I bet your first thought when you read the title to this article was, 'Oh boy another DC fan whining about the critic grades of Green Lantern'. Let's get one thing straight-I am not a DC fanboy. Nor am I a Marvel Fanboy. But I'm a deep movie geek. Yeah I liked GL, was disappointed to see it get bad ratings, but I really didn't take their 'ratings' into consideration.
The point is...why do we even have to take a critic grade on a movie into consideration?
Admit it-many cases we do side with the critics, but that's after we see a movie. But before a movie...what's the point? Here's a little food for thought-if Green Lantern and Thor's release dates were switched around, I can guarantee that 27% on rotten tomatoes would be increased to a 40-60%. The bar for CBMs this year were set too high. Critics (usually) are too picky and biased.
Let me put it this way. Let's say Iron Man, directed the same way, with the same look and feel to it but it wasn't directed by Jon Faveru. It was directed by Michael Bay. Now that 94% on Rotten Tomatoes would be dropped to 54% because critics HATE Michael Bay. Grant it the guy isn't good for much, and if he ever did a rom-com it would fail drastically, but this new Transformers movie got attacked because of his name was attached to it. The first Transformers didn't really feel like a Michael Bay movie at all. There was an actual plot, characters that meant something, and it closed very well. It felt more like a Spielberg flick in my opinion. If the movie had been Directed by Spielberg, there would have been a lot more critics that would've given it positive ratings. But no. Yes, Revenge was Garbage and so was Armageddon and Pearl Harbor, and Bay does recycle movie clips (but you have to pay close attention to the movie to spot those clips btw), but once in a while he comes up with a good movie. from 2003-2007 Bay's movies were actually worth the ticket. But they got rotten ratings on RT. Because of Bay.
The same way goes with GL in my opinion. I think a lot of critics (while not admitting it flat out) disliked it because of Ryan Reynolds. Grant it he did show some of his Rom-com attitude in this flick, but GL was vastly better than anything in his resume. But everything in his filmography before GL didn't fair too well with Critics.
It is no doubt that when a lot of 'top critics' see one little thing they don't like in a movie they instantly find excuses to hate on the entire film. Ever read a critic's review and think to yourself, 'did we see the same movie?!' Happens to me all the time.
Roger Ebert (the most popular critic out there) is THE PERFECT example.
The Movie Hook (1991, directed by Steven Spielberg) got bashed by the famous movie critic, receiving a 2/4 rating. He called it 'embarrassing' and 'sad'. Really? With precision direction by Spielberg and a wonderful score by John Williams, this movie charmed the socks off of millions of people and kids loved it.
Ebert did again with Lost World Jurassic Park and Event Horizon. He didn't do it with Event, but Ebert said (in the late 90s) that he was too harsh on JP2 and Hook and said he would give them a 2.5/4 or higher if he would re-write his review. WTF? Event Horizon is one of the most underrated films in my opinion, and Ebert was far too critical on it. He spent most of his review bashing trying to argue that the movie was 'a rip off of Alien'. First off, if you have seen Event and Alien you could see the only comparison between the two is that they are listed in the Sci-fi/horror genre. That's all. Two completely different stories, different settings and so on. Ebert's gettin' too old.
He did this year with both Battle: LA and Thor. First off, I think he fell asleep with both of those films because he's growing too old for the newer movies. In his Thor review, he stated that the Destroyer was killed by a spear. Uhh okay Rog, way to pay attention bud. And with Battle LA, he kept saying there was way too much action for one movie. Well what do you expect with a title like 'Battle LA'??
Peter Travers is another critic that can be too harsh.
Ebert is a little more laid back than this guy however. Traver rarely gives Four Star Ratings. RARELY. The movies he really enjoys end up getting 3.5/4 ratings. Although I must say when he bashes a movie it is very funny. Like Revenge of the Fallen (no stars) Bad Boys 2 (no stars) and Dark of the Moon (No stars) All Michael Bay movies...hmmm...yet he gave all the twilight 2 stars. Okay Pete. I honestly have never seen a positive rating from this guy on a movie with Michael Bay's name attached to it (Or Reynolds). He is a hard critic to please. But then again, aren't all critics?
Travers Transformers Reviews:
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-20110629
I am a firm believer that audiences take critic grades too seriously. That's why the negative ratings for GL scared many people away. I fear that if this happens to Captain America then the same thing might happen. The only time when people don't listen to a critics rating is when a popular movie hits the big screen-Transformers, Harry Potter, Indy, Star Wars, etc. I can only imagine the bad ratings that Captain America would rack up. If Cap is rotten on Rotten Tomatoes (which I hope to god it isn't), then here are the grades we would see:
'silly movie'
'souless. Johnston has proven to be a director without vision'
'insult to the name America'
only a thought. But really, why take a critic grade seriously? GL got bashed and I still went. I wasn't expecting much out of DOTM and it got bashed, yet I went to that as well. The thing is, if you are a filmmaker in Hollywood and you don't establish a positive response with Critics early on in your career, they will hate and bash on your movies for a while (or the rest of your career *cough*Bay*cough*), regardless if it makes a billion $$$. But if you establish something real positive, then their expectations will be too high and if you make a solid movie, they'll either bash it or give mixed ratings. Happens a lot. (Hence, Spielberg's Hook. Though it was wonderful and the audience loved the movie, it wasn't Steven's best, and the critics hated it)
However t is nice to see a movie you wish to experience or one you already have getting real good ratings. Hell, Potter is 96% fresh on RT but I could give a damn. But its also good to see a movie you don't want to see get bashed. But I still don't understand how Twilight got 50%. It's beyond me. Even though Thor was certified, it dropped from 94% to 77%.
If you want to listen to critics, don't use Rotten Tomatoes. They don't really assess the reviews. They instantly think a 2.5/4 rating is rotten. Not true. If you want to listen to them, use Yahoo. Yahoo converts a critic's published rating into a letter grade. I do believe letter grades are far more crisp and clear than stars. Their people actually assess reviews that give 2.5/4 ratings, and those come out to generally be B-'s. (Which are Positive. C+ is where it gets negative) I mean seriously, Clash of the Titans (remake) received a 29% on RT, but after Yahoo assessed 13 reviews, it came out to a C+. Okay let me establish this-one guy gives a C+, he doesn't like it. If a group of people's grades come out to a C+, is positive.
In conclusion, critics are biased, picky, and overpaid thugs that have way too high expectations on movies. I hope Captain America gets positive ratings (A B- from the critic Box at the least), but if it doesn't, and we read reviews calling it 'silly' and 'insulting' proves my point. As CBM's famous GRIF once said,
'[frick] Critics. The only opinion that should matter is yours.'
I second that Grif.
thoughts?
comments?
Let me know!