Which Films Inspire The Best Reviews?
Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 3:35PM 
I have no idea why i illustrated this post with The Impossible newspaper adIf you read The Film Experience I assume you're also the type that absorbs at least a few (and possibly a lot more) film reviews on a regular basis. Now, reviews aren't the founding principle of this blog, as regular readers now. We've always been more adept at commentary on specific angles (performances, shots, Oscar races, single moments, whole careers, etc...), than the traditional "it just opened so let's review it" model.
But lately I've been thinking about why the traditional review is more of a struggle for me to write than other types of articles and I've also been enjoying a moment off-blog where I'm appreciating the beauty of extremely well written ones and hoping they inspire me to step it up. I've long thought about coming up with some sort of series to celebrate great critics.
Which got me to wondering...
Which films prompt the best reviews?
I don't think it's as simple as "bad movies that are fun to hate" or "auteur movies" or "the ____ genre" ...so I'd love to hear your opinion on the whats and whys. Here's a way to make the question simpler to digest: Which two or three movies this year prompted the most reviews you found interesting and which led you to seek out the most reviews? Why do you think they did that?
Reader Comments (24)
For me, I think it was The Bling Ring. It was likely because I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I did, which is typically when I find myself seeking out a review or writing a particularly long or meaningful one myself. When it's a movie you didn't expect to be as good as it was, I usually like to go out and see if this is something others have caught onto and discovered, or if its a cinematic secret between myself and the movie.
You just need to find some angle to latch onto. Reviewing films regularly is hard. I'm starting up my 31 Days of Horror extravaganza again and kicked off with a really derivative and mind-numbing Japanese torture porn. I sat there for hours trying to figure out an angle to put up a decent review. I wound up approaching it from the perspective of the source novel--a commentary on the absurdity of the torture/revenge genre--and breaking down when the concept collapsed on itself. Wound up quite happy with that review.
Other times, it really is just going through the motions and putting as much polish as you can in the editing process. I think I have it easier than you since I seek out weird genre films and cover Oscar bait just to talk about at the end of the year. When something like Antiviral is hohum in your yearly viewing, you don't have room to complain about not having inspiration.
I find the more divisive the movie, the more interested I am in reading the reviews. It's fun to read a review by a critic who loved the movie for a particular reason, and then read one right after by a critic who hated it for the same reason. Unfortunately, I can't think of a particular example at the moment.
For me, the most interesting reviews this year were the ones for "Only God Forgives" there was so much vile and hatred towards the film that made me want to look for more reviews and was surprised to see some extremely positive reviews, that's the case when a film is critically divided like that which I found so estimulating. "Under the Skin" has had some amazing reviews for us to consume, and it's exciting because most of them are positive but there are some that just rip Glazer's film appart or the fact that it got booed in Venice which I think it's always a good sign. It's probably a difficult, artistic and harrowing film that some people think is too silly just like the "Birth" experienced. I think the critical consensus of that particular film has been incredibly fascinating, I couldn't understand the critical vitriol the film received upon its release, for such an interesting, ambitious work, fully dismissing it just seems wrong and I'm glad critical consensus has changed over time. All in all I think people like us that do read film criticism like to read nasty which in turn makes them fun reviews, they stay with us longer, just look at Ebert when he passed away most of his reviews that were remembered were the extremely negative reviews he wrote which were also the funniest.
Not sure. The movie that always inspires that reaction from me is boogie nights. I just think it is filmmaking at its finest and my favorite PTA film. I always feel very fulfilled after watching it and no it aint because of Marky marks schlong. Though the ending is great of course!! I hope i answered your question right. i am famous for diverging.
I don't know if I'd be able to simplify it to a specific "type" of movie that inspires the best reviews, I think the great ones depend on the critic and what they gain/hoped to gain from the viewing experience. Maybe the subject matter has more of an influence?
That being said, I was very interested in the reviews for Spring Breakers (does this count as 2013?), Stoker and The Butler for a variety of reasons.
In the case of Spring Breakers it was a combo of auteur/cast/early reactions that made me want to hear more thoughts on it. The divisiveness of it has inspired great reactions on both sides.
For Stoker, I'll admit I mainly wanted to see if Nicole Kidman would get glowing reviews. It would also be my first Park Chan-wook (or Chan-wook Park...I dunno) film and I wanted to compare reactions to his first English-language film and his previous efforts.
And The Butler just had batshit crazy written all over it and I was not going to miss those reviews. I was surprised by how less divisive it turned out to be, though it clearly still has it's detractors.
For me, the best reviews are those that not only express why they liked or didn't like a film, but provide supporting evidence from the film as to why that might be the case. Clearly, this would likely mean providing spoilers, so I tend not to read reviews until after I've seen a film -- and then I'm often surprised at how critics reacted to the film. Take "Prisoners": it's one of the worst, most absurdly written and acted films of the year, just barely, barely saved from total disaster by Denis Villeneuve smart direction and Roger Deakins' glorious cinematography; apparently, most critics have never seen a film before because the flick was greeted with some inexplicably glorious praise in some circles. Strange.
For me, the films that tend to inspire me to read the most reviews are the ones that are extremely contentions/inspire all-over-the-map reactions (this year, Spring Breakers and The Bling Ring) and the ones that invite critical discourse by their very nature (Before Midnight). Don't know if they always inspire the best reviews, but they're the ones I generally enjoy reading the most.
One of my favorite hobbies is reading one-star reviews on Amazon for my favorite movies.
denny: Throw Man of Steel in there too, because it wound up around 50% and I admit I was, slightly, confused by it. Where to begin? Well, the acting is...the best performance was that ten second Carol Ferris cameo who said "He's really kind of hot", the pacing is completely bloated (20 minutes on Krypton, 13 minutes of action scenes), Goyer's writing betraying itself as completely tin-eared without either the Nolan Bros or grand, consistently explored thematic concepts to exonerate or cover-up his flaws and the choice of ending is the nail in the coffin. Okay, he snaps Zod's neck and we cut to black, right? Any half competent filmmaker would know that leaving us out there would leave us with just a "boring and overly grim, but decently handled 'gritty' take on Superman." What they add beyond that left me with this impression: "Wow! They just spent the entire movie convincing us that he's this pure good hero, even though this creative decision makes him a bleeping sociopath! Okay, you just got the F stamp."
Great question!
I definitely prefer the reviews which go a little deeper than the surface "USA TODAY" type basics. (Going beyond the basic plot summary, which actors were a "revelation" or an "embarrasment", whether or not it's considered to be controversial/political, the money it made on its opening weekend, and how many stars/thumbs).
I love it when a review gets into comparing the film at hand to the filmmaker's previous work, discussing the themes the film brings up, delving into curious details, connections of the film to art/literature/history/travel, reccomending other similar films/directors, details about the actual craft of the film (cinematography, score, costuming), interviews with the writer/director about the inspirations for the film... all that good inspiring stuff. It's really great when it happens, and a review takes you somewhere else. (Or maybe as a simple rule, any review that takes you to wikipedia?) Generally your site is one of the best in this regard, actually, especially the discussions (like this!). Keep it up!
(The Criterion Collection articles are great with this, "They Shoot Pictures" is great as well. Of course, Ebert was great too, in my opinion BECAUSE of the rambling.) Anybody have any other favorite sources like these?
Joseph-you bring up a great point about reading the reviews after you've seen them, as that's almost exclusively what I do. This is obviously not why most people read them and probably not the author's point, but I loathe spoiilers to no end and reviews give them away too carelessly.
now i get it. The divisive ones sometimes get the best reviews like i remember loving Ebert's review of "Knowing" because he seemed to be the only one that liked that film or thought it was great.
I read a ton of stuff regarding The Bling Ring and Spring Breakers... even though I never got around to seeing the movies! I think what they have in common is that they're both perceived to be "saying something" about society, and both movies were evaluated as potentially feminist statements. I like reading film reviews where only part of the review is strictly about the film, and the rest is devoted to analyzing why the filmmakers made certain choices, how it gives into or challenges societal norms, etc. Although I enjoy reading the occasional blockbuster pan, at a certain point I just feel big budget, mainstream films aren't as interesting to read about because they're rarely trying to "say" anything-- so what is there to talk about?
For me it's usually because of those main reasons:
-Films that got mixed reviews: Like someone mentioned above,I like to read the reviews so I will know why people love/hate it. Only God Forgives had a fair share of really good/ really bad reviews
-Films that too complex for 1st viewing: so I can read, and later after watching the film again, read again to know that if the reviews "nail" it. Upstream Color for this year and The Master last year are the best examples.
_Films that become my favorite: Because I love the films so much I want to check out as many reviews as possible, and to yet again falling in love with the films. Moonrise Kingdom and my classic favorite, Au Hasard Balthazar.
Sometimes, Reviews by dot point, which take notes on some respect of the films, like those of Film Doctor, are refreshing to read.
I recently noticed the different in reviewing between movies and music. When review an album critics tend to compare the album of the artist with their previous albums, and highlights the different and describe if it was an improvement or not.
I don't have an example to speak of, my review reading is based on so many variants. Actors/directors I admire, subject matter but I guess most of all, its the advance word I hear, either about serious problems or brilliance and of course, anything Nathaniel mentions here at TFF (blatant brown nosing intended). And even those are approached with caution.
Trailers can either make me want to see the film more or much less (American Hustle is one I want to see now even though I don't like Russel as a rule. August OC less so)
There are very few subjects that always bring me to read. Woody Allen, Almodovar, Salles, Lurman, DDL and stars that have been absent from screen for some time are the only musts I can think of off the top. For example, I was far more interested to see how Roberts was received for August, OC than Streep and even if I hear bad things in advance (which I did for the film), I was going to read the reviews to see how Julia did. I also like an obvious against type casting.
I find that mainstream blockbusters generally create boring reviews, mainly because it feels like critics have already shrugged in surrender, knowing that what they say will be deemed irrelevant by even their most devout followers -- the marketing has already won, and I'm sure in some instances, it's just a matter of landing that blurb on the ad: "Rolling Stone calls Iron Man 9 a thrill ride! Downey's authorized robot clone is so close to the real thing!"
I read reviews for smaller movies or unpredictable talents because this is where critics make the most impact, and they all know it. Bad, mediocre or spectacular, there's generally more effort in the writing since the project may not be as widely seen, which in turn yields better reviews. For instance, your review of Short Term 12 is probably one of your best because you believe so passionately in the project. Ditto for your highly entertaining review of the Lee Daniels' The Butler, where you didn't know quite what to make of it. I find this is mostly the case with a lot of the movie critics I follow.
Divisive films often yield interesting reviews, if only for the opportunity to compare the two extremes of critical opinion. However, I must say that I prefer to read reviews of movies that a lot of people might consider "B movies." I think when a critic treats B-grade genre films seriously and discusses them analytically, it's very enlightening. I don't necessarily mean like when Armond White writes a glowing review of Jonah Hex (although I must admit that I do find quite a few of his reviews to be engaging, even if I rarely agree with him), but more like when critics discuss the social implications of Godzilla movies. I understand that a lot of people probably balk at this sort of review because they think the critics are reading too much into it, but I personally just find it a lot more interesting when a critic intelligently discusses a movie that maybe isn't so intelligent on the surface. Ebert once said that it took more sophistication to understand a the melodramatic work of Douglas Sirk than it did to understand Ingmar Bergman because Bermgan's themes are on the surface, whereas in Sirk's films the themes are concealed within the style. Not that I'm suggesting Sirk made B-movies, but I think the basic idea of that is true: it often takes more intelligence to analyze something that doesn't beg to be taken seriously.
The three movies that I've read the most reviews for lately are:
- Gravity. I love the delight in the reviews like kids set free for recess. It's like they don't have to search for something to say, they're so thrilled to have an immediate intense response of their own.
- Only Lovers Left Alive. Because I particularly want to see this one. I like the way the reviewers take it as a personal pleasure for themselves alone, and write as though they're speaking to a friend who would also find this fun.
- Prisoners. This one, I kind of observed a group consensus form, which didn't really correspond to my viewing of it.
I tend to read the most reviews after I see the movie.
I appreciate that it's tough to write a review. You want the review to be good, distinctive, definitely yours, stand out from the others. It's like a parallel industry and sometimes the reviews don't have much to do with the movie. As a genre, reviews seem to coalesce to some dullish group opinion, or divide up to some endless argument that's seen as a platform, or systematically ignore anything that's not cool (eg that has to do with women, children, many kinds of ideas, etc).
There are a few reviewers that I read before going to a movie that influence me. They're not necessarily the most prestigious but they have a sense of self and a continuing curiosity. Remember that Roger Ebert when part of Siskel and Ebert, was considered the "unsophisticated" one.
I agree with everything Robert G wrote. Unless you're getting paid to review these movies it can be a struggle to justify the time it spends to do so. Why do people need to read me prattle on about the same things that everyone else is, you know? Unless I feel particularly inspired and feel like I have something to say or want to give a film exposure. And then there are times where I get paid to review GROWN UPS 2 and I'm like :/
As for the films this year... I'd say INTERIOR. LEATHER BAR, which some critics have found interesting angles as well as for the film's place in "queer cinema" and I enjoyed writing about it as well. I also think movies that tend to bring out the personal side in critics - BEFORE MIDNIGHT for instance - make for great movies to read a lot about.
Hmmm... it's hard to say. There is the element of 'movies people hate with a passion' - the reviews for Diana were definitely the most entertaining, whatever else they were. And yes, the movies that people disagree on completely are interesting, because it's interesting to see how the same thing triggers absolute adoration in one person and hate in another.
Which actually leads me to the reviews I HATE. Which are ones that are overwhelmingly positive while admitting some flaws, but do it in a 'but it's still worth watching' sort of way - and then I watch the movie and what the overwhelming number of critics thought was a flaw that doesn't undermine the movie ends up completely ruining the movie for me. It happened to me this year with both Place Beyond the Pines which I hated, and Prisoners which was okay, but nothing more than that, and left me completely baffled over the raves.
It appears easy to say you love a movie but to me it has always been much harder writing positively about a movie and articulating positive thoughts on that movie than being dismissive.
God I love this question. One answer is a quote you've offered many times yourself, Nat: The Oprah-esque concept of a movie "being (or aiming to be) its best self."
Speaking as a reviewer, it's pretty impossible to anticipate what's going to yield the most impassioned reviews, as things always surprise you. But I think the one constant is that I want something that's accessing--deliberately, unwittingly, successfully, or unsuccessfully--something that exists well outside the film itself. Something political, worldly, cultural, or reflective of the industry at large. And this can apply to negative and positive reviews alike. I loathe when commenters flock to your negative reviews (which, often, would be better described as "mixed") and accuse you of "hating movies." Because writing a negative review can be as much of a labor of love as writing a positive one. I skewered The Lone Ranger, but it gave me so much to dig into, about capitalism, white male dominance, and classic western tropes.
And again, you never know where those inspirations will come from. I read Turbo as a kind of coming-out story with whiffs of gender identity issues, and appreciated that it's about the best we can hope for these days in terms of racial diversity in a Hollywood-sanctioned animated film. And I saw You're Next as this fun and brilliant commentary on the death of Mumblecore, and an ironic dig at the generation of irony; however, I fully admitted that this might just be an aspirational reading.
I guess my answer to your question is that the films that inspire the best reviews are those that implicitly or explicitly just give you interesting material--and meat--to work with. The absolute worst reviewing experience I had recently was Planes. Because apart from the odd, innuendo-ish jokes, which would whiz over kids heads and not entertain parents, there was really NOTHING to talk about with that movie. It was just so flat and boilerplate. What do you say? It's not as good as Pixar? It unfolds like a thousand other forgettable films? There was just nothing to latch onto, and while I hope I did the best I could, I think that utter lack of critique-worthy substance is unfortunately reflected in the quality of the review.
That's a much easier question: Which Films Inspire the Worst Reviews? Those that leave you feeling nothing.
I like to be surprised by a review in the same way I like to be surprised by a film. I'm less interested in reading "consumer"-type reviews of the "should you spend your money seeing this movie or that movie?" variety, because they generally fall into consensus viewpoints and tend to be fairly predictable depending on which publication you're reading. I guess they can be useful if you're trying to pick a film for a whole group of people with varying tastes/interests to watch, but since I rarely watch movies in that context I'm definitely looking for something with a more personal or subjective angle.
In fact, the more subjective the better - in this day and age of media saturation and rampant opinion-making, I really enjoy reviews where the author is transparent about the way the movie has intersected with their own personal experiences, thoughts, feelings, tastes and beliefs. I definitely subscribe to the theory that art is a dialogue between author and viewer, so I love having that relationship unpacked in a review. At it's best this kind of review can open up new entry-points for appreciating a film and even when the reviewer passionately detests a film there is an acknowledgement of the subjectivity of this perspective. It's why film lovers often feel a kinship with a particular reviewer and seek out their reviews even if the film under scrutiny isn't something they'd normally be drawn to.