - 67%
Thor The Dark World - 65%
Watchmen - 65%
Spider-Man 3 - 63%
Hulk (2003) - 62%
X3: Last Stand - 58%
Blade 2 - 59%
Man of Steel - 56%
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - 53%
Daredevil - 45%
X-Men Origins - 38%
Fantastic Four ROTSS - 37%
Punisher - 29%
Punisher War Zone - 27%
Fantastic Four (2005) - 26%
Green Lantern - 26%
Blade Trinity - 26%
Elektra - 10%
Catwoman - 9%


So yeah, all those movies are worse than Spy Kids, if we listen to critics. Ya know, Sharknado has a score of 82% on RT. That's right, Sharknado is better than Age of Ultron, The Amazing Spider-Man, Iron Man 3 and The Wolverine.

Critic reviews are not a measure of quality. The ratings you see are an aggregate score compiled by a group of critics and their own experience watching a film. If a film's quality was measured accurately, then Sharknado would not have a 82% score while Forrest Gump is sitting with a 71%.



Interstellar has a 72% and it's rated lower than Sharknado too. There is no defense for this outside of, critics will praise and condemn what they want based on purely subjective reasons. Critic opinions also don't measure success. If they did, then the whole world owes Cloud Atlas (RT 66%) an apology.


So I ask you, why are critic opinions more valid than the audiences who go to see a movie multiple times and buy it on home video?

Well, whatever you think of professional critics, I'll go with the IMDB rating for Sharknado over Rotten Tomatoes' any day of the week.

[Doctor Know]

Well, whatever you think of professional critics, I'll go with the IMDB rating for Sharknado over Rotten Tomatoes' any day of the week.

Ahahahaha.

I see what you did there.


Also, professional critics might be too strong a word. I went through some of the critic profile on the aforementioned movies, and a number of them seemed to be internet bloggers, vloggers or people who just write for a website. Also the rating systm on RT is odd. Even if a movie gets a rating of C or C+ from a critic, it's counted as a rotten rating. Idk how that works.

[The Darknight Detective]

Also the rating systm on RT is odd. Even if a movie gets a rating of C or C+ from a critic, it's counted as a rotten rating. Idk how that works.

I'm glad they weren't around to grade our tests when I was in school years ago!

[Punisher007]

The reason why I tend to take critics, well certain critics anyway, is also experience. These people see dozens if not hundreds of movies a year, often from many different genres, places, filmmakers, etc. As opposed to general fans, who may see a handful every year. Heck I'm in the latter category myself. So they have a wider perspective and experience when it comes to judging film that we do. Does that mean that I ALWAYS agree with them, certainly not.

As for the Spy Kids example, you're looking at it the wrong way. They're judging that film on it's own merits. Does it work as a film, and compared to similar films in that genre. And most critic think it does. And frankly, I really liked the first two Spy Kids films (the last two, not so much).

[The Darknight Detective]

As for the Spy Kids example, you're looking at it the wrong way. They're judging that film on it's own merits. Does it work as a film, and compared to similar films in that genre. And most critic think it does. And frankly, I really liked the first two Spy Kids films (the last two, not so much).

The Spy Kids rating is defensible, at least up to a point, since the first one was actually good. But Sharknado?! That's just a sad, sad joke. Not even in the ballpark.

[TomServofan]

Critics usually suck