Jun
29
It’s fairly safe to say that the explosion of the internet has been a double-edged sword for print journalists. On one hand, it has made researching stories, articles, features, interviews, columns and reviews a thousand times easier than it was in the past. Information can be readily accessed with the click of a button, verified with a telephone call, and be ready to go into a piece at the drop of a hat – new leads can spring up and reach the news desk that perhaps never would have seen the light of day before, while email has increased the pace of reporting and its demands by an inestimable amount.
However, it also has its drawbacks. Recent films such as State Of Play have examined the preeminence of print and how it relates to a modern, largely digitally driven world. Blog sites now have the same weight, if not more, than many traditional paper-and-ink publications. Exclusives are sought out by citizen journalists and the mainstream media often follows their cues. Anybody can now give themselves a forum for their opinions, whereas before, writing for a living was very much a trade in and of itself.
A direct result of that is an inexorable and undeniable erosion of what people consider to be accurate and traditional film criticism. It’s fairly safe to say that people no longer look to the papers for their opinions on films exclusively, and magazines dedicated to the study of film and analyses of their performance, such as this one, find themselves fighting a constant battle for eyes and ears against the rapidly burgeoning amount of popular online film sites, rather than simply just rival magazines.
One of the patterns that we have been noticing in comment threads recently, not just at SciFiNow but on other sites, with regards to reviews is how many people claim that the journalist in question doesn’t understand films, doesn’t treat them fairly, or perhaps comes at them from an angle that is no more concomitant with their expectations than someone reviewing a three-year-old’s finger painting with the same critical eye that you might give a lost work of Michaelangelo. The thought occurred to us that this is a very pertinent question in the changing landscape of our popular culture, and we thought that we would open up the floor to our readers, to see what people really think of professional film criticism these days.
So, what do you? Are film critics the product of a different time, and now no more useful than a person with a WordPress account, an internet connection and a ticket to an early screening of a film? Do we still have opinions that are to be trusted, impartiality that sets us above simple fans, and an understanding of film that gives us added weight? Or has our time come, and we really are out of touch?
Please keep the comments in this thread civil, polite, and on-topic. This is not a discussion about the wider scope of journalism and how it relates to the modern world, nor of SciFiNow’s review criteria, but whether film critics still have relevance in our new globalised, mass-online era.
Our 
provides all the latest Sci-Fi news, reviews, previews, interviews and spoilers, while our 
fan page is the best place to communicate with other fans of the SciFiNow magazine.
provides all the latest Sci-Fi news, reviews, previews, interviews and spoilers, while our fan page is the best place to communicate with other fans of the SciFiNow magazine.
Very briefly, I think positive reviews can impact on a film’s success, be it a low-budget effort like Bubba Ho Tep or a blockbuster monster like The Dark Knight. However, it would seem that negative reviews, particularly of films with large marketing spend behind them, have much less influence.
Its always the case with both “Legitimate” and Web outlets that people trust certain opinions…. Journalism needs to adapt to the new media, but in the end it always comes down to who does the reader trust.
A review on Sci Fi Now is no more or less legitimate in the eyes of a reader than Barry Shitpeas (apologies to Charlie Brooker) of South Peckham, if that person writes reviews that fall in line with the readers own opinion.
It’s something which has always puzzled me, when critics become outraged at someone who is perceived to be unqualified, giving out opinion on a forum or blog. Chud.com writer Devin Faracci is a prime example of this. But really what it comes down to is a perceived sense of entitlement on the part of the critics.
And really what differentiates a writer / critic from the guy in the street? Some might claim critical awareness and knowledge of the arena they’re critiquing and its history for evaluation, but on the other side of the fence you could have the most knowledgeable person in the world writing a blog review yet being unable (or unwilling) to do it as a job.
In the end does Film Journalism have relevance in the new shrunken world of the internet? I’d say yes it does, no more or less than when any other technology surfaced and affected Journalism as a whole. But as when Radio news became threatened by TV which became threatened later by cable news networks, it just becomes a new media outlet for the consumer to choose.
Film Journalists / critics simply need to adapt to the new competition. Mr Shitpeas might have some followers who agree with everything he says, but at some point he’s going to turn around and give 8 stars out of 6 for Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus II: Shark Harder and people will drop him like a brick. Where as you’ll find others will stick with reviews from bigger outlets because it has a more consistent tone and an historically trusted source.
Now if you excuse me I have to write a review of Transmorphers III and give it a 7 LOL’s out of 10
As a bit of film buff(not just sci-fi), I try to watch anything that seems interesting, and form my own opinion. I do enjoy reading reviews, especially when they’re a bit outrageous, it can be quite amusing. For instance Peter Travers’ reviews on RS.com are really entertaining and personal, the fact that he knows a lot about movies helps of course.
I find that when sticking to only one or two of the same reviewers you get a good estimate of weither or not the journalist reviewing the movie is knowledgable and right about a movie. I rarely go by fan reviews on IMDB.com or other websites.
I don’t know exacly how the masses get their info and reviews on films, I suppose mainly the paper. There are a lot of opinions to be found on the web(just like this one), but for me I preferr journalists who write for the paper or a magazine like SciFiNow, because these people were hired for a reason. They know films. Anyone can see Terminator: Salvation and write a review and put it online, this however, doesn’t mean it comes from a competent source. After all, it’s better to watch a movie with at least some experience in the matter.
So, for me, It doesn’t matter that there are a lot of amateurs journalists putting reviews on-line, I don’t read them for a truthful conclusion to a movie.
So in my opinion; “Are film critics the product of a different time, and now no more useful than a person with a WordPress account, an internet connection and a ticket to an early screening of a film?” Not for me, no.
Critics are like pod-people – sooner or later, you’ll become one. We all do it. We love to do it. We can’t not do it. I myself, can do it blindfold.
So what makes us trust the opinion of another? Guess for many, the key is familiarity. And with that, comes respect and following and word of mouth for their written word. Even if you don’t always agree with it. And you won’t always agree with it – how can you? Reviews are entirely subjective, no matter how impartial the source. The ‘easily upset’ must surely realize that they need to detach themselves from the subject matter, just as much as the Reviewer hopefully did when committing those words to print. After all, it’s only one critic’s movie review! No point dripping snot and blowing steam out your ears! Unless you’re Michael Bay.
Not only are a Critic’s views simply personal opinion, they’re also more than likely affected by age and experience. You mature – your tastes change – you see things differently. You use those years to refine your knowledge and perception, and you realize that movie you loved and wouldn’t hear a bad word said about in your early years, really was a load of arsebiscuits. This is the cinema-going rite of passage. Happens to us all. You may still love the movie – but age and experience have allowed you to now acknowledge it’s flaws. Not that I have anything against the younger Critic, you understand? ;)
The downside of this is, as the Reviewer gets older, they could get a little out of touch with younger and current generations and even snobbish about the whole review process. Not that I have anything against the older critic, you understand? ;)
Perhaps Critics are like Footballers? There’s a ‘prime’? A shelf-life attached? Like to have communal baths?
I enjoyed reading the reviews of Leslie Halliwell. His reviews were usually well considered, and the man was much respected; but there’s no denying he developed a narrow bias. He’d favour films of the 30′s, 40′s, 50′s, and preferred certain genres, but damn if he wasn’t consistent! And there’s another key right there – consistency. I may not have agreed with many of his reviews: “Time Bandits”, “Willy Wonka”, “Brazil”: only 1 lousy star!? “Labyrinth”: none! What? Not even 1 for the Muppets? Al Pacino’s “Scarface”: none!? How dare he? That’s one of my favourite films, you cockaroach! But then Halliwell wasn’t reviewing these films for me – he was reviewing them for himself – and I just enjoyed reading his thoughts, however “off the mark” I occasionally thought they were.
Was Halliwell ever really relevent? Was he ever really necessary? Are any Movie Critics?
No. Of course not. So why do we read reviews, and what makes a good critic? Familiarity? Impartiality? Knowledge? Wisdom? Consistency? Well, I guess it’s all of those things, but more than anything, it’s “entertainment”. Spike a review with wit, experience, and points well made, and it makes an entertaining read. And at the end of the day, that’s all I’m after and I don’t really care where I find it.
And since critics have been with us since Adam told Eve her fig-leaf smells of fish, my guess is they’ll be with us, oh… at least until the World explodes! And even then, with a new Dawn of Man rising from the ashes, the first words spoken will probably be “crap special effects”…
One of the things that print reviewers seem to excel at is jumping on the bandwagon of solidarity. I’ve thought for a long time (and have said on the SFN forum) that I believe that there is a certain reluctance amongst professional journalists to fly in the face of their peer’s opinion. It’s almost as if no one wants to come out and say a movie is decent in case everyone else says it’s not and said journalist ends up looking like a fool.
I remember reading a review of Bloodrayne II in SFN which so incensed me I actually wrote and complained (Annoyed of Ham).
It’s an interesting case study: the review tells us virtually nothing about the film, the plot, the characters or anything about the movie. Instead the reviewer decided to turn his article into a castigation of the (critic’s favourite) director, Uwe Boll. Yet – its acceptable print journalism. Of course it is – no journalist in their right mind would praise a Uwe Boll movie, would they? Regardless of its brilliance (or in all probability) lack thereof. The most Boll can expect is that his latest movie is “less shit” than his other ones.
The blogosphere, on the other hand, would not seem to have the same “peer-pressure.” A blogger doesn’t have to apply professionalism in the way a print journalist does, nor does he have to explain to his editor why he thinks Michael Bay’s Armageddon is in fact an interesting examination of the human psyche’s reaction when faced with extinction on both a microcosmic and macrocosmic level (I didn’t really think it was either, but its the first example that popped into my head).
Of course, the blogosphere is no egalitarian utopia either – there’s a lot of sneering at movies that “should” be sneered at and praise for those that are perceived (dare I say, expected before they are released) to be brilliant.
All that said – is (professional) film criticism still relevant?
Yes, I think it is for a number of reasons but mainly because a film journalist should be able provide me with decent a rationale as to why he believes a certain film works and another doesn’t. Of course, this applies to bloggers too – in some cases, but many bloggers have not been trained learn their craft. I’m sure that many bloggers don’t know the difference between good cinematography or bad, what makes a script works and what (technically) doesn’t. They just know that they film was poor (because everyone says it is).
Professionals have a duty to produce a polished, well-balanced product. It’s why Sci-Fi Now can charge us £4 to read their opinions when we can go online and get a Barry Shitpeas review for free. It’s why Annoyed of Ham complains when the product he’s bought is not the product he expects (and, in fairness to SFN, that was a one-off) from the magazine.
So – a professional film critic’s opinion is no more or less valid than Barry’s. But, its likely to be better written, polished and one would hope, more considered.
I like to think that there will be a brave soul in the professional arena that will come out against his peers – perhaps the “pressure” from the bloggers will cause that to happen.
Or perhaps I’m wrong and these films that are regarded as universally “brilliant” or “appalling” are genuinely so.
But I’d still rather watch “Equilibrium” than “The Matrix.”
Additional thought… Mob Rule: Reviews gang up. Their cells join like one big powerful bloggy “Thing”. If it’s mostly “positive”, I’ll go looking for the negative, and if mostly “negative”, I’ll dig out the positive. Read too many reviews saying the same thing, I fall asleep. So I look for that little voice at the back, the underdog, the review that goes against the film grain. It’s nice to have that balance. That second opinion with something different to add.
Halliwell’s started doing it, and I’d like to see SFN do it. Even if it’s only a paragraph or soundbite at the end of the original review. Most of us go looking for a second opinion anyway – so why not have it in the mag? Would it be seen as anything other than an enhancement?
Regarding peer pressure of reviewers to fall in line with the common opinion, I’d say that was more the purview of the internet crowd than the professionals.
Take Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the crystal skull for example. The internet pretty much suggested it as crap before so much as a frame had been shot and stuck to that line… Now if pro reviewers fell in line and agreed its “being dull” if they fly in the face of the consensus they’re being contrary. It’s a double edged sword that they face, so its better to write what they think and just get on with it rather than worry about how its seen in a wider context of every comparable review in other publications.
Its this effort at impartiality that I think still keeps the “professional” reviewers relevant. Aint it cool have proven in recent years that impartiality can be bought quite resoundingly, and even sites like Chud.com with a limited pool of reviewers can be swayed by legitimate set visit access.
Mags on the other hand will attempt to maintain that impartiality by having one person do the set visit article and another do the review. You wont get that from blogger reviewers… some of whom are just pleased to get a free ticket.
Thats not to dismiss the blogosphere and all the sites around it, but what it with less invested in their own journalistic integrity for want of a better word, they’re not always going to be the best or even the most impartial reviews.
Can I just ask… is there a joke in “Barry Shitpeas” I’m missing? Just wondering what the angle is, as it’s not humourous, like “Biggus Dickus” or “Sillius Soddus”… Or is it just a nonsense name of no particular intent? Sorry – never watched Charlie Brooker.
Are Film critics still relevant in the Internet Age? I say thee Yea!
I do not read reviews of movies online especially those written by A. N. Other in a blog; I watch trailers (I have a very acute sense of what looks worthwhile and what isn`t on account of being so old ie 45) so I can usually save myself a few quid and miss out on turkeys like Transformer: ROTF or Terminator: Salvation. THAT`S when I read reviews in papers or online at Scifi Now, etc, just to see if my prejudices are correct.
As far as print goes, I wouldn`t wipe my botty on anything Empire Magazine reviews as mags like Empire are beholden to the big studios to say EVERYTHING, even Transformers #17, is ABSOLUTELY AMAZING! or they don`t get “exclusive” interviews with `actors` like Johnny Depp and so on. Luckily, my city centre library gets Sight & Sound magazine in for free so I read that for reviews of movies (I cashed in my Cineworld subscription card last year in protest at the generic rubbish Hollywood churns out as well as its inability to do any comic book characters justice) and if I want a really good laugh, I buy the Daily Mail on Fridays for the Chris Tookey penned write ups on the latest cinema releases as I find myself in complete agreement with his usually vitriolic and outspoken opinions – his Iron Man review was spot on, for example but I don`t trust any other film reviewers opinions such the Sneak in The Sun newspaper, etc.
Are film critics, print variety, an endangered species? No – only a very small minority of the British population go online to read about movies; the rest of the population are too busy with families, lovers, friends, social lives, children, paying maintenance to ex-wives for brats, etc to spend time scouring the net for hours on end looking to have their expectations confirmed when they`ve already formed their own opinions. I thought The Dark Knight was a disgrace to the Batman character, for example, but I`m in the minority on THAT one….
“The Dark Knight was a disgrace to the Batman character, for example, but I`m in the minority on THAT one…”
You’d be surprised – go check the forum – http://www.scifinow.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2758&start=15