Hacker News Reader

Comment by unfocussed_mike | Hacker News Reader

No, I don't think so. I think they get it largely right.

How many reviews of movies have you seen from a senior, experienced reviewer got a film really totally wrong?

I don't mean "hated a movie that genre fans will like", or "dunked on a trashy movie", because in almost all cases those reviews acknowledge their biases and even the people who like that sort of thing will get the picture.

I mean: really wrong.

In recent years I can think of only one major movie that was seriously misunderstood by a major critic: Cloud Atlas was totally misperceived by Mark Kermode. And even he changed his opinion on a second viewing.

In general I wish other things were reviewed as fairly as films are; too many reviews of things/services are poisoned by motivated reasoning.

View on HN

Movie critics tend to give mediocre movies a bump when they like the message or think it otherwise is politically desirable.

Similarly, critics tend to downplay movies that have a more... blue collar?... appeal, no matter the artistry or purpose of the film. For instance, Taken gets 59% with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. It was a hugely important and impactful film. It basically spawned/revived a whole subgenre of action film.

> For instance, Taken gets 59% with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. It was a hugely important and impactful film. It basically spawned/revived a whole subgenre of action film.

A fair number of critics looked down on that film because it is casually chauvinistic, nasty and bigoted. (I absolutely loathe it. Want to see how that film could have been? Watch Man On Fire.)

I don't know whether you can support your "politically desirable" assertion with meaningful data -- not to say that you might not be right, but more to say that I don't know what shape that data would have.

But I'd be interested to hear a couple of examples anyway.

Maybe, but skimming reviews they mostly seem to think it's boring or lowbrow or something.

> For instance, Taken gets 59% with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. It was a hugely important and impactful film. It basically spawned/revived a whole subgenre of action film.

I wouldn't be surprised if 41% of the general population didn't much like Taken either. I've never had a desire to watch it a second time, for instance, which places it pretty far down my personal list of movies I've seen.

So you can think it's "too blue collar" or whatever, or you can think "it's a subgenre, so broad appeal isn't expected" and you could then argue about how movies without universal appeal should be reviewed, but jumping straight to "they don't like it cause damn blue state liberals" or somesuch seems like a stretch.

> I've never had a desire to watch it a second time

Is that a good criteria for whether a film is good or not. There are plenty of films I never want to watch again but I thought they were good. Conversely, there's are arguably stupid but fun films I watch over and over even though they are full of flaws, bad acting, bad writing, etc...

> Is that a good criteria for whether a film is good or not.

I don't rewatch films as a rule but I do sometimes rewatch films with people who have not seen that film.

There are films like Dancer In The Dark, Grave Of The Fireflies, or Dogville that I simply cannot watch a second time because of the precise, agonising emotional turmoil they create. I will recommend this experience to everyone, and they too will watch it only once and recommend it to others.

Then there are films like Taken that I would never watch because they are dreadful, hateful trash.

I would consider the former list to be beautiful, painful exceptions to the idea that a film that can be watched endlessly is a great work. And even then I might be persuaded to watch them with someone I really loved. Perhaps. Though I'd have to love someone a lot to willingly watch through the end of Dancer again.

I would not be so enthusiastic about spending time with anyone who joyfully rewatches Taken.

>How many reviews of movies have you seen from a senior, experienced reviewer got a film really totally wrong?

Tons. Even legendary critics like Ebert got movies wrong. He gave thumbs down to Full Metal Jacket, Blue Velvet, The Thing, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Usual Suspects, Ace Ventura, Tommy Boy, and many more.

I was nodding along with you until you got to Ace Ventura, which is probably regarded worse today than it was at the time.

It intrigues me that as time goes on, Jim Carrey will become better known for arty seriousness than for the box-office smash gurning that got him to the screen from late night talk show comic slots.

Like the opposite of Leslie Nielsen: a man now really only recognised for comedy, when he got his start in comedy by satirising his own serious roles in mainstream potboilers.

I only wish for the same for Adam Sandler, who made one film (Punch Drunk Love) that so completely changed who he could be that it might one day, maybe, perhaps, just possibly, correct the damage he did to western culture with Little Nicky. ;-)

One of those odd movies where the sequel is better than the original.

Mm, but Ebert is now decades into the past, isn't he. I think critics are generally aligning better with audience understanding.

It's ironic that Ebert misunderstood a film like Fast Times, considering he co-wrote a film with bloomin' Russ Meyer isn't it!

I will have to look up those reviews (as a Brit I was not routinely exposed to Ebert; for us it was Barry Norman).

I don't expect film critics to like every movie, and I do expect them to engage in criticism of films they like, for example of weak parts of dialogue, of spoiled shots, etc.

Unpopular opinion: Blue Velvet is a bad film.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com