BLOG BLOG

חזרה

CRITICS ARE SO CRITICAL

 

For Hicksflicks.com, Friday, May 22, 2020

EDITOR’S NOTE: Way back some 41 years ago, in my fledgling movie-critic years, my columns sometimes took on a self-reflective approach, analyzing my job and how it works. This may have been the first, published June 30, 1981, in the Deseret News, under the headline: ‘Good or bad? It’s in the eyes of the viewer.’ (Note: This was three years before the PG-13 was added to the rating system.)

Rick Kogan, second-string movie critic at the Chicago Sun-Times, loved “Breaker Morant.” On the four-star scale, Kogan gave it the maximum four stars and raved about how good it was.

Chief reviewer for the Sun-Times, Roger Ebert, who co-hosts PBS-TV’s “Sneak Previews,” saw the film later and did not like it. On his nationally broadcast TV program, he said he could not recommend that audiences see it, despite co-host Gene Siskel’s endorsement on the same program.

The four-star review, however, stayed in the Sun-Times, appearing week after week in the capsule listings, despite the lead critic’s different feelings about the film.

That incident illustrates how subjective this reviewing business, is, and why the general public needs to get to know whose regular critics they read and rely on for information about movies they intend to see.

Last year, Newsweek ran two side-by-side reviews of “The Island,” with an editorial note explaining that the two critics disagreed so wildly about the picture, the magazine decided to run both opinions.

     

As a film critic for the Deseret News, I try to give reasons for films being rated G, PG or R, but they must be generalizations since the ratings board does not spell out its decisions. In the movie list that runs on the calendar page each Friday, I include parenthetically why I think each film is rated as it is. I also offer firm opinions about whether I feel the film is worth seeing.

Often, readers disagree.

When I recently reviewed “The Four Seasons,” I raved about its virtues, and though I have had many people tell me they agreed that Alan Alda’s film is excellent, I have also had a few readers write in and tell me they hated it.

Sometimes people don’t come to me with adverse reactions, however. Sometimes they go to my section editor, or Entertainment Editor Howard Pearson, or even the newspaper’s publisher. It’s important to understand that the opinions expressed under my byline are my opinions, and not anyone else’s.

It isn’t necessary to agree with a critic to use him as a consumer resource. If he praises a film, but his review gives information about it that makes you decide not to see it, then he has still done his job. The same for negative reviews of movies you decide to see anyway.

     

When you go to a movie after reading a Deseret News review, whatever the rating, whatever the quality, you will be better informed as to its content. At least that is our aim.

Readers and critics are never going to agree 100 percent about whether a movie is good or bad. When my negative review of “The Cannonball Run” appeared in the paper, it was the very day that film raked up the third largest box-office gross in history for an opening weekend.

But at least anyone who read my review and then went to the film, knew what to expect.

Many publications merely describe a film’s storyline, a few scenes and then offer an opinion, never giving a hint as to its rating or why it received that rating.

The Deseret News will always tell you the probable reasons a film is rated R or PG.

Then an opinion will be offered. But whether you ultimately go to the theater and pay to see the film, is up to you.