It is always uncomfortable when you have a “connection” to a film artist and that person either creates or has applied skills into a film you do not like.
How does one navigate this? Carefully.
Some enjoy this game. I do not. If I have a connection, no matter how fragmented or casual, I usually opt to say / write nothing. This is most especially true of this blog. As I make no money for anything I write/do I am not under the sort of pressures to conform or restrain my opinions. I am just not comfortable writing negative feedback when I know someone connected to a project will read it here. I’ve even become cautious on my Letterboxd account. But some of the ratings and comments I’ve made on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes has come back to haunt me. When RT first came around, I didn’t really apply much thought into how the site was calculating film reviews and user ratings. I’ve been surprised at how harshly I’ve rated some films and how grandly I’ve rated others. …in comparison.
Yes. I’ve contributed to the dreaded Film Criticism by Consensus. This idea has been spreading throughout the Film Theory community for quite a while. It can most likely be traced back to that moment that Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert sat down together. More or less, this is when the simplistic and problematic Film Judgement by Consensus started. In theory it seems like a valid approach. Sadly, in practice it is flawed, harmful and unfair. Even more so now that we can all be Film Critics and our ratings are tallied by a computer program. But the end-user ratings are not near as worrying when you really look into RT logic applied to paid Film Critics.
When Movie Holics posted this clip, they summed up the issue with Film Ranking by Consensus with humor, intelligence and logic. Their topic is Josh Trank’s much maligned, Fantastic Four. Take a look:
I’m a fan of Movie Holics. Founded by Kyler Wilson and Monica Kocurek, this YouTube Channel provides encaging, entertaining and most importantly — insightful and valid Film Theory application. Kyler Wilson is a skilled and professional filmmaker. A working Film Actor, professional Crew Member and aspiring filmmaker, Kyler Wilson offers opinions that are solidly grounded in both arenas of Film Buff and Film Artist. Monica Kocurek also brings grounded logic and humor that fit in perfectly within his framework.
Often a counter-perspective and love of movies that matches Wilson’s, she holds her own. Together and separately, these two self-admitted Movie Holics are knowledgeable and entertaining. These two individuals are clearly serious film buffs with a sense of humor. Always fun and filled with ideas, their postings are always of interest. It is also important to note that they are often focused on offering view-points into current and big-studio projects. If ever the major studios were confused, it is now.
And Kyler and Monica put forward logic which is desperately needed within the film industry.
If you are unaware of them, take a few minutes to check out the short episode linked below.
To those of you in the industry, please check Movie Holics out.
Yes, you. You know who you are.
Another important side note regarding Movie Holics: Kyler Wilson often discusses the current mode of major studio film promotion. His critique of film trailers is of particular interest. Aside from being entertaining, he points out some on-going blunders that studio marketing continues to make. There are some very logical insights here that Major Film Studios are completely lacking.
Adding my own perspective regarding the current state of the Movie Preview: A trend which I first noted in the mid-1980’s is this seeming need to show us the entire film in one preview. This is a mistake. Let’s bring back a bit of mystery. An example of this problem is cited with the trailer / preview for Guillermo del Toro’s Crimson Peak. I had been quite curious to see this new film which boasts a very impressive cast including Jessica Chastain, Tom Hiddleston and Mia Wasikowska. It also sounded like a sort of old-school bit of Gothica Horror. Sadly, the new trailer shows what appears to be the entire movie. Once again Chastain appears trapped in the role of “The Scary Bitch.” Mia Wasikowska is once again cast as some lame and fragile sort of costumed romantic ideal of 19th Century little girl lost.
Tom Hiddleston looks as if he has either been covered in a white sort of powder or digitally “enhanced” to serve as a living cartoon. Actually, Crimson Peak appears to be a movie filled with the sort of CGI effects to which I’ve grown increasing indifferent. I no longer plan on paying to see this film. I will wait till it shows up on Amazon Prime, Hulu or Netflix streaming. $20 to $30 is too much to spend on the movie that Legendary Pictures appears to be promoting. I feel as if I’ve already seen it and I was annoyed by what I saw. Could this just be poor marketing or is what we see what we will get?
The cost of a movie ticket, popcorn and parking is too high to risk.
But I digress — back on mark full-stop: Film Criticism.
Film Criticism took an uplift with a critic like Pauline Kael. Much to her annoyance, she ended up playing a role in turning the world of movies to Film Art. It took an even greater uplift when Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert starting giving “Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down.” This uplift brought Film Art to a more mainstream audience. But, it came with a price. Many began to adapt to the idea that a film can or even should be dismissed with a casual Thumbs Down or embraced by a Thumbs Up.
I remember a friend opting not to see Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven because Siskel gave the movie a Thumbs Down. I was unable to convince him otherwise. Earlier at the beginning of middle school, several friends avoided Sam Rami’s 1981’s classic Evil Dead because both celebrity critics gave it Two Thumbs Down. One will be surprised to discover many of the films that were given Thumbs Up. Roger Ebert saw fit to give Barbra Streisand’s schizophrenically-flawed 1996 film, The Mirror Has Two Faces, a Thumps Up.
The problem with these short, witty and often troubling criticism notched down to a simple turn of a thumb is that it is tragically misleading.
Example: Eastwood’s Unforgiven is as much a crowd-pleasing bit of Old School Hollywood Epic Western, as it is also a dark and often subversive take on human cruelty and vengeance. While the lines between the Good and Bad Guys are clear, the identity of race, plight of women and the tragedy of violence is explored in a new sort of way. This was a true turning point for Clint Eastwood as a filmmaker. In my opinion this film works quite well and has actually aged even better. It has some flaws that often come when movie actors turn into film directors, but this is a solid work. To dismiss it with a Thumps Down is not even logical. Yet, Gene Siskel felt it deserved him to turn that thumb down. If you actually watch Siskel discuss this film, he does acknowledge what the film is attempting to do. He appears to even be impressed with many of the films’ scenes, performances and ideas.
In the end, Siskel’s issue is that the film simply didn’t fully register for him as something as new and bold as what he anticipated. He questioned the need for one of the film’s characters. While Siskel’s review is far from a cheer for Eastwood’s success, it is also not a total slap-down. When Siskel opted to put his Thumb Down it doesn’t seem to be intended as strong as it implied. Years later, the late critic’s review still stands. It is one of the few bad reviews, yet it really isn’t “bad.”
Roger Ebert did not adore Barbra Streisand’s ill-fitting The Mirror Has Two Faces, but he did see some interesting ideas explored and an even more interesting bit of introspection from a powerful movie star about aging and cultural perceptions of beauty. He also saw a good deal of charisma and comic timing. He gave this film a Thumps Up. Ebert has some valid points, Streisand’s odd film does bring up some interesting ideas about beauty, aging, women and relationships between sisters, mother and men. She had also assembled a great cast of players.
Paradoxically, this movie quickly takes an extreme turn away from the gentle comedy and idea it seemed to be forming. It was as if Streisand had a total Movie Superstar Mid-Life Break during filming. Just as the movie seems to be falling into an entertaining and interesting concept, it sputters and teeters. Streisand and her character lose all sense of humor. Suddenly she makes a non-sensical oppositional turn from the core idea of her movie. Without warning, the main character suddenly decides she needs to kick off every attractive aspect of herself to fit into some grim idea of womanhood. The character stops eating, joking, loses weight and transforms from an attractive hairstyle and clothing into some perverse idea of what Streisand must think is hot. Essentially, she morphs into a Mafia Housewife Gone to Seed. Worse yet, Jeff Bridges and every male character in the movie are suddenly falling all over themselves to sex her up. The film is not good. If one actually watches or reads Ebert’s review, it is surprising that it assigned a Thumps Up as the review is more one of puzzlement ends up forming a sort of cinematic peripheral interest.
Another film that Siskel & Ebert both gave two Thumps Down is 1986’s Short Circuit. This silly and innocent little film is not offensively bad. It is more than a bet “twee” but it does offer a harmless bit of entertainment. No great work of art, but hardly what one could call a “bad movie.” Like both of these legendary Film Critics, I’d be inclined to warn that John Badham’s film is approached in an entirely different manner than we would normally expect. This is no WarGames, but Short Circuit was never intended to be another WarGames. Instead, with Short Circuit John Badham was simply seeking to entertain. Most importantly, his target audience was children. Siskel & Ebert react almost like children themselves. They are upset that the director has stepped off an expected track and into family entertainment. Tragically, the movie’s promotion misleads one to think this could be an extension of WarGames.
In truth, the use of their thumbs do not fully jive with their full respective reviews. Gene Siskel has some legitimate issues with the final act of WarGames. For him, WarGames attempts to be more than it should. Yet, he gave the Thumbs Up for WarGames. When it comes to actually reading/listening to their opinions regarding Short Circuit, their Thumbs Down ratings don’t exactly match up. Roger Ebert was clearly entertained by a lot of the ideas of the robot as “character” and Siskel’s perspective is more limited to wanting the silly movie about a robot to be more than it is.
This idea of summing the artistic value of a film with such a simplistically limited value allowed movie studios to hype praise that really was not there. It also served to cause films to completely flop because so many followed those thumbs so closely.
Which brings us to Rotten Tomatoes.
I’ve always thought of Rotten Tomatoes as the more mannered and mature sister to The Internet Movie Database. IMDB is an excellent source of information related to just about every film ever made. But IMDB is a cyber hussy.
Anyone can join and scrawl their opinions on her walls. User Reviews on IMDB run the gamut from Would-Be-Cinephilles like myself to the lowest of the low. User Ratings on IMDB can offer great insight into the validity of a film as much as they are prone to offer profane rants about an actor’s physical anatomy to wishing death upon anyone who likes or hates the movie.
When one looks and sorts through information posted by her users, IMDB is turns into a deeply disturbing view of human stupidity. And pity the soul who attempts to write something of value, that person is likely to get flamed hard. However, if you want to know the date a movie came out or where it was filmed or who was in it — this cheap little tart is your girl! She is more than happy to give you all the information that her servers can hold.
Rotten Tomatoes is a great deal more refined. She sorts out “official” Film Critics, from independent/online Film Critics with some cred and then allows all of her users to rate and post their reviews. Rotten Tomatoes seems to attract less human profanity and cruelty. But here is the odd thing about RT, she employs an overall rounded-estimate based on a 5 Star System ranking. She has been doing this for quite a while. If a paid Film Critic is smart, they know to give a rating based on her 5 Star System or they have no choice but to accept her assessment of their words and her often questionable rating. Several critics still fail to offer a clear rating for poor RT to be able to tabulate. She has no choice but to assign it herself. And while Rotten Tomatoes may be more refined than IMDB, she is pretty limited.
A Film Critic who fails to add a 5 Star rating or at least an A-F grade will often see a generally “fair” review reduced to a 1.5 rating. Users have to enter a rating, but we users are a fickle bunch. Often worse than the film critics. And that is only fair. We have paid money to see these movies. But I can’t be alone in the struggle of deciding if a movie deserves 2 or 3 stars. Or maybe a 2.5. While only a year or so ago I might have rated a movie .5 or 1 star. But as I saw RT’s overall rating of user reviews form into one solid numerical assignment, my .5 rating was adding to confusing and unfair over-all assessments.
In the Rotten Tomatoes Universe, 1983’s WarGames sits pretty with a 93% rating. In a rare situation, the general user rating is actually more on mark with a 75% rating. If you look / listen to Siskel, I suspect his rating for WarGames is closer to a 70%.
Short Circuit now sits with a rating of 57% compared to a user rating of 67%. I have to say that the result of the general user rating makes far more sense than 57%. Even more so, if users understood that Short Circuit was really aiming at the 10 to 14 year old audience, the rating would be higher.
Eastwood’s Unforgiven has managed to fair better under the rules and restrictive application of RT’s Film Consensus. However, I feel that Eastwood’s solid film is actually sitting with ratings that I feel are higher than deserved: Film Critic Rating: 95% User Rating: 94%. I would say that this film’s actual rating should be closer to 85%.
Oddly, Streisand’s The Mirror Has Two Faces seems to have been Film Critically panned over the years. This is the film that Ebert gave a Thumbs Up. Currently this film sits with a 53% rating compared to the users rating of 72%. I love Streisand. And I own it. I tend to be aware of her work, and I’m fairly certain that this film once carried a 65% rating. So somehow, over time, RT’s Film Critic rating has gone down for this film. Personally, I feel this cinematic mis-step merits the 53% rating. That being stated, this movie does offer a mis-guided level of entertainment value. There is a cultural and psychologically convulsive aspect to Streisand’s movie that almost requires a bit of a bump up. The Mirror Has Two Faces’ entertainment value (both intended and accidental) make this film more worthy of a 60% rating. In this case the user ratings are obviously fueled by the legion of Streisand fans who refuse to own up to their icon’s mistakes. I’m not sure when I logged my rating, but I gave this movie 2 stars.
If one looks even closer to Rotten Tomatoes Logic, there is a really discordant level of confusion that occurs. I don’t know, maybe this makes sense for an art form that is so subjective. Film Art also has a strange way of aging. All the same, some of these ratings are simply disturbingly strange.
Is Unforgiven The Godfather of the Western?
Or is Unforgiven the Citizen Kane of the Western genre?
Is Clint Eastwood’s Western better than John Ford’s masterful, The Searchers?
Because within RT logic, The Godfather carries a 99%/98% shared rating between Film Critics and Users. Citizen Kane sits with a combo of 100%/90%. So in theory, both The Godfather and Citizen Kane are true cinematic masterworks. One would be hard-pressed to argue that either film is not deserving of very high ratings. I can’t help but wonder, if we are serious about ranking films, is Unforgiven so good that it is only 4 % points below The Godfather?
Further, as brilliant as this Orson Welles film is, can we say it is a “perfect film?” Maybe we can, though in all honesty, I feel that The Godfather Part II is a surprising one up on the original film. I’d also be very quick to point out that as great as Citizen Kane is, does it resonate both personally and artistically as deep as either of the first two Godfather films? I don’t think so.
I’d go so far to say that Hitchock’s Rear Window, David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, Goddard’s Breathless and Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver and Raging Bull are all slightly better films than Citizen Kane. From my perspective, the magic of Citizen Kane ties to the innovations that Welles so masterfully put into play so ahead of the cinematic curve. A crucial film, but 100%? John Ford’s The Searches is also essential and very influential, but is it worthy of RT’s 100% rating?
I don’t really like either of these movies. But I would assign a 75% for WarGames and a 70% for Short Circuit. I do not need to “like” a movie to see the talent, skill, intellect, and clear appeal for others. I do not enjoy Terrance Malick’s Tree of Life, but I am unable to dismiss it’s skill and use of style.
Now welcome to the perplexing ideology of taking an individual’s rating and averaging it in with others.
If one were to look at my ratings you would most likely find that taken within context of the way I approach rating films, you would discover that a 70% means that I think there is enough of value in a film for some others to enjoy. If I enjoy a film it is going to go more into the range of 85% to 95%. Essentially, if I like a movie enough to see it more once, purchase a copy of it or assist in restoration effort — that film will gain a high rating from me. A movie has to be really bad to get a total Thumbs Down from me.
Something that one would think is obvious, is actually not actually so. I never review / rate a film I’ve not seen. Not even professionals always follow this essential rule. Sad but true. As blogging has already become somewhat of a tired concept, other on-line means of information is taking on the more potent place to seek out new ideas and film comment. While Movie Holics tends to adhere to current film releases and normally more mainstream films, there are many other outlets and vloggers out there.
Another on-line critique that ventures into more esoteric terrain, is Brian Kish. Lo-Fi with both humor and intelligence. Always fun and laid-back style that offers insight and comedic delivery. A sort of Post-Modern Film Critic, Mr. Kish is having fun but the viewer is fully aware that he knows of what he speaks.
His taste in film is more aligned with my own. He is re-visiting Classic Cinema with the eyes of Intellectualism as well as those with a current 21st Century Perspective. It is within the world of podcasts and vlogs that one is likely to find some of the most engaging Film Art discussion. Brian Kish’s Barrel Bottom Reviews are always fun to watch.
I was unable to secure his permission to post this link, but I doubt he will mind. Here he discusses Louis Malle’s brilliant collaborative effort, My Dinner with Andre:
Check out his perspective. This view-point is especially important to those of us who care about Film Restoration and Re-distribution. His delivery is also very entertaining.
By the way, within the RT galaxy, My Dinner with Andre sits with a 91% Film Critic ranking and a general viewer rank of 86%.
Just for the hell of it, take a look at how these movies are currently rated on Rotten Tomatoes:
My demented and twisted father decided that he and I should see the “new” Bo Derek movie. I was 14. John Derek’s Tarzan: The Ape Man was one of the worst movies I had ever seen in a cinema. My father fell asleep. I kept wishing I could, but the movie was loud and Bo Derek was constantly winning, cooing and asking stupid questions to a jungle man who might have actually been dumber than her character appeared to be. This film currently holds a Film Critic Rating of 11% vs. User Rating of 21%.
I do not have to see The Fantastic Four to know that it is a better film than this horrifying film error that remains Tarzan: The Ape Man. Bo Derek frolicking in the jungle with Tarzan is pure cinematic torture. No, it is not erotic. Just to be sure I actually watched this film again. It is actually worse than I remembered it.
Oh, and let’s not forget the ill-advised American Idol-inspired film, From Justin to Kelly.
OK, come on. Do movies get any worse than this? And, no. It is not camp. It is just bad.
American Idol goes to the movies. RT currently ranks it at 10%. This might be a little bit harsh. It was better than Tarzan: The Ape Man.
So as Movie Holics pointed out, can any of us really agree that Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four really worse that the two movies listed above? Really? Is it that bad? 9%???? Mr. Trank’s film has clearly become some sort of odd Cinematic Whipping Boy.
This may be the lowest rated film to be green-lit for a sequel. Major Movie Studios are not always on target, but they clearly do not see this rating as “true” or “accurate.” If they did, Josh Trank would not be on the docket to direct the sequel. Fantastic Four is a classic example of what is wrong with Rotten Tomatoes.
How in the world can this level of skewed ranking make any sense or inform viewers just how bad or how good a film is?
Matty Stanfield, 10.6.2015