Action, Cut, Print?

Online movie criticism has long since bulldozed print critics. According to the CSM, "Reviews posted at darkhorizons.com, aintitcoolnews.com, and filmthreat.com - three of the most visited movie sites on the Web - court more attention from Hollywood's coveted 18-to 24-year-old age demographic than, say, a review by Time magazine's Richard Corliss."

CSM reports that there's there's a debate about the phenomenon, quoting the thoughts of print-and-online writer (and media professor) Peter Brunette. He doubts that more reviewers mean better criticism, "But the [Internet] proliferation has probably caused 'serious' critics from regular newspapers to think about how exactly they're different from - and whether they're better than - all those online people."

Thanks to: ArtsJournal

Comments

[Jesse Walker]

Film Threat is a slightly different case, in that the site is a spinoff from a magazine. So it has roots in the print world.

[Ken Shultz]

This may sound snobbish, but I was somewhat of an art film aficionado when I was in the 18 to 24-year old demographic. I was by no means typical back then, and the demographic at the local art house doesn't seem to have changed much since. Now, of the films I go to see at any one of a number of Laemmle's here in LA, I would guess the average age of the audience to be far north of 40. I'm in my thirties, and I often find that I'm still the youngest guy in the theatre.

Let me ask you 18 to 24-year olds out there, do you really read the reviews before you go to see Riddick or Shrek 2? If you read the reviews, does what you read really influence your decision? I enjoy a good action film as much as the next guy, but I don't understand what a reviewer could write about one mass market action film, for instance, that would make me want to go see another mass market action film instead. The bad guy's gonna lose, you know, and the good guy's gonna get the girl.

I hope that didn't spoil the plot.

[Jason Ligon]

Ken:

I'm 31, but I'll take a stab. I find rottentomatoes.com very useful for all types of movies. The key observation I would make is that not all movies strive to be art, and many things besides art can be enjoyable. In fact, there is the whole class of MST 3k films that are hysterical in spite of themselves (the perfectly horrific SciFi channel original "Deep Shock" I saw this weekend comes to mind).

Rottentomatoes has the virtue of aggregating opinion, which gives me a guide line. I very rarely disagree with a strong consensus one way or the other (except for good stuff like Deep Shock). For those movies in the middle, it is interesting to read the specific comments in search of key words. For example, it is imperative for me to avoid a movie deemed 'important' or 'timely' by only about 60% of critics. Likewise, 'adrenaline pumping' associated with action usually means 'manic and unrestrained' unless there is a strong consensus. Compare the reviews of 'The Take Down' (a pretty good action flick) with those of, say, 'Van Helsing' (I saw it for free, and dear God was that a bad movie) to get a sense of what I mean.

[Tom Pearson]

It should come as no surprise that online film review aggregators, like rottentomatoes.com, are beginning to replace traditional print reviews. Much like markets in other goods and services, the market for information on upcoming attrations is becoming more efficient and of higher quality due to the Internet. Sure, there's a bunch of crap out there, but before rottentomatoes.com or others, movie buffs had to buy several papers to get a good sampling of reviews. Now, movie buffs and even the infrequent theater goer, have instant access to the aggregated opinions of many different critics, not to mention the broad availability of trailers online. (I can remember friends of mine taping trailers in college.)

Online competition will result in much-improved print movie reviews (in the not-too-distant future, online reviews may replace print reviews altogether) and it has already given us more critic voices, enabling better, more-informed movie choices.

[ABC]

Rottentomatoes is completely useless. The movie "Swimming Pool" is my only, and only needed, evidence.

[Ben]

Ken-As a 23 year old who loves a good mass market action film I'll answer your question. I'll typically try and read reviews for a movie like Riddick or Van Helsing to see what I'm getting into before I go. And the reviews can influence my decision. I was really hyped about Van Helsing since Hugh Jackman killing monsters with some killer CGI sounds like a winning combo to me, but after all the negative reviews I read I decided not to go see it. Everyone I know who's seen it says it was terrible so I'd say I made the right decision.
And Ken, there are definetely difference in mass market action films. Take Collateral Damage with Arnold Schwarzenegger, which I've heard is one of the worst movies ever, and compare it to another Schwarzenegger movie, Predator, which is considered a classic.
As per the thread topic, I'm much more likely to agree with something written on aintitcoolnews.com or darkhorizons.com simply because they are typically looking for the same things in a movie that I am. Reviewers like Corliss and Ebert are not going to like many of the same things that my demographic is into.

[JDM]

"I don't understand what a reviewer could write about one mass market action film, for instance, that would make me want to go see another mass market action film instead."

Then you aren't trying very hard to figure it out. Some action flicks are better than others, as you admit, and some people are better than others at describing why. I'd bet The Mummy part 2, and Van Helsing are bad in similar ways, and similar things were said about them.

Also, rottentomatoes.com is one of the truly good things about the web. As with Ebay, it could not exist in another medium. Sometimes, aggragate opinion is appalingly wrong though, as ABC seems to have found out. I'm not sure that any more proof than Forrest Gump needed to be brought to light to show that.

[Franklin Harris]

As someone who writes film reviews for a dead-tree publication, I have to say that there is little difference between print and online reviewers. The only difference I see is that print reviewers write economically; we're used to space limitations. Harry Knowles, on the other hand, to pick a particularly egregious offender, can spout for 500 words about nothing before actually getting to his review.

[ERock]

RT is wonderful ABC, you're just mis-using the tool. When a movie is highly rated, take a quick look at the negative reviews and you'll be saved from watching films critics think they're supposed to like... "The twist ending is unsatisfying and the daughter?s role underdeveloped (even if her body isn?t)."-- Mark Robison, RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL" Just saved 2 hours.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Speaking of Harry Knowles, his memoir Aint It Cool is one of the most glaringly ghostwritten things I've ever read. It's concise, persuasive, and agile, with excellent flow and a deft balance of anecdote, documentation, and narrative. As I was reading it, I started thinking Holy Moly, I've been selling Harry way short, then I took a second look at the jacket and saw that it was by "Harry Knowles with Joe Blow."

[Chris Puzak]

There were actually two co-authors on that Ain't It Cool book, which to me suggests that turning Knowels' prose into something readable is just too big a job for one person. I shudder to think what Knowles would have produced had he been left to his own devices, as I can think of several of his movie reviews that were so awful they made me want to vomit blood.

[CFL]

Internet movie reviews could not have come too soon. People are tired of garbage reviews often found in the print media. Take a look at the following two links for examples of good movies that were unfairly maligned:

http://www.altreel.com/critical-hyperbole/Critical_Lapses.html

and horrible movies that were praised, sometimes by known reviewers like Roger Ebert or even Larry King:

http://www.altreel.com/critical-hyperbole/Bad_Reviews.html

The site, altreel.com, offers some reasons why such horrible reviews may have been made, but the bottom line is that more information is hardly ever worse than less information. If you do not have the brains to sort out the good from the bad, well you can find Ebert and Roper's crappy reviews anytime.