Click film titles for OFCS member reviews:
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
My Sister's Keeper
The Hurt Locker
Surveillance
Cheri
The Stoning of Soraya M.
Afghan Star
Quiet Chaos
Life is Hot in Cracktown
Girl from Monaco
The Exploding Girl
DJ Spooky's Rebirth of a Nation
New York
June 26, 2009
June 19, 2009
opening in North America 19 June 2009
Click film titles for OFCS member reviews:
The Proposal
Year One
Dead Snow
Whatever Works
$9.99
Under Our Skin
The End of the Line
The Windmill Movie
Irene in Time
Superstar
The Proposal
Year One
Dead Snow
Whatever Works
$9.99
Under Our Skin
The End of the Line
The Windmill Movie
Irene in Time
Superstar
June 18, 2009
online critics don’t get no respect
Orlando Sentinel critic Roger Moore, at his blog Frankly My Dear, disses online-only and online-mostly critics in a recent post:
As the Governing Committee pointed out in an email to Moore, the well-respected reviewer societies for “off-line critics” such as the National Society of Film Critics and the many regional critics’ organizations are also created and policed by their own members. And to suggest that only “veteran print critics” are the “professionals” in the field is disingenuous. There are many online critics who are professional either because they are paid for their criticism by an online outlet (or by print publications for reprints of their reviews), or because they work to high professional standards even if they are “merely” running their own sites (which high traffic and advertising support render professional in the same way that high readership and advertising support render print publications professional), or because they adhere to professional standards regardless of whether they’re actually earning a living from their criticsm. And there are veteran online critics, too, some of whom now have track records of a dozen years, or more.
Moore goes on to reprint in its entirety (at the same link) a Los Angeles Times article by John Horn (which does not appear on the Times’s own site, as far as we could determine). Horn worries about movie-review aggregators, specifically Rotten Tomatoes:
Horn entirely fails to mention the OFCS as a vetter of Internet film critics, so we wrote to Horn, too, to point out to him that the OFCS has existed since 1997 to counter the idea that anyone with a modem can be a film critic. Horn also dismisses “the little-known Internet critics Rotten Tomatoes includes,” and we suggested that this is wildly unfair to many online film critics (some of whom who are members of the OFCS, and some of whom are not). The overall readership of Time magazine, for instance, gives no indication whatsoever of what percentage of that readership is interested in the movie reviews Time publishes, but any online publication that publishes film reviews can measure precisely the level of interest those film reviews generate... and that interest is, arguably, far greater and far more influential than Time’s, which caters to a general audience. Movie-themed Web sites cater to devoted movie fans, who frequently drive word-of-mouth on new films.
Both Moore and Horn plug the new movie-review aggregator Movie Review Intelligence as one they can get behind, specifically because it excludes those “little-known Internet critics Rotten Tomatoes.” As we also mentioned to Moore and Horn, while we clearly do not dispute that there are many so-called “critics” on the Internet who do not deserve to be taken seriously, lumping all critics working online in with the “fanboys” is a disservice to the clear direction in which film criticism has been heading for years: that is, away from print and onto the Net. Movie Review Intelligence is especially ironic in that it appears to entirely miss the boat in this regard, by ignoring the online-only critics with long histories who are well respected, including many prolific OFCS members.
We also emailed David Gross, the former Hollywood studio exec behind Movie Review Intelligence, to highlight that if his site is striving to offer, as the site itself says, “the most accurate and complete picture of movie reviews possible,” and justifies this contention with research that demonstrates that “81% of moviegoers follow movie reviews in a newspaper, magazine, on television or online,” ignoring one of those key mediums probably doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Ironically, many of the critics Movie Review Intelligence is surveying would not be eligible for membership in the OFCS, because we require that our members write at least 50 feature-length reviews per year, which we consider a bare minimum for a professional working critic. Many of the critics MRI considers worth paying attention to are producing less than one review per week, at word counts that cannot hope to substantially critique a film. We asked: How can such be considered the cream of the critical crop?
We’d have hoped by this point in the development of Internet journalism, online film critics would be getting more respect. Clearly, there’s still a long way to go. Which is a shame, because anyone who writes off online-only film critics is missing some of the best film writing being done today.
I've complained for years about the way Rottentomatoes weights its measurements of the pulse of the movie reviewing community, leaning heavily on the self-published members of self-policing, self-puffing online reviewer societies to credential a lot of critic-come-latelies, causing mediocre fanboy friendly fare to earn higher tomatometer "ratings" than worthy films that veteran print critics (professionals) see as worthwhile in ways that suggest a film that will endure past its run at the multiplex.
As the Governing Committee pointed out in an email to Moore, the well-respected reviewer societies for “off-line critics” such as the National Society of Film Critics and the many regional critics’ organizations are also created and policed by their own members. And to suggest that only “veteran print critics” are the “professionals” in the field is disingenuous. There are many online critics who are professional either because they are paid for their criticism by an online outlet (or by print publications for reprints of their reviews), or because they work to high professional standards even if they are “merely” running their own sites (which high traffic and advertising support render professional in the same way that high readership and advertising support render print publications professional), or because they adhere to professional standards regardless of whether they’re actually earning a living from their criticsm. And there are veteran online critics, too, some of whom now have track records of a dozen years, or more.
Moore goes on to reprint in its entirety (at the same link) a Los Angeles Times article by John Horn (which does not appear on the Times’s own site, as far as we could determine). Horn worries about movie-review aggregators, specifically Rotten Tomatoes:
The studios are always searching for new ways to sell movie tickets, and they are now looking to review aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and newcomer Movie Review Intelligence to generate box-office buzz by amplifying the sound of the critical chorus. As the sites grow more prominent, however, they also are attracting questions about their methodologies, and who exactly qualifies as a film critic in the Internet age?
Horn entirely fails to mention the OFCS as a vetter of Internet film critics, so we wrote to Horn, too, to point out to him that the OFCS has existed since 1997 to counter the idea that anyone with a modem can be a film critic. Horn also dismisses “the little-known Internet critics Rotten Tomatoes includes,” and we suggested that this is wildly unfair to many online film critics (some of whom who are members of the OFCS, and some of whom are not). The overall readership of Time magazine, for instance, gives no indication whatsoever of what percentage of that readership is interested in the movie reviews Time publishes, but any online publication that publishes film reviews can measure precisely the level of interest those film reviews generate... and that interest is, arguably, far greater and far more influential than Time’s, which caters to a general audience. Movie-themed Web sites cater to devoted movie fans, who frequently drive word-of-mouth on new films.
Both Moore and Horn plug the new movie-review aggregator Movie Review Intelligence as one they can get behind, specifically because it excludes those “little-known Internet critics Rotten Tomatoes.” As we also mentioned to Moore and Horn, while we clearly do not dispute that there are many so-called “critics” on the Internet who do not deserve to be taken seriously, lumping all critics working online in with the “fanboys” is a disservice to the clear direction in which film criticism has been heading for years: that is, away from print and onto the Net. Movie Review Intelligence is especially ironic in that it appears to entirely miss the boat in this regard, by ignoring the online-only critics with long histories who are well respected, including many prolific OFCS members.
We also emailed David Gross, the former Hollywood studio exec behind Movie Review Intelligence, to highlight that if his site is striving to offer, as the site itself says, “the most accurate and complete picture of movie reviews possible,” and justifies this contention with research that demonstrates that “81% of moviegoers follow movie reviews in a newspaper, magazine, on television or online,” ignoring one of those key mediums probably doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Ironically, many of the critics Movie Review Intelligence is surveying would not be eligible for membership in the OFCS, because we require that our members write at least 50 feature-length reviews per year, which we consider a bare minimum for a professional working critic. Many of the critics MRI considers worth paying attention to are producing less than one review per week, at word counts that cannot hope to substantially critique a film. We asked: How can such be considered the cream of the critical crop?
We’d have hoped by this point in the development of Internet journalism, online film critics would be getting more respect. Clearly, there’s still a long way to go. Which is a shame, because anyone who writes off online-only film critics is missing some of the best film writing being done today.
June 16, 2009
no grownup movies, and no stars... is it all interconnected?
CNN.com/EW.com asks, “What happened to movies made for grown-ups?”:
Anne Thompson at Variety.com asks, “Are Boomers Abandoning Movies?”:
Respected British actor James Nesbitt is being forced to turn to Hollywood to find work (according to U.K. outlet Broadcast):
TheStar.com of Toronto asks, “Why 2009 is shaping up as the Year of No Stars”:
(Never mind that anyone who watches TV -- anyone who’s aware of the biggest hits on TV -- know damn well whom Kevin James and Zachary Quinto are. And the idea that Liam Neeson is some sort of hot up-and-comer is truly bizarre. But this is how Hollywood and some of its watchers are thinking.)
Interconnected? Or coincidence? Discuss.
Give Robert Downey Jr. a glass of scotch and a suit made of metal, and lines will form around the block. But cast him as a newspaper columnist who befriends a cello-playing homeless man, and these days the only crowds gathering will be for the movie playing next door.
Anne Thompson at Variety.com asks, “Are Boomers Abandoning Movies?”:
The current climate of fear causes less risk-taking and variation, said Kennedy. "They're all looking for the same thing. Tentpoles costing $150 to 200 million, formula pictures aimed at moviegoers 16 to 24, who are the movie-going demo. That's what's working. It's frustrating as a filmmaker. I've been in the business 20 years. My taste changes, evolves. Yet the baby boom generation is not going to the movies anymore. Few movies work in that demographic. I realize if I'm going to stay active and get movies made, I have to focus on what the studios want. They don't want movies that fall in the mid-range right now. They want big movies."
Respected British actor James Nesbitt is being forced to turn to Hollywood to find work (according to U.K. outlet Broadcast):
James Nesbitt is being forced to look for Hollywood acting roles because of the funding crisis in British drama.
The Cold Feet and Muphy’s Law actor, who also stars in BBC1’s Occupation next week, told the Radio Times that the UK TV industry was in a “desperate state”, and that he was having to look to the US for work.
He said Hollywood did not naturally appeal to him – “the notion of waiting six months to play a baddie in a bad film just wasn’t my idea of career utopia” – but that he had now employed a US agent.
TheStar.com of Toronto asks, “Why 2009 is shaping up as the Year of No Stars”:
[M]ovies without A-list names above the marquee have been doing similar boffo business to The Hangover.
The recent reboot of Star Trek was considered risky for its dearth of boldface. Who had heard of Chris Pine (Capt. Kirk) or Zachary Quinto (Mr. Spock) before last month? But the film hit the ground running and it has big legs, being the first this year to cross the $200 million mark.
Most people have heard of Paul Blart: Mall Cop by now, and may even have seen it. But few could have named star Kevin James before the film's January release; many would still have trouble picking him out of a police lineup of pudgy guys.
Ireland's Liam Neeson was considered a solid B-list actor heading toward character roles and retirement. His rescue thriller Taken was deemed a dumper at the top of the year, since it had already been released outside of North America in 2008 and had been widely pirated on the Internet. But the film connected big-time with North American audiences, transforming Neeson into the most unlikely of A-list action stars.
(Never mind that anyone who watches TV -- anyone who’s aware of the biggest hits on TV -- know damn well whom Kevin James and Zachary Quinto are. And the idea that Liam Neeson is some sort of hot up-and-comer is truly bizarre. But this is how Hollywood and some of its watchers are thinking.)
Interconnected? Or coincidence? Discuss.
June 15, 2009
how people see film critics
A commenter at the Internet Movie Database had this to say about the film The Stoning of Soraya M.:
What does it mean that a film might be “too visceral” for critics? Why does there exist the perception that critics are not lovers of film themselves?
Of course, this is merely one commenter on a site not known for a high level of conversation among its users. But the attitudes expressed here are not at all unusual. What should -- or shouldn’t -- critics be doing to counter such ideas?
It may be too visceral for critics (also like United 93), but film lovers should definitely seek it out.
What does it mean that a film might be “too visceral” for critics? Why does there exist the perception that critics are not lovers of film themselves?
Of course, this is merely one commenter on a site not known for a high level of conversation among its users. But the attitudes expressed here are not at all unusual. What should -- or shouldn’t -- critics be doing to counter such ideas?
June 12, 2009
June 11, 2009
11 June 2009: the weekly roundup of film criticism news
• Ryan Kelly at Medfly Quarantine alerts movie critics to “beware the Tomatometer,” for it is apparently “a new game in town” that is “pav[ing] the way for this ADD wave of film criticism” and offers a “false sense of objectivity.” Okay, then.
• Tirdad Derakhshani at Philly.com notes that once critic, now filmmaker Paul Schrader, in a new essay, “argues that the ‘great middle’ of film criticism - serious yet accessible film discussion - has disappeared, pushed out on one side by jargon-filled academic studies, and on the other by mass-media film reviews that are little more than consumer guides.” Like the Tomatometer, perhaps.
• Jim Emerson at his blog Scanners asks, “Can a movie ruin a good review? Conversely, can a review actually improve upon a movie?” And we can also ask, Can the Tomatometer ruin a good review?
• David Hudson at IFC’s The Daily comments that the New York Observer’s laying off of its legendary critic left him “a little confused about how to feel, much less react. On the one hand, Andrew Sarris helped reclaim American movies for Americans by importing and reinterpreting an appreciation of American directors. On the other hand, he’s been quoting from the press kits just a whole lot lately.”
• Shawn Levy at Mad About Movies also notes, about Sarris: “True, in the past 20-odd years, there wasn't the same passion or craft or reliability in his writing. But there is no denying his long-standing influence or his importance in the history of the medium and those who wish to understand it.”
• Tirdad Derakhshani at Philly.com notes that once critic, now filmmaker Paul Schrader, in a new essay, “argues that the ‘great middle’ of film criticism - serious yet accessible film discussion - has disappeared, pushed out on one side by jargon-filled academic studies, and on the other by mass-media film reviews that are little more than consumer guides.” Like the Tomatometer, perhaps.
• Jim Emerson at his blog Scanners asks, “Can a movie ruin a good review? Conversely, can a review actually improve upon a movie?” And we can also ask, Can the Tomatometer ruin a good review?
• David Hudson at IFC’s The Daily comments that the New York Observer’s laying off of its legendary critic left him “a little confused about how to feel, much less react. On the one hand, Andrew Sarris helped reclaim American movies for Americans by importing and reinterpreting an appreciation of American directors. On the other hand, he’s been quoting from the press kits just a whole lot lately.”
• Shawn Levy at Mad About Movies also notes, about Sarris: “True, in the past 20-odd years, there wasn't the same passion or craft or reliability in his writing. But there is no denying his long-standing influence or his importance in the history of the medium and those who wish to understand it.”
June 07, 2009
OFCS member Susan Granger wins Founder’s Award from the Westport Youth Film Festival
OFCS member Susan Granger recently received the Founder’s Award from the Westport Youth Film Festival, of Westport, Connecticut. Granger says:
The festival’s mission:
The OFCS congratulates Granger on her award.
Since WYFF began six years ago, I have been involved as a panelist, moderator and participant.
The festival’s mission:
Our goal as high school students in producing the Westport Youth Film Festival is to provide an outlet for amateur filmmakers to perfect their craft and learn more about the myriad of facets to the film industry. By doing so, we hope to spread a love and appreciation of the arts, and foster the emerging talent within the youth community.
The OFCS congratulates Granger on her award.
June 05, 2009
what’s criticism for?
Peter Suderman at The American Scene is glad he didn’t have to write a review of Up:
This seems like an odd contention for a film critic to make: Isn’t criticism a kind of proselytizing? Isn’t criticism about nothing else but sharing a love of film (even if that love is sometimes disappointed) with others?
Suderman continues:
Does critiquing a film put distance between the critic and the movie? Can’t it bring even a critic closer to a film, by helping him or her better understand his or her own reaction to it?
Perhaps it’s for the best that Suderman was not compelled to review Up after all...
That Pixar’s marvelous, moving, and altogether astounding Up deserves every one of its accolades, and perhaps more, should be obvious just a few minutes into the film. But I feel a least a little bit sorry for the critics who had to sing the film’s praises. Yes, I love writing about film, and that love is rooted in a passion for sharing — some of my friends might call it pushing — great cinema with others. But every now and then, a movie comes along that’s so effortlessly delightful that I just want it to be mine, a treasure that I don’t have to share.
This seems like an odd contention for a film critic to make: Isn’t criticism a kind of proselytizing? Isn’t criticism about nothing else but sharing a love of film (even if that love is sometimes disappointed) with others?
Suderman continues:
I’m glad I don’t have to write about it in a comprehensive or authoritative way, to summarize its plot or characters and make a careful case for its greatness. Doing so, even to rave, requires putting at least a bit of distance between oneself and one’s subject, and with a film as elegant and lovely and honestly heartfelt as Up, that’s not something I ever want to do.
Does critiquing a film put distance between the critic and the movie? Can’t it bring even a critic closer to a film, by helping him or her better understand his or her own reaction to it?
Perhaps it’s for the best that Suderman was not compelled to review Up after all...
Francis Ford Coppola on film critics
Aaron Hillis at The Village Voice talks to Francis Ford Coppola about his new film, Tetro, and gets some intriguing comments out of the director about film critics:
For me, the role of the critic is to teach me how I can make the next one better. I realize what my flaws are. ... There are obviously good critics and bad critics—who, just because the movie isn't like anything they've seen, immediately call it a "muddled mess." If you do a Google search for "muddled mess," you'll see that that's the common phrase they use when they don't want to come out and say what's muddled about it. People are a little bit like sheep, and unable to accept or take anything to heart unless they can link it to something that was successful before. ... If a movie comes out and it's really fresh and new, it's not like anything else....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)