Mistakes Movie Critics Make

If you are like me, occasionally before you go to see a movie, you will take look at the critics' reviews of the film, just to get an idea of whether or not it will be worth your time and money to see it at the theater. This was something I used to do all the time, but try to make it a rarity these days, because in actuality, there are very few movie critics who can accurately tell a movie-goer whether or not they will like a film. If you read a particular critic a lot maybe, like I do with Roger Ebert, over time you start to know what their personal preferences are, what their tendencies are, and where your personal opinion usually differs, so you can use that one person's opinion to maybe gauge if you will like a movie or not, but even then, you never know. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes try to make this easier, by giving people a general average consensus on their "tomato meter" as to what collectively "everyone" is saying about a movie, but even this can be flawed, because they only calculate what critics are saying, and if you don't think critics read what other critics are saying, you are crazy.

 The problem is simple. Movie critics don't know how to enjoy a movie. Sure, they know a lot about movies, they have studied them, studied the theory of film, know all the tricks and all the cliches, but when it comes to an art form, looking at it through the veil of your own intellect can sometimes be crippling to the desired result. A movie is an immersive art form. It requires you to completely suspend all disbelief, all connection to the outside world, and all of your own presuppositions about life and existence, for the two to three hours in which it works its audio/visual magic. Do you think critics watch a movie like this? I would argue that most do not. Most sit with their little notepad in their lap, jotting notes as they view a film, and ten minutes after it is over, they are writing their review. They are not letting themselves be immersed as they watch, instead they are constantly looking for flaws, analyzing the plot and comparing it to things they have previously seen, while also taking into consideration the actors and the motives of the director and his choices for shots and editing. Trying to think of all these things the first time you see a movie, it seems to me, would be detrimental to the overall goal of a movie. How can you possibly enjoy something while trying to mentally juggle all these things at the same time? To truly analyze it, you should either A: watch the film multiple times, or B: wait until after the movie is over to begin your analysis of what you observed. The first time you watch any movie, you should really, truly just try to enjoy the experience as much as you can. Of course, this will not always work, because not all movies are good, but you get the point. At least give it a fighting chance to entertain you.

 Not all movies deserve the same attention. Just because you are a film critic, that does not mean that you have to give the same amount of energy to reviewing Hannah Montana as you did to Brokeback Mountain. Trying to consume every film that is released will burn anyone out. Before you know it, having watched thousands upon thousands of Hollywood made eye-candy or teeny-bopper bullshit, you will be approaching every new film you see with an "Oh, God, what is this crap going to be" attitude. A movie critic does not need to be a cynical movie snob. If you commit your time to something, it should be something you love, not something you take for granted as an avenue to vent your frustrations. I've seen it too often where movie reviewers become so cynical they just don't enjoy anything anymore. So, what is the point of even writing reviews? If movies don't entertain you anymore, why watch them? Retire. Take a break. Only do things that really interest you. Read a fucking book. Don't waste your time and the reader's time by simply telling us everything sucks.

 Critics need to decide who their audience is. Are they writing for the intellectuals who know film theory, or are they writing for the masses who just want to know if a movie is good. You can't have it both ways. If you are writing for the intellectuals, then actually provide good analysis of the film, by breaking down key scenes and thematic elements, go into detail about why you think the symbolism works or doesn't work. Don't give a plot summary and a few tag lines and then try to sound like you know what film theory is in your final paragraph. Local newspapers and Entertainment Weekly can handle that. Don't read other people's reviews before you write your own. It's a funny thing, sometimes when I am skimming through reviews of a film, and several times I will come across the very same phrases that have to be more than mere coincidence. If you don't have any original ideas to say about something, then don't say anything at all. The thing is, most films should fall into obscurity simply for this reason, because there really isn't anything to say about it, it just exists because it was made.

 Consider the art. Film is an art form. Because of the volume produced, some of the art is more diluted than others due to the money-making goal, but it is still art. Directors, writers, actors, editors, musicians...they all work hard to deliver something that most people will enjoy. This is not easy. But, before you review a work of art and completely dismiss it as garbage, at least take into consideration what the goal of film was intended to be. If it is a scary movie, intended to make the audience jump during quiet, tense moments, and to make hearts race a little faster with suspense, did it accomplish this? Did you jump when it wanted you to? If it is a comedy, did it make you laugh? If it is a drama, did it make you cry? These are important factors. A movie is literally just moving images set to audio, but if these emotions can be stirred from the combination of these images and sounds, then the success of the creation of these emotions has to be taken into consideration. This is what most people want anyway, to escape from their own ordinary, everyday lives for two hours at a time, to be able to empathize with characters that see and do things they never will, and to feel something other than the pressing weight of their own mortality. If you have forgotten these things, but you still consider yourself a movie critic, then I suggest you either remind yourself of them, or you quit. I would rather read the review of a film lover, rather than that of a film cynic, any day of the week.