Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Do Critics Owe Original Movies Good Reviews?

Blogs
by Matt Singer
March 2, 2012 6:35 PM
5 Comments
  • |
"John Carter."

We're just one week away from the release of "John Carter," the Disney blockbuster budgeted, according to some reports, in the $250 million range. Most "John Carter" reviews are still to come, but early critical sentiment has been surprisingly positive; Drew McWeeny of HitFix called "Carter" "transporting in exactly the way I want my escapism to be" and Devin Faraci of Badass Digest said that "what it gets right it gets right with wonderful gusto."  Still a couple good notices are a drop in the bucket compared to the deluge of skeptical press, like this video from Bloomberg Business with the headline "Disney’s ‘John Carter’ Fights Martians, Critics" or this article from The Daily Beast that describes the film as a "quarter-billion-dollar movie fiasco."  Much has been made of the film's astronomical budget, rumors of production delays and reshoots, and the decision to change the title from the evocative "John Carter of Mars" to just "John Carter," apparently because Disney's previous Mars picture, "Mars Needs Moms," was a huge flop (by the way: did anyone ever consider "John Carter of Mars Needs Moms" as an alternative?  I think that could have worked).  At this point, whether the finished product turns out good or bad, there's a stink on this movie regardless.

But is that fair?  Brad Bird, "John Carter" director Andrew Stanton's friend and co-worker from Pixar Animation Studios, doesn't think so.  He took to Twitter earlier this week to vent his frustration over the media's coverage of "John Carter."  "The showbiz press complains about big-budget sequels & remakes," Bird wrote, "but when a big NEW film like 'John Carter' arrives, support is nonexistent."  Bird's certainly right about the first part; critics constantly beat the drum about the onslaught of derivative movies.  Now here comes "John Carter" -- not a sequel, not a remake, not based on an amusement part ride or a children's toy or a board game or a gimmicky Twitter account, but a classic piece of pulp literature by Edgar Rice Burroughs.  Does does that mean it deserves leniency?

In an analysis of Bird's argument posted on our sister blog The Playlist, Kevin Jagernauth says that regardless of "John Carter"'s origins, Disney has no one to blame but itself. "Disney has been pressing this movie hard since last July when the first teaser landed, with the film being further rolled out at D23 in August," Jagernauth writes.  "The entire point of that early press? To get people talking about the film, and if that talk has been unimpressed, it speaks to the quality of the campaign, not necessarily that of the film."

In other words, Disney and "John Carter" are the victims of the modern culture of film blogs, a culture that typically plays to a studios' strengths.  Today, trailers are treated as news, and each one is received with its own post on just about every film site on the Internet.  Typically, those posts come with a couple lines of softball analysis and speculation -- and therefore some easy free publicity -- but "John Carter"'s trailers were so underwhelming they inspired vitriolic responses from Internet columnists and commenters.  That got the bad buzz ball rolling downhill, and once that bad buzz ball starts rolling downhill it can be very hard to stop, even with the enhanced strength a human acquires while living under the favorable atmospheric conditions of Barsoom (in a related story, I'm 75 pages into "A Princess of Mars," the novel that inspired "John Carter").  So if the buzz is bad, Jagernauth argues, that's because the marketing materials people have been given to write about have been bad.

That's fair enough.  But I do wonder sometimes whether bad buzz has an undue impact on film critics' minds.  Before a cult of critical reappraisal sprung up around Kenneth Lonergan's "Margaret," its first reviews were almost all mixed-to-negative.  Did the crummy vibes surrounding the movie -- the lawsuits between Lonergan and his producers and financiers over control of the film, the lack of ads or press screenings, the fact that it had sat on the shelf for years -- affect the expectations of those early critics?  A few weeks later, after a few passionate fans began drumming up support for the film on Twitter, another wave of critics sought out "Margaret" and loved it.  So why were the early reviews so bad and the later reviews so good?  If you walk into a movie looking for a bomb, it appears, you might be more likely to find one.

I would argue that no film deserves leniency.  If critics give "John Carter" a pass just because it's "original" then they have to give a pass to every "original" film ("Mars Needs Moms" wasn't a sequel or a remake either).  Stanton's intentions might be noble and his movie could still be a piece of crap.  On the other hand, Stanton could just be looking for a big fat paycheck and he could wind up with a masterpiece anyway.  The quality of the marketing and gossip should play absolutely no role in judging the quality of the movie.  Critics are supposed to consider the narrative, not the story around that narrative, no matter how juicy that story might be.  "John Carter" -- and every film -- deserves fairness, not leniancy.  

Blogs
  • |

5 Comments

  • MaryAnn Johanson | March 7, 2012 7:16 PMReply

    Yes, critics complain about how we're deluged with sequels and prequels and remakes and reboots. But that doesn't mean that any movie that doesn't fall into these categories is automatically brilliant and worthy of praise, nor does it mean it's "original." I've seen *John Carter,* and I've reviewed it (http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2012/03/john_carter_review.html) and the fact is that it is so derivative that it feels like we've seen it all before.

    Oh, and I was one of those critics who sought out *Margaret* after it was "redisccovered," and even "influenced" by the newfound love, I still didn't think it was very good. And I was not alone among those second-wave critics in feeling this way.

  • LJ | March 6, 2012 2:11 PMReply

    I think a simple "no" would have sufficed.

  • Miles Ellison | March 4, 2012 4:45 PMReply

    Why not just quote glowing reviews from non-existent, made-up film critics, like Sony did a few years ago?

  • Daniella Sandler | March 3, 2012 12:33 PMReply

    I took the "leniancy" comment as referring to entertainment reporters, not critics. Of course critics should review the film fairly and honestly. But when reporters do snarky stories about the budget--which shouldn't matter at all to the ticket buying public--one has to wonder. TITANIC and LORD OF THE RINGS cost a lot, most filmgoers thought they were worth it. HUMAN CENTIPEDE II was a low-cost film, most people did not think it was worth even that budget, let a lone an $8 ticket.

  • Edward Copeland | March 2, 2012 7:32 PMReply

    I haven't seen John Carter, so I don't know how it will turn out but I agree and try (though admittedly it's hard sometimes) to give any film a fair shot. Sometimes when I realize that there are certain filmmakers or actors that just rub me the wrong way since I get to pick what I watch and review, I just won't bother. I think that's fairer to both of us. For far too long though, the press has loved to go crazy over big budget movies before anyone sees them so they can slap them around and, inevitably, their reputations end up being worse than the films themselves. Ishtar, Hudson Hawk, Last Action Hero -- none of these were good movies but they weren't complete crap either. The reviews became about the budget. How James Cameron escaped the trap on Titanic is mystifying since that had all the bad big budget press and, honestly, I'd rather sit through Ishtar or Last Action Hero again before I'd rewatch Titanic.

Email Updates