Tell me why?
May 16, 2010 2:51 PM Subscribe
I liked "Robin Hood," so why didn't the critics?
I just saw "Robin Hood." I really liked it. A few weeks ago I saw "Kick-ass" and hated it with a passion (I found it offensive, and not because the little girl cursed a lot [that was actually my favorite part]). So why did the critics pan "Robin Hood" and love "Kick-ass"? What am I missing? I am actually looking for insight on this, not " 'Kick-ass' was great and you're an idiot" or " 'Robin Hood' sucked, dood, and you're and idiot" replies. My husband said it is a matter of taste, which is not a helpful answer.
I just saw "Robin Hood." I really liked it. A few weeks ago I saw "Kick-ass" and hated it with a passion (I found it offensive, and not because the little girl cursed a lot [that was actually my favorite part]). So why did the critics pan "Robin Hood" and love "Kick-ass"? What am I missing? I am actually looking for insight on this, not " 'Kick-ass' was great and you're an idiot" or " 'Robin Hood' sucked, dood, and you're and idiot" replies. My husband said it is a matter of taste, which is not a helpful answer.
Your husband is right. Some people go to the movies to escape. Others go to think. It stands to reason that these two types of people won't agree on many movies. Why is that an unhelpful answer?
posted by chrisamiller at 2:59 PM on May 16, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by chrisamiller at 2:59 PM on May 16, 2010 [5 favorites]
go to rottentomatoes.com, read the reviews, you'll get firsthand thoughts about why each critic liked, or didn't like the movie.. you can then compare those thoughts against your own, that might give you the answer you're looking for.
posted by HuronBob at 2:59 PM on May 16, 2010
posted by HuronBob at 2:59 PM on May 16, 2010
We can't really tell you what's in the critics' minds. I'm not sure how you could figure out why they didn't like the movie, unless you got lucky and they happened to write an article in the newspaper explaining why they didn't like it.
posted by escabeche at 3:04 PM on May 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by escabeche at 3:04 PM on May 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
All art is subjective. That's really it.
posted by damn dirty ape at 3:07 PM on May 16, 2010
posted by damn dirty ape at 3:07 PM on May 16, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks all. Actually I am very familiar with Rotten Tomatoes and have read many of the reviews there. I have also previously read the articles. It is not that I am wondering what the critics said, I am trying to figure out why it is so different from what I think. Perhaps this is too subjective for Metafilter.
posted by fifilaru at 3:12 PM on May 16, 2010
posted by fifilaru at 3:12 PM on May 16, 2010
Best answer: You should investigate individual movie critics who are more on your wavelength. You should also pay attention to different directors - follow the ones you like, don't the ones you don't.
Also consider how those are two very different movies.
Kick-Ass was a pomo comic book movie which had a number of layers of irony - how the main character is a dweeb who never really becomes a superhero per se, how Big Daddy and Hit Girl are demonstrably nuts, etc. - and which shifted gears pretty quickly between very formulaic bits (villainous Mafia characters) to smarty-pants "we're smarter and more misanthropic than most comic book movies" bits. The movie is also very cynical. The movie very much plays to a certain crowd - a smarty-pants, adolescent one that reads comic books.
I haven't seen Robin Hood, but I get the impression that it's a much more straightforward movie, one with bigger emotions and no real irony, made with more technical finesse, made very much in the vein of Scott's other movies Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. I'm not crazy about Scott's style, barring Blade Runner and Alien, but I can easily see the appeal.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:18 PM on May 16, 2010
Also consider how those are two very different movies.
Kick-Ass was a pomo comic book movie which had a number of layers of irony - how the main character is a dweeb who never really becomes a superhero per se, how Big Daddy and Hit Girl are demonstrably nuts, etc. - and which shifted gears pretty quickly between very formulaic bits (villainous Mafia characters) to smarty-pants "we're smarter and more misanthropic than most comic book movies" bits. The movie is also very cynical. The movie very much plays to a certain crowd - a smarty-pants, adolescent one that reads comic books.
I haven't seen Robin Hood, but I get the impression that it's a much more straightforward movie, one with bigger emotions and no real irony, made with more technical finesse, made very much in the vein of Scott's other movies Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. I'm not crazy about Scott's style, barring Blade Runner and Alien, but I can easily see the appeal.
posted by Sticherbeast at 3:18 PM on May 16, 2010
I am trying to figure out why it is so different from what I think.
Because you are not a critic. There is (ostensibly, sigh) a reason these people get the jobs they have. I would not trust some random guy off the street to tell me if a movie or restaurant or book was good or not, whether or not they really believe in their own opinion. I trust someone with the training and experience in reviewing these things, the ability to see and taste things clearly that I just absorb off-handedly, to tell me what they thought. They're not always right and sometimes I very much disagree with them like you do. For instance, I haven't seen Robin Hood but the plot may have been ridiculously formulaic. I've seen plenty of movies where I am able to tell what is going to happen from the get-go. I consider this a big, big minus whereas certain people find a comfort and familiarity with it. If you notice, in reviewer-land, "formulaic" is always disparaging. So your taste might not jive with the taste of most reviewers. It's not bad or wrong, but what you're looking for in a film juts doesn't match what they are.
...also, I have not read a single serious review of Kick-Ass that was glowing. Most reviewers were very, very conflicted about what they saw and the reviews reflected this.
posted by griphus at 3:22 PM on May 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Because you are not a critic. There is (ostensibly, sigh) a reason these people get the jobs they have. I would not trust some random guy off the street to tell me if a movie or restaurant or book was good or not, whether or not they really believe in their own opinion. I trust someone with the training and experience in reviewing these things, the ability to see and taste things clearly that I just absorb off-handedly, to tell me what they thought. They're not always right and sometimes I very much disagree with them like you do. For instance, I haven't seen Robin Hood but the plot may have been ridiculously formulaic. I've seen plenty of movies where I am able to tell what is going to happen from the get-go. I consider this a big, big minus whereas certain people find a comfort and familiarity with it. If you notice, in reviewer-land, "formulaic" is always disparaging. So your taste might not jive with the taste of most reviewers. It's not bad or wrong, but what you're looking for in a film juts doesn't match what they are.
...also, I have not read a single serious review of Kick-Ass that was glowing. Most reviewers were very, very conflicted about what they saw and the reviews reflected this.
posted by griphus at 3:22 PM on May 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Sometimes, for the critics, it's a question of standards, as well as of taste. They do take into account what the production is trying to accomplish. A $5million movie with raw talent all along the production can have flaws in the cinematography and actors that laugh at their lines, and still be praised for promise. Ishtar with a huge budget and big names couldn't. Also different things are looked for in different genera. Action adventure was once a through away genera, but no longer. And anytime you call something a comic-parody of another parody, it seems like all the credits look for is one chuckle every five minutes, and then it gets approval (but, boy it's even harder to get raves for that stuff.)
posted by Some1 at 3:23 PM on May 16, 2010
posted by Some1 at 3:23 PM on May 16, 2010
Well, apparently many people (perhaps including some critics) think that Robin Hood represented Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe pretty much ripping off themselves.
posted by fuse theorem at 3:26 PM on May 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by fuse theorem at 3:26 PM on May 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I agree it's a matter of critics looking at films differently than the average moviegoer. But there are plenty of frilly, popcorn, roller coaster type movies that do well critically, so they're not all stuffy, high-falutin' film snobs.
But we all have our favorite movies that the critics generally didn't like, and vice versa. As far as other moviegoers go, IMDB's ratings show that Kick-Ass fared well with them (8.3), whereas Robin Hood was only decent (7.4). So it's not just the critics. And there are some critics who agree with you on both movies, so you just happen to be in the minority. It's the same with music and TV and books. If you absolutely loved a movie that got a 0% on RT and a 1.0 on IMDB, then maybe it's time to wonder.
Avatar is one example where I thought it was terrible all around, and reading glowing critic reviews made me want to go "What's wrong with you?" So hunting down negative reviews can be a bit cathartic.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 3:51 PM on May 16, 2010
But we all have our favorite movies that the critics generally didn't like, and vice versa. As far as other moviegoers go, IMDB's ratings show that Kick-Ass fared well with them (8.3), whereas Robin Hood was only decent (7.4). So it's not just the critics. And there are some critics who agree with you on both movies, so you just happen to be in the minority. It's the same with music and TV and books. If you absolutely loved a movie that got a 0% on RT and a 1.0 on IMDB, then maybe it's time to wonder.
Avatar is one example where I thought it was terrible all around, and reading glowing critic reviews made me want to go "What's wrong with you?" So hunting down negative reviews can be a bit cathartic.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 3:51 PM on May 16, 2010
Best answer: Have you tried reading Ebert's movie reviews? rogerebert.suntimes.com
He reviews things from a genre perspective, so if a movie is not "good" from the perspective of other critics but is perfect for its genre, Ebert will review it highly. He is also good at describing why he did or did not like something. Ebert often disagrees with other critics, partly because he just loves movies so darn much and partly because of his focus on genre.
Ebert hated both Kickass and Robin Hood. He liked Letters to Juliet, while recognizing that it is mostly a very bad film. I read Ebert not to know what movies to go see, but to get a different perspective on movies I have seen. His Great Movies section is also worth checking out, if only for ideas on movies to put in your Netflix queue.
posted by ohio at 4:22 PM on May 16, 2010
He reviews things from a genre perspective, so if a movie is not "good" from the perspective of other critics but is perfect for its genre, Ebert will review it highly. He is also good at describing why he did or did not like something. Ebert often disagrees with other critics, partly because he just loves movies so darn much and partly because of his focus on genre.
Ebert hated both Kickass and Robin Hood. He liked Letters to Juliet, while recognizing that it is mostly a very bad film. I read Ebert not to know what movies to go see, but to get a different perspective on movies I have seen. His Great Movies section is also worth checking out, if only for ideas on movies to put in your Netflix queue.
posted by ohio at 4:22 PM on May 16, 2010
James Berardinelli wrote one time about how there are pretty much two kinds of reviewers. One asks, "Is it art?" The other asks, "Is it fun to watch?"
Needless to say, they often come to drastically different conclusions.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:41 PM on May 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Needless to say, they often come to drastically different conclusions.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:41 PM on May 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Think about expectations.
One movie was based on (essentially) an underground comic book. Sure, Nick Cage is in it, but he's made a lot of dreck recently. The movie's main hook (for mainstream fans unaware of the comic book roots) is the cognitive dissonance between a little girl and that little girl's actions.
You expect this movie to take *enormous* risks and have limited appeal to a large segment of the audience. It may or may not pay off. It's therefore easy to dismiss or love slavishly. If you're in the middle, then because of the expectations, it's "just not for you."
Now, the other movie is based on one of the most well-known cultural stories of all time, won which has spawned not one, but several blockbusters in different eras. It stars two Oscar winners, and the actor-director combo recently delivered a movie that won Best Picture. The movie also has a HUGE budget, especially compared to the first movie.
You expect this movie to be ... not just great, but potentially transcendent. It's therefore easy to be swept up in your expectations and call it great ...
... or compare it to its potential, and when that potential isn't realized ... it can't be merely pretty good. It's awful, it's terrible, it's a bomb.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:09 PM on May 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
One movie was based on (essentially) an underground comic book. Sure, Nick Cage is in it, but he's made a lot of dreck recently. The movie's main hook (for mainstream fans unaware of the comic book roots) is the cognitive dissonance between a little girl and that little girl's actions.
You expect this movie to take *enormous* risks and have limited appeal to a large segment of the audience. It may or may not pay off. It's therefore easy to dismiss or love slavishly. If you're in the middle, then because of the expectations, it's "just not for you."
Now, the other movie is based on one of the most well-known cultural stories of all time, won which has spawned not one, but several blockbusters in different eras. It stars two Oscar winners, and the actor-director combo recently delivered a movie that won Best Picture. The movie also has a HUGE budget, especially compared to the first movie.
You expect this movie to be ... not just great, but potentially transcendent. It's therefore easy to be swept up in your expectations and call it great ...
... or compare it to its potential, and when that potential isn't realized ... it can't be merely pretty good. It's awful, it's terrible, it's a bomb.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:09 PM on May 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
I'm with Sticherbeast (find critics who you seem to agree with and use them in future, without evaluating the why of it all.)
Deliberately or not, you are comparing Robin Hood to all other films you have seen. That set is very different, in all likelihood, than the larger and probably artsier set of other films that a professional critic has seen, and they're definitely comparing on many, many levels.
So two intelligent people view the same film against very different contexts, which set up their very different expectations.
posted by rokusan at 5:23 PM on May 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Deliberately or not, you are comparing Robin Hood to all other films you have seen. That set is very different, in all likelihood, than the larger and probably artsier set of other films that a professional critic has seen, and they're definitely comparing on many, many levels.
So two intelligent people view the same film against very different contexts, which set up their very different expectations.
posted by rokusan at 5:23 PM on May 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: My experience with music is that people with a lot of experience come to albums or concerts with a different set of expectations because of their experience. Similarly, I like to tell an anecdote about a particularly bravura performance of King Lear at my university with an ensemble cast of five (3 men, 2 women) with minimal props and casting; most of my friends who saw it thought it was difficult to follow and not much fun, but the theater people loved it.
Movie critics are by definition people who see a lot of movies all the time. If you're not an aficionado and don't watch a lot of different movies, it's not a huge surprise that your taste is different to people who do. It's not that they have better taste, just that critics (particularly if they're not serious about reviewing for non-critics, with genre expectations, etc.) come to movies with a different standard to judge from than most moviegoers.
posted by immlass at 5:26 PM on May 16, 2010
Movie critics are by definition people who see a lot of movies all the time. If you're not an aficionado and don't watch a lot of different movies, it's not a huge surprise that your taste is different to people who do. It's not that they have better taste, just that critics (particularly if they're not serious about reviewing for non-critics, with genre expectations, etc.) come to movies with a different standard to judge from than most moviegoers.
posted by immlass at 5:26 PM on May 16, 2010
Response by poster: Thanks everyone, this makes a lot of sense. FWIW, two of my current favorite movies are "Let the Right One In" (97% at RT) and "Killer Klowns from Outer Space (67% at RT)." I just felt kind of out of touch about my reactions to these two movies (Kick-Ass and Robin Hood).
posted by fifilaru at 6:20 PM on May 16, 2010
posted by fifilaru at 6:20 PM on May 16, 2010
One of the most useful aspect of reviews for me is figuring out if I will like a movie. I know, isn't that what reviews are for? But I don't get that with aggregate sites like RT or IMDB since I've found, like you did with Kick-Ass and Robin Hood, there are plenty of movies where I disagree with the consensus. I do get that by becoming familiar with one or a few reviewers. The aforementioned James Berardinelli is my go-to for reviews. Having become familiar with his style I can usually tell if I'm going to like a movie, even if the movies are ones where our opinions would diverge significantly. If you find a reviewer you like and get familiar with you should be able to find the same.
posted by 6550 at 6:40 PM on May 16, 2010
posted by 6550 at 6:40 PM on May 16, 2010
My husband said it is a matter of taste, which is not a helpful answer.
What answer can you possibly imagine satisfying you?
Will your next question be "why do I enjoy pistachio ice cream but hate orange sherbert?"
This question is chatfilter and belongs on a movie discussion site.
posted by meadowlark lime at 8:51 PM on May 16, 2010
What answer can you possibly imagine satisfying you?
Will your next question be "why do I enjoy pistachio ice cream but hate orange sherbert?"
This question is chatfilter and belongs on a movie discussion site.
posted by meadowlark lime at 8:51 PM on May 16, 2010
critics are just people watching movies. their opinions are not any more or less valid than yours or mine or anyone's.
posted by swbarrett at 9:14 PM on May 16, 2010
posted by swbarrett at 9:14 PM on May 16, 2010
I think Sticherbeast has it.
I suspect critics, who are watching films they don't particularly want to watch, as part of their job, with the purpose of analysing and reporting back on it, don't really get drawn into movies the way a normal watcher does.
So, they tend to rate movies that are supposed to be watched with an ironic distance more highly.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:12 PM on May 16, 2010
I suspect critics, who are watching films they don't particularly want to watch, as part of their job, with the purpose of analysing and reporting back on it, don't really get drawn into movies the way a normal watcher does.
So, they tend to rate movies that are supposed to be watched with an ironic distance more highly.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 11:12 PM on May 16, 2010
I've seen some movie reviews that show a small chart with the ratings given to the movie by various newspapers or movie critics. Often there is some disagreement. It is a matter of taste, and not all professional reviewers have the same taste.
If you want to pick movies based on their reviews, find a critic you generally agree with and see the movies they like, even if they disagree with other critics. They are not monolithic.
posted by yohko at 11:26 PM on May 16, 2010
If you want to pick movies based on their reviews, find a critic you generally agree with and see the movies they like, even if they disagree with other critics. They are not monolithic.
posted by yohko at 11:26 PM on May 16, 2010
[Ebert] reviews things from a genre perspective, so if a movie is not "good" from the perspective of other critics but is perfect for its genre, Ebert will review it highly.
While I appreciate this approach generally, he seems to have difficulty switching gears when a movie (e.g., Kick Ass) appears to be one thing superficially (superhero flick,) but is actually something different (Quentin Tarantino's and Alan Moore's bastard child from a parallel dimension.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:17 AM on May 17, 2010
While I appreciate this approach generally, he seems to have difficulty switching gears when a movie (e.g., Kick Ass) appears to be one thing superficially (superhero flick,) but is actually something different (Quentin Tarantino's and Alan Moore's bastard child from a parallel dimension.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:17 AM on May 17, 2010
You expect this movie to be ... not just great, but potentially transcendent. It's therefore easy to be swept up in your expectations and call it great ...
... or compare it to its potential, and when that potential isn't realized ... it can't be merely pretty good. It's awful, it's terrible, it's a bomb.
I think the role of expectations gets overplayed, esp as an excuse for lackluster sequels. Phantom Menace was widely panned, and some defended it by saying it had unfairly high expectations. Matrix 2 and 3 were also disappointments. And Spider-Man 3.
But Spider-Man 2 also had high expectations, as did The Dark Knight, and Lord of the Rings 2 and 3, heck, even Empire Strikes Back. So I don't think you can generalize and say people loved those movies because they expected to, and glossed over any weaknesses.
It's not like if you go into any movie with rock-bottom expectations, you're guaranteed to walk out pleasantly surprised because it turned out only sorta bad instead of really bad. When you're in a dark theater for two hours, focused only on a single movie, I'm inclined to think you can only come away judging that movie on its own merits, first and foremost. Maybe a sequel wasn't as good as the original, but that doesn't mean you didn't still enjoy it for what it was.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 10:47 PM on May 17, 2010
... or compare it to its potential, and when that potential isn't realized ... it can't be merely pretty good. It's awful, it's terrible, it's a bomb.
I think the role of expectations gets overplayed, esp as an excuse for lackluster sequels. Phantom Menace was widely panned, and some defended it by saying it had unfairly high expectations. Matrix 2 and 3 were also disappointments. And Spider-Man 3.
But Spider-Man 2 also had high expectations, as did The Dark Knight, and Lord of the Rings 2 and 3, heck, even Empire Strikes Back. So I don't think you can generalize and say people loved those movies because they expected to, and glossed over any weaknesses.
It's not like if you go into any movie with rock-bottom expectations, you're guaranteed to walk out pleasantly surprised because it turned out only sorta bad instead of really bad. When you're in a dark theater for two hours, focused only on a single movie, I'm inclined to think you can only come away judging that movie on its own merits, first and foremost. Maybe a sequel wasn't as good as the original, but that doesn't mean you didn't still enjoy it for what it was.
posted by TheSecretDecoderRing at 10:47 PM on May 17, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
Kick Ass: Not for the faint of heart, Kick-Ass takes the comic adaptation genre to new levels of visual style, bloody violence, and gleeful profanity. 75% positive reviews.
Robin Hood: Ridley Scott's revisionist take on this oft-told tale offers some fine acting and a few gripping action sequences, but it's missing the thrill of adventure that made Robin Hood a legend in the first place. 45% positive reviews.
So it sounds like the critics found Robin Hood formulaic. Perhaps you like the formula, so that's not a problem for you - definitely nothing wrong with that. I like superhero movies (no matter how cliché by some standards) because I really like the formula.
On the other hand they apparently thought Kick Ass offered something new and worthwhile.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 2:57 PM on May 16, 2010