I have to comment here, because, Sonny, you've kind of answered something I've been working on for a long time: "Simply put, it’s that audiences tend to be easier to please because they’re merely looking for movies to be entertainment while critics are trying to judge them artistically."
I've been looking for this answer for a almost a decade. I watched all 100 (plus) of American Film Institute's 100 years, 100 movies. I read about movies, I read Slate's movie club every winter. And then I go out and try and watch these critically acclaimed movies, and do you know what happens every single time, my wife, "These movies are awful, why do keep making us watch these awful movies!"
Now, in the meantime, this informal education I've pursued has taught me how to watch movies and appreciate them differently. I understand why critics seems dislike MCU or DC movies, and I myself even have grown very tired of them. So my last comment here is several times, I've asked critics like yourself on Twitter or email to help me understand this delta, and this is the closest and most any of you has engaged on the topic. So thank you.
BTW, I really do want your opinion on those tweets I sent you about Breakfast at Tiffany's. There is something there, I tell you...
This is something I've been thinking about for a while; that is, the critical propensity to gravitate towards movies that are, at the very least, "interesting." (A decade ago I wrote about it for probably the first time in the context of 'Drive' and 'Bronson' at my now-defunct placeholder blog; you should be able to Google it, I can't figure out how to embed links here.) I do think the best critics try to introduce audiences to these movies and do so in a way that helps them understand why they're, at least, doing something differently and HOW they're doing those things differently and WHY that difference either works or doesn't work.
Roger Ebert was always very good at this, and he understood that you have to judge a movie within its own context: a big blockbuster is doing different things than an intimate drama which is doing different things than a romcom.
Back in my youth, I reviewed movies for my local paper. My approach was simple: would someone who likes this genre like this movie? I wish I’d been more sophisticated, but I wasn’t sent to cover blockbusters; I watched barely intelligible movies that needed a few screenings before going to video. But my opinion still stands.
Yes, I always appreciated that Roger Ebert met a movie on its own terms. For example, was it a good thriller or superhero movie? I miss him and find it tiresome to read reviews that dunk on superhero movies for being superhero movies.
I can concede that a critic sometimes feels a need to turn a review into an essay to address a trend they don't like. Otherwise, though, tell me whether the plot twists insult my intelligence or not or whether the action sequences are dull or inventive or whether the car chase is a good car chase.
Disliking a heist movie, superhero, or rom com simply because it's not an arthouse film is to deprive oneself of some of the joy of the movies.
I would also suggest that part of the difference in scores is driven by the combination of (1) sample selection bias and (2) confirmation bias. That is: people select to movies that coincide with their tastes ... (I can assure you that my wife is NOT going to John Wick IV when it comes out ... but I will) and once at a movie ... most people are loathe to admit that they just wasted $30 bucks ...
I have to comment here, because, Sonny, you've kind of answered something I've been working on for a long time: "Simply put, it’s that audiences tend to be easier to please because they’re merely looking for movies to be entertainment while critics are trying to judge them artistically."
I've been looking for this answer for a almost a decade. I watched all 100 (plus) of American Film Institute's 100 years, 100 movies. I read about movies, I read Slate's movie club every winter. And then I go out and try and watch these critically acclaimed movies, and do you know what happens every single time, my wife, "These movies are awful, why do keep making us watch these awful movies!"
Now, in the meantime, this informal education I've pursued has taught me how to watch movies and appreciate them differently. I understand why critics seems dislike MCU or DC movies, and I myself even have grown very tired of them. So my last comment here is several times, I've asked critics like yourself on Twitter or email to help me understand this delta, and this is the closest and most any of you has engaged on the topic. So thank you.
BTW, I really do want your opinion on those tweets I sent you about Breakfast at Tiffany's. There is something there, I tell you...
This is something I've been thinking about for a while; that is, the critical propensity to gravitate towards movies that are, at the very least, "interesting." (A decade ago I wrote about it for probably the first time in the context of 'Drive' and 'Bronson' at my now-defunct placeholder blog; you should be able to Google it, I can't figure out how to embed links here.) I do think the best critics try to introduce audiences to these movies and do so in a way that helps them understand why they're, at least, doing something differently and HOW they're doing those things differently and WHY that difference either works or doesn't work.
Roger Ebert was always very good at this, and he understood that you have to judge a movie within its own context: a big blockbuster is doing different things than an intimate drama which is doing different things than a romcom.
Back in my youth, I reviewed movies for my local paper. My approach was simple: would someone who likes this genre like this movie? I wish I’d been more sophisticated, but I wasn’t sent to cover blockbusters; I watched barely intelligible movies that needed a few screenings before going to video. But my opinion still stands.
Great column.
Yes, I always appreciated that Roger Ebert met a movie on its own terms. For example, was it a good thriller or superhero movie? I miss him and find it tiresome to read reviews that dunk on superhero movies for being superhero movies.
I can concede that a critic sometimes feels a need to turn a review into an essay to address a trend they don't like. Otherwise, though, tell me whether the plot twists insult my intelligence or not or whether the action sequences are dull or inventive or whether the car chase is a good car chase.
Disliking a heist movie, superhero, or rom com simply because it's not an arthouse film is to deprive oneself of some of the joy of the movies.
I am neither ‘audience’ nor ‘critic.’ Having said that- this is one of your best columns to date.
Thank you!
I would also suggest that part of the difference in scores is driven by the combination of (1) sample selection bias and (2) confirmation bias. That is: people select to movies that coincide with their tastes ... (I can assure you that my wife is NOT going to John Wick IV when it comes out ... but I will) and once at a movie ... most people are loathe to admit that they just wasted $30 bucks ...