The Pros and Cons of Movie Reviews and Reviewers

The Pros and Cons of Movie Reviews and Reviewers

Are we too critical in our critiques? In my first editorial, I want to take a look at the extent and pettiness of some of our reviews and reveal the reason why some people do and do not like The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Editorial Opinion
By NoRemainder - May 15, 2014 10:05 PM EST
Filed Under: Other


My first article...okay... here I go:

The first time I ever came onto this site was in 2006.  I had just seen the image of Kelsey Grammer's Beast from X-Men: The Last Stand, and I couldn't have been more excited.  I stuck with the site searching for more news on all of these movies that were slated to come out soon; of course the big two were Spider-man 3 and X-men: The Last Stand.  Unfortunately these were movies that everybody completely agreed on: they sucked.  Now, I agree with half of that.  X-Men 3 absolutley disappointed, but I'm in the minority that's able to admit that I enjoyed, and still enjoy, Spider-Man 3, despite it's obvious flaws.  What I've noticed now though, after 7 years have passed since the unholy threequel, is that it still gets a bad wrap, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 seems as polarizing a film as I've seen among users here, despite having the same problems.  I haven't seen this since Man of Steel.

Before I get started, I'm going to point out that, like Spider-Man 3, I really enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man 2.  They're strikingly similar movies, but the point I really want to make is one of observation.  Comic book movies are splitting the fanbases down the middle more often than ever now, and I couldn't be more confused about these reactions.  I read an article a few nights ago about Marc Webb's sequel, and the amount of hatred and anger behind it just sort of irked me: it made bold claims about the film being an embarassment and an abomination.  Obviously, this person is entitled to his opinion (yes, his: if you are unaware of gender, it instatnly is masculine, sorry ladies; that's just english.), but as I delved deeper into the editorial, or review, if you can call it that, I was most disturbed by what was blatant nit picking about character origins, miniscule details, super powers, and all around things that require suspension of disbelief.  This is Spider-Man, if we've gotten into nit picking about logic of origins then we're clearly not getting the point.  At times, it felt like he wasn't actually watching the movie.  Now, I absolutely believe he watched it, but when people don't like something, they tend to misconstrue facts and events to better support their own opinions as fact.

As I read this, I couldn't help but think of one Mr. Harry S. Plinkett, the character from RedLetterMedia.  A trend I've noticed about amateur critics since the Plinkett reviews began pick up steam, everybody began to criticize the way RedLetterMedia did: overanalyzing every little thing that can be wrong.  The logic behind their use of that method is simple: the little things begin to clump together into larger problems with the movies they reviewed.  They were small things, but they were important: opening shots, audience manipulation, wooden dialogue, unnatural character interactions, and illogical leaps and bounds of character development.  The point with all of those is that the movies reviewed were usually parts of a franchise that ruined the characters and established continuity. 

When I see this method of review used by critics looking for things to complain about, it's unnerving.  Have we as a community stooped so low that we nit pick things like a fictional universe  having an ethernet cable on a plane when we've established that their version of present time has incredible world changing technology.  We can nit pick all day, but in the end, if you didn't like it, you didn't like it.  I don't believe that those complaints are the real reasons people didn't like The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

 I really liked this movie because I felt the emotional core of Gwen and Peter as the tonal center.  I also thought it was 20 minutes too long and should have dropped the mystery about Peter's dad.  These are opinions, and I'm not trying to sway people into my way of thought.  I'm saying why I liked this movie sans personal attacks about taste, and why it's absurd to talk about the little things in this movie when the flaws are actually quite simple.  This movie is not terrbily complex.  But if I had to guess the reason why so many people don't like this movie, it would be the fact that it has very similar flaws and major problems as the ones found in Spider-Man 3.  The reason others like it?  It has an emotional center that keeps us involved despite the overwhelming number of threads.

Do you agree with my assessment of review?  Is it okay for people to focus on the little things? Do people do it too much?  Or should they keep finding problems with every scene?  Sound off below!
THE 4:30 MOVIE Interview: Filmmaker Kevin Smith On How His Passion For The Theater Shaped New Film (Exclusive)
Related:

THE 4:30 MOVIE Interview: Filmmaker Kevin Smith On How His Passion For The Theater Shaped New Film (Exclusive)

THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking
Recommended For You:

THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

MisterHolmes
MisterHolmes - 5/15/2014, 11:38 PM
i think people are to critical, i even lightend up in my review for godzilla, check it out, but in short the movie might not be the best thing to people and seem silly, bu to me it was everything i asked for in a godzilla movie so i was very happy
BawbScharf
BawbScharf - 5/15/2014, 11:48 PM
Well said. Thumbs up homie.
MightyZeus
MightyZeus - 5/16/2014, 5:33 AM
Godzilla was way better than TASM 2 but thats just my personal opinion. Maybe people didnt like the film because the film treats it's audience like there stupid.
PAF
PAF - 5/16/2014, 5:39 AM
If everyone gave movies a pass then we would still be getting garbage like Batman and Robin, Daredevil, and Spider-Man 3. It's not about being too critical it's about calling them out on delivering sub-par movies. If you loved the movie that's great but stop trying to change everyone's mind about how much of a great movie it is.
nibs
nibs - 5/16/2014, 6:22 AM
A couple of points:
- I get the argument, but if a movie like Star Wars came out back in the 70s, there is no excuse to be putting out sub-par films.

- If you're going to spend a couple hundred million dollars on it, then yes, it should be scrutinized to hell. I would think the goal should be for a pretty flawless product at that price tag. Is it nitpicking to call ASM2 out for having an Ethernet cable on an airplane in the 90s? Or is it reasonable considering they have a staff of hundreds of people, and a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars (which you, in turn, spent between $15 and $50 dollars to go see), is it a lot to ask that it makes sense? That they don't insult our intelligence?

- People have different tastes. You may consider Spider-man 3 entertaining, but I most certainly do not. I am not going to lighten up on my views on that movie even if I do understand it's value to others.

- You can't allow corporations and the military to push propaganda on people without calling them on it. I watched Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit last night and it almost made me sick with it's pro-military, anti-Russian garbage.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 5/16/2014, 7:27 AM
People ARE too critical, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

Like nibs, I often feel like there are standards these big-budget movies should follow that are simply NOT being met. They insult the audience by being lazy. Let's break away from TASM2 for a moment, and hey, even CBMs, which obviously we all love or we wouldn't be on here.

So let's check out the greatest James Bond movie ever made, GoldenEye. Yes, yes it is, don't argue with me on this.

It is an entirely self-contained movie that begins with a mission where Sean Bean dies, and Bond narrowly escapes with his life. Nine years later, we're seeing the return of the general who killed Sean Bean, the theft of Russian satellites (the title "characters"), and a stabbing reveal that someone close to Bond is responsible for it all. It is an action movie. Being that, audiences tend to be more forgiving of goofs and technical errors, since ultimately, action is meant to entertain, not stimulate thought.

For a movie made in the middle of the 90s, it is VERY impressive. The story is character-centric, with less focus on gadgets, and more on tricks and deception. We see these characters out-think one another, and then get the better hand once again. Sean Bean is the big bad, and this is the character at the top of his career for a reason - he is Bond's equal, his evil counterpart, and just as strong, intelligent, and resourceful. That he used to be 006 and James' friend before his "death" gives him a dozen advantages, as he knows his habits, his shortcomings, his strengths, and his weaknesses. We haven't had a Bond villain like him since.

Why am I talking about GoldenEye?
Because before it, there were 30 years of James Bond movies - that's 16 movies before GoldenEye came out. 16 movies which ranged from great to pretty bad, where mistakes were made and repeated, then learned from. 16 movies of trial and error, of evolving ideas, of shaping the mold, of galvanizing the entire genre. The Cold War was over, and critics had been adamant that James Bond was a franchise that needed retiring, that its potential had already been exhausted years and years ago. And then GoldenEye came out.

CBMs aren't all one in the same, I understand - different studios have different creative teams who think they're all amazing. Avi Arad thinks his ideas are golden, and hasn't really applied the other movies' highs and lows when considering the direction the Spider-man movies should take. Tom Rothman used to be in charge of the X-Men movies and crippled the franchise before it even began (that it's been as successful as it is just goes to show you how great the characters are). Kevin Fiege has made some mistakes with the MCU, but he's learned from what works and what doesn't. Christopher Nolan and David Goyer have let their successes go to their heads, and a lot of fans worry that they're going to steer the future DCU down a destructive path.

It's a mixed bag, but there is a lot out there to learn from, and it's up to them to actual be open-minded enough to understand that these characters are so much bigger than them. CBMs are capable of greatness - so what's holding them back?
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 5/16/2014, 9:38 AM
Like others have said, I get your basic argument, but I think you're getting too caught up in the wrong stuff. Yes, people on this site will nitpick the tiniest things to try to prove why they think a movie is bad (The Dark Knight Rises is the first example that jumps to mind), but not everyone is like that.

Despite what Mantinium may claim, professional movie reviewers and critics, for example, usually don't descend to that level. Plinkett, as you mentioned in the article, you can say he "nitpicks" but he does it so completely different than most people do on this site. All those little details go a long way towards describing the larger flaws in any film. He's insightful, he obviously knows what he's talking about, and he manages to connect the little details with the larger ones. He walks the line perfectly.

And you can enjoy bad movies like Spider-Man 3 and X-3 all you want...as long as you can still admit why so many people have problems with those movies. We all have our guilty pleasures or movies we love for nostalgic reasons, but just don't try to stuff your fingers in your ears and yell at the world and whine that half of us are crazy or "haters" for disliking a movie that is so obviously polarizing and splitting the fanbase and general audience.
Klone
Klone - 5/16/2014, 9:45 AM
@Jollem

I still haven't heard a good reason why it is good either.
NoRemainder
NoRemainder - 5/16/2014, 10:07 AM
@SauronsBANE1

I hear what you're saying. I'm not stuffing my ears though, I've read countless positive and negative comments and articles on this site, most of them were valid comments, but when I read that one article where it was just countless nit picking, it just kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I love that we get these polarizing movies sometimes because they spark a debate about the characters, their portrayal and the history behind them. Man of Steel, I didn't like, but I knew it took a risk with the characters and it sparked a conversation about how we have viewed the character for so long, and some people liked the change and others didn't. I'm open to criticism, I do it all the time. The nitpicking, however, to me, is another form of trolling. It's the Everything Wrong With era... except those guys do it for satirical reasons. And I understand Plinkett. You nailed it on the head with him. But I've never seen a review done in his panoramic style nearly as well as he does it.
SauronsBANE
SauronsBANE - 5/16/2014, 10:17 AM
Oh, don't get me wrong NoRemainder. I definitely didn't mean to imply that YOU were the one who was stuffing their ears and not listening to valid criticisms or anything like that. I was talking more generally about some other users on this site who are known to do stuff like that. Apologies for not making that clearer.

Like I said, there's plenty of users here who dislike movies that deserve to be disliked...but they do it for the wrong reasons. Or at least, they don't know exactly WHY they didn't like it (because the issues go so much deeper than surface-level stuff), so they resort to pointless nitpicking. Hence why we get articles like the one you're talking about. You're completely right to get so annoyed at nitpicking articles like that.

But yeah, people don't realize how much work actually goes into a review like Plinkett's. In his takedown of the Star Wars prequels, people dismiss it as being lazy and nitpicky...but man, it's possibly one of the most insightful, nail-on-the-head reviews of any movie ever. I definitely wish people could take a cue from him and learn to critique movies the way he does. So yeah, good article!
NoRemainder
NoRemainder - 5/16/2014, 3:46 PM
@AlphaAndDecima

Come on guys. don't turn this into a battle. it's just trolling. be constructive or something.
NoRemainder
NoRemainder - 5/16/2014, 5:29 PM
@AlphaAndDecima

Sorry, I'm not just trying to single you out, I've read this site for years but I just created an account. I didn't think you could respond to two comments at the same time. I didn't mean to call you out all alone. And this movie is most certainly not perfectly flawless as Jollem wants to believe, then. It's as cluttered a mess as Spider-Man 3, even though I enjoyed both of those movies for different reasons. It's not flawless though. Thanks for the comments, man.
View Recorder