Welcome to BigScreenBiz.com

I went to see TROY the other night. The reviews I saw all gave it 1 1/2 rating. I thought that was unfair. I enjoyed the film and thought it was entertaining. How about the sword duel between Hector and Achillies, wasn't that exciting stuff? What do these critics look for any way? Every movie down the pike can't be a RETURN OF THE KING or STAR WARS.

I dont like movie critics at all. I am a movie critic, but you dont see me getting paid for it. I think movie critics give blockbuster movies low reviews and smaller movies great reviews, so people will go see something else besides a blockbuster. I guess they think they are helping, but I always choose to go and see the movies that they dont like, if I even pay attention to them at all.

As far as critic ratings go, people need to take them with a grain of salt. Even if a movie has an over abundence of good/bad reviews for a movie, there is generally a critic out there that will say something to the contrary (unless you are Sony and create an imaginary critic to create a positive review of The Animal). People should realize that the critic reviews are just one person's opinion and they should not take the reviews too seriously. There have been a few people that have stopped at our theater and saw that a movie received a bad review from one critic and it changed their mind from watching the movie.

Studios are in business to make money and entertain people. They tend to try to emulate something that does well. Critics have to go to so many movies that I can imagine that a movie, made to make a large profit and entertain a large number of people has to excell at something so much that it really gets the critics attention. (Westerns were out --- Deadwood a hit--- I read that studios to start making westerns again.)

An independent movie on small budget can be DIFFERENT and still recoup it's costs. It can also get the attention of a critic who has seen so many movies that fit into specific genres. Thus the better reviews for independent movies. Also fewer reviews for independent movies. Try and find a major critic who has reviewed some obscure bad independent movie that is doing only good or fair business w/o all the studio push.

I always believe that it takes special gifts for people to be able to gauge what will sell to a wide range of people for a "commercial" success. Likewise there are special gifts for those who make those special movies for a small "artisic" audience.

I read critics and know which ones like what I like and which ones don't. I can usually use either one to tell how I am going to feel about a movie.

Critic's reviews are still just their OPINION, and if you dig deep enough you can usually find both good and bad for ANY movie... If the critic's opinon is any more valid than someone else's is debateable... Personally, if Roger Ebert likes a picture, I generally tend to agree, however if Rex Reed likes it, I avoid it like the plague!...

ditto about critics. I personally thought TROY was very good and will play it here after H.P.3.

You can take every movie out there & lay critiques side-by-side from people who will laud and slam it.

What burns me is that the newspapers will take our advertising money, then fill the entertainment pages with articles that blast our product. They don't treat any other industry that way, yet they see this kind of opinion as "entertaining".

Grrrrrrrrr!

I can understand why Rodeojack says "Grrrrr", but I think we should be more foregiving of newspapers. Yes, they take the advertising dollars, but if it were on the assumption that they would only print praise of a movie, it would soon mean that no intelligent reader would put any credence in what they said about a movie in a review. The newspapers would then become shills for the exhibition industry, and that would diminish their influence and lose readers. True, there are as many opinions of a movie as there are people who see it, but the papers know that controversial reviews of notable films will garner more readers than bland, barely informative reviews ever will. It is part of the traditions of journalism that a responsible reviewer tries to address all aspects of a movie and not merely give a summary of it, though some papers do do that in non-review areas. Reviewers also know that the public likes to read spicy controversy and so that is where their 'bread is buttered.' As adults, we must all take any review with a grain of salt, and perhaps take a cue from some actors who say that they never read a review, since if it is favorable, it will cause one's head to swell, and if it is unfavorable, it will cause neadless depression. Studies have shown that reviews actually have very little to do with the success or failure of a film, and that it is the advertising 'buzz' that mostly determines what people will see. So, while I don't always like the attitudes of Journalists, I realize that they have to try to be balanced and fair in reviews, even if that means panning a poor movie that exhibitors have paid to advertise. And, yes, Journalists do treat other industries that way, as in the case of automobiles which they often advertise, but then elsewhere run editorials or reviews telling of the cars' defects. It is all part of the give and take of an informed society within freedom of speech.

I understand your point, Jimor... and agree with it... somewhat. On balance however, I find far more negative commentary about our product than positive. As for the newspapers' treatment of the automotive industry, I don't see many negative reviews of a local dealer's cars dropped into the middle of his ads like I do the theatres... and there are far fewer critical reviews than positive ravings.

Same for the real estate business... you do see occasional articles about crummy contractors, mold-infested paint and rotten siding... but not nearly so often as you see an article, right next to my ad, encouraging everyone to pass on a product that's going to take up my rented floorspace for the next two weeks... maybe even wait for the picture to come out at my competition... the video store.

No.... it might relate, but it's hardly comparable to other industries...

Grrrrrrrrr!

(edit) Oh... I liked Troy, too!

[This message has been edited by rodeojack (edited May 26, 2004).]

Right on, JACK!... You're 100% on the money!... Have you ever noticed how much BETTER a picture becomes when it comes out on DVD?... All those negative mud slings just miraculously disappear, and the picture gets a lot better when it goes to DVD!... The most recent one that comes to mind is "Miracle," it's NOW almost a classic!...

Is that ever true. I've often thought that I should cut out and save the movie reviews in our local daily paper, both when the film is released and again when the video and DVDs are released. Often the reviews are completely flip-floppped, almost always from bad to good as outaframe mentioned. I memtioned this once to someone in the arts department at the paper and their answer was that different people do the reviews and have different oppinions. It seems they hired someone who hates movies for film reviews and someone who loves movies for video reviews.

And have you ever noticed that many films that bomb at the box office do extremely well when released on video? Could the flip-flop on reviews have anything to do with that?