critics Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Who would have thought the brilliant playwright and pretty good director David Mamet would have anything in common with tasteless schlockmeister Uwe Boll? Boll once expressed a desire to fight movie critics in a boxing ring, and now Mamet has taken it a step further: he wishes all critics were dead.

Or at least that's what he told Vanity Fair. The magazine ends each issue with a "Proust Questionnaire," in which a celebrity is asked a series of frivolous-but-deep-sounding questions, usually to coincide with the promotion of the celebrity's new movie. This month it's Mamet (whose Redbelt opens May 9 May 2), and the first Q&A goes like this:

What is your idea of perfect happiness?
My idea of perfect happiness is a healthy family, peace between nations, and all the critics die.

All the critics, Dave? All of us? Aw, gee. In my high school drama class, we loved doing scenes from Mamet's plays. Granted, this was primarily because it permitted us to swear in abundance, but over time we came to appreciate his work on a deeper level, too. The way he writes dialogue -- the unusual cadences, the stylized realism -- is like music, and the intellectual themes of his plays are eternally thought-provoking.

If you read online film writing regularly, you've probably heard about (if not bookmarked) the sites of David Poland and Jeffrey Wells. Poland runs Movie City News, but shares his personal views on film-related happenings over at The Hot Blog. Wells's one-man site Hollywood Elsewhere includes a range of movie topics, from reviews to thoughts about Nikki Finke to discussions of studio politics.

The two writers are notorious for feuding with one another on anything and everything, which helps boost interest in their sites (and likewise, traffic). It's always a bit of a shock when they actually agree on something, and when one goes so far as to promote the other's writing, it certainly draws your attention to the issue under scrutiny.

The issue in question concerns press/preview screenings, embargoes on film reviews and, specifically, problems in these areas that Chicago critics encountered with Twentieth Century Fox movies. If you're not a film critic, you might wonder why this matters, but it does affect the timeliness of movie reviews. If I don't see a movie until the night before it is released, either my review will appear late or it will be hastily written, and that's not helpful if you like to read reviews before deciding whether you want to see a film. On the other hand, studios are worried that if I review the movie too early, any negativity could impact box-office, and it might spoil some of their marketing strategies.

They're claiming that none of their films are ready yet, but is that the real reason 20th Century Fox has decided to pull out of next week's San Diego ComicCon? The studio was previously scheduled to hold a "star-and-filmmaker-studded panel" next Friday in the main hall, featuring exclusive first looks at films like Aliens vs Predator, Jumper, Babylon A.D. and Hitman. While practically every other major studio (Warner Bros., Paramount/Dreamworks, Lionsgate, New Line, Sony Pictures, Universal and Walt Disney) still have plans to appear, Fox has officially pulled out. Or have they? According to The LA Times, the studio was reconsidering that decision yesterday afternoon -- meanwhile, ComicCon organizers were scrambling to fill their much-coveted slot.

This hasn't been the greatest of weeks for Fox. Earlier, there was a whole big stink going on in Chicago over Fox's apparent snub of some film critics when it came to invites for advanced screenings of their films. From what I understand, The Chicago Film Critics Association has instituted a boycott against Fox releases. The boycott won't affect reviews; instead, they'll be staying away from additional coverage like features, interviews, etc ... Personally, I'm a bit peeved as well after finding out yesterday that the only Simpsons Movie screening happening in the New York City area (that I'm aware of) is taking place the night before the film will be released. And, as far as I can tell, the same goes for the rest of the country. So, while I usually like to have a day or so to sit with a film before I review it, I now have a few hours.

Whether or not this ComicCon pull out has anything to do with the aforementioned boycott -- I don't know. I do know, however, that Fox has become a major player when it comes to fighting movie piracy (they're one of the studios who wanted to ban advanced screenings in Canada), and so perhaps it's not a question of whether their footage is ready -- but, instead, has to do with them being afraid that same footage will be on YouTube within the hour. Oh, and I should note that Fox Atomic will still be attendance ... handing out raffles, or something. Yay! Raffles!

The divide between critics and audiences has been growing stronger and stronger. This very site has done several reports of late about how studios and directors think critics are snooty, snobby, and out of touch with what the public wants. It seems more and more movies are not even being shown to critics prior to release. That practice used to be reserved solely for the worst of the worst, but now big-budget movies with big stars aren't being submitted for review. In light of recent evidence, critics' opinions don't really seem to have any effect on business at all. These past few months have made for some shocking revelations come Monday morning box office report time, with such critically panned movies as 300, Norbit, Ghost Rider, and Wild Hogs all doing huge business.

Now Peter Bart at Variety has chimed in with a new article on the subject. He says that critics "may be shopping around for a new line of work," and states that they "should consider a sabbatical until September, when movies aimed at their quadrant magically reappear." Huh? Bart suggests, "if the established media wants to stay relevant, should their critics make a passing attempt to tune in to pop culture?" Well, what does that mean exactly? Does that mean hiring a quote whore to just write about how he or she adores every steaming pile that comes down the chute? Why should critics' tastes have to sync up with what makes money? To me, reading a great film review is like having a conversation after the movie. It's a kick to read an in-depth analysis of something I just saw, whether the reviewer agrees with me or not.

This whole debate has gotten out of hand. Audience poller Cinemascore reports that all four of the aforementioned movies were not just successful financially, but at least reasonably enjoyed by audiences. Is anyone who laughs at Wild Hogs an uneducated hillbilly idiot? Of course not. Does Norbit's success mean that all critics are dumb and should quit their jobs because they personally didn't like it? No way. The old "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" rule doesn't, shouldn't, and can't apply to film criticism.

Following in the footsteps of folks from Disney and Fox -- who recently called out critics for panning films like Norbit and Wild Hogs, even though audiences are eating them up at the box office -- Brian Robbins has popped in to add more fuel to the fire. After all, if there's one man at the center of all this rubbish, it's Robbins; not only did he direct Norbit, but he also produced Wild Hogs -- combined, both films have taken in upwards of $120 million so far. According to Robbins, he cannot -- for the life of him -- understand how a film like Norbit could score so well with audiences, yet be universally panned by critics. He says, "How do you figure that? Is the audience that stupid? Is America's taste that bad? I don't think so."

I don't think so either. It's not that all of America is stupid; I believe it has more to do with what feels familiar. Wild Hogs and Norbit are both "familiar" films; from the actors to the stories being told, audiences have watched and enjoyed similar films, therefore it's easier for them to sit there with a smile because they've already been pre-trained to do so. Robbins continues: "The only films that get good reviews are the ones that nobody sees. I just don't think you can make movies for critics." Well, this is a stupid argument, because plenty of great films simply get butchered when it comes to marketing; studios would much rather spend their money on Eddie Murphy in a fat suit than Clive Owen in a film about the end of the world. And, regardless, a number of big blockbuster films get good reviews ... but those same reviews are conveniently forgotten about when someone like Brian Robbins is trying (but failing) to make a point.

This shouting match is a tired one because, in the end, no one really wins. Hollywood will continue to churn out movies for the masses, and critics will continue to trash the shoddy acting, regurgitated plotlines and lack of originality. Just like an audience is programmed to enjoy what's familiar, a critic is programmed to be, well, critical. And neither party should be blamed for doing their job.

Now, before you start thinking this is a gossip post let me just set the record straight and say you won't see anything involving actresses, pop stars, or heiresses in here. These are the biggest film critic whores of 2006 as compiled by Erik Childress at eFilmCritic.com. Those who will lend a blurb to anything and everything under the sun. It's a pretty comprehensive list, covering everyone from Harry Knowles to Joel Siegel (who gets honored with his own special award), and assembles a massive amount of blurbage in one spot for your enjoyment.

The list is pretty snarky, serving up stuff like "The sad thing about Harry Knowles' little fanboy jizzpool is that there are probably a couple legitimate writers in there," but he's right on the money. He skewers the winner, nice guy Pete Hammond (out of 83 reviews he wrote, 66 were positive and 17 were negative -- I smell fresh ink on some studio checks!) and doesn't cut any amount of slack for anybody. Check out his series of articles about the whores of film criticland and see if you agree with him or not. At least Cinematical isn't on his list yet ... but give us time.

Odds and ends from Tuesday:

• Brittany Robertson has signed up to play Steve Carell's rebellious 15-year-old daughter in the upcoming Dan in Real Life. Pic centers around a widower who writes a parenting column, though things take a turn for the worse when he falls in love with his brother's girlfriend. Man, don't you hate it when that happens?
• Just when you thought it was safe to assume they were done casting the latest big-screen version of Hairspray, yet another actress has thrown her name into the pot. Allison Janney (The West Wing) has been tapped to play Prudy Pingleton, the overbearing mother of Penny (Amanda Bynes). Janney joins a cast that already includes John Travolta, Queen Latifah, Christopher Walken and Michelle Pfeiffer, among others.
• After receiving an angry letter from Martin Scorsese regarding their movie review system (seriously, this guy has nothing better to do with his time?), DirecTV went ahead and hired the legendary director to help re-vamp their service. Scorsese will write a monthly column for the subscription-only On DirecTV. In it, he plans to "offer critiques of overlooked films on DirecTV." I'm not sure what qualifies a film to be "overlooked," but all you DirecTV subscribers are welcome to let us know which films he decides to cover. I'm super curious.

Well, darlings, tomorrow marks the one month anniversary of this column, and to celebrate the occasion, I've put together a bit of a grab bag for you. Because there's nothing I find more celebratory than a good argument, this first milestone seemed like as good a time as any to go through my hate mails and answer trackbacks and post a few thoughts and responses. If you're dying for new(er) content, come back next week, when I'll have some thoughts on how the success of V for Vendetta breaks every rule in modern Hollywood.

On to the brawls...

Andre Soares was kind enough to link to my last column, in which I connected a few tidbits from SXSW to the ever-evolving relationship between consumers and critics, over at the Alternative Film Guide. But, taking exceptions with a few points, he went on to file what looks a lot like a counter-argument. The thing is, I think Soares and I actually agree on most every aspect of the issue. Soares starts off by pointing out that Hollywood makes the lion's share of its profits off of a consumer roughly 30 years younger than the average critic: "film critics can't be expected to represent the tastes of a film audience composed mostly of teenagers and very young adults -- unless, of course, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Nation were to hire fourteen-year-olds to write film reviews." That's a valid point, but it's also just a little fatalistic -- he's essentially saying that any hope for a connection between the people who write about movies and the people who pay to see them is doomed.

With the passing of Paul Clinton from his mortal coil, it's time to remember CNN's other film critic. "Wait," you may ask, "CNN has another film critic?" Yes indeedy - at least up until 2003, that is. Whereas Paul Clinton's editor claimed he constantly had to slice the world "perfect" out of Clinton's reviews, I can only imagine how many synonyms for the word "suck" the editor had to remove from the reviews of Paul Tatara. Tatara practically served as Clinton's id at CNN for several years; the two of them even posted dueling best/worst lists at year's end. While Clinton was known for being diplomatic in the face of schlock, Tatara was unsparing in his distaste for most of what Hollywood had to offer.