« China claim of the day | Main | Unemployment Breakdown »
Measuring the movie critics
If you want to get a sense of the zeitgeist but can only read one review, you might prefer Rene Rodriguez, whose low standard deviation from the mean review score makes him very nearly a living critical average. If you are interested in an alternative perspective, Mick LaSalle's high standard deviation places him further from the critical pack than any of these peers. Reviews from both Michael Wilmington and Marc Savlov are so regularly and respectively positive and negative that they should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt.
The source article, which contains much more information, is here. You'll find a visual representation of the critics's stances here. Hat tip goes to Eric Barker.
If you're wondering, I don't have a "favorite movie critic." I judge movies by the preview, the director, and by mentally aggregating the first five reviews I happen to read. This works well for me. If I had to go by a single source, by far it would be Variety magazine, which offers separate assessments of a movie's goodness and of its popularity with various demographics, a luxury which non-insider publications do not always have.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 9, 2009 at 09:54 AM in Film | Permalink
Comments
What I want is a clone to sent to the movie and come back and tell me "meh." The only problem is he might think I'm his clone, but I can probably convince him that having to post on MR is a drag.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 9, 2009 10:23:49 AM
I have gotta use this opportunity to plug my two favorite review sites: Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Both convert 'all' the reviews into a single number. Plus they show key snipets of each review, the review source, plus they link to the full review.
A high review from these sites doesn't mean that I'm going to love the film. But I can say that poorly received films (below a 50 on either site) tend to blow. More so with comedies, but that may be a personal thing.
Posted by: Travis at Nov 9, 2009 10:41:37 AM
Savlov's reviews should be taken as a mechanism for signaling that he is a high status socialite who is smarter than you. His stuff is still the best of the lot at the ol' Chronicle, however.
Posted by: stephen at Nov 9, 2009 10:50:33 AM
IMDB works better for movie reviews than professional critics. As a good example, Transformers 2 was actually a highly enjoyable mindless action flick.
Posted by: Tomasz Wegrzanowski at Nov 9, 2009 11:08:16 AM
Rotten tomatoes gives the consensus of all movie critics. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/
Posted by: Kyle at Nov 9, 2009 11:22:13 AM
I use RT, but find the a low score from top critics a better predictor for mainstream films and a low score from fanboys a better predictor for sci fi. I then check what the critics I most often agree with say about the film.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Nov 9, 2009 11:29:41 AM
All movie reviews walk a fine line between revealing too much of the plot and not revealing enough to give you an idea of whether you want to see it. The problem is, they all walk a different fine line. So, reading too many reviews often means you can piece together fairly major spoilers.
As others have suggested, Rotten Tomatoes gives you a snapshot of critics' consensus without revealing any plot points (unless you click through the links and read the individual reviews).
Posted by: anonymous at Nov 9, 2009 12:47:58 PM
Nthing Rotten Tomatoes. The only problem is they sort reviews as either "favorable" or "unfavorable," then give a percentage of reviewers who gave a movie a "favorable" rating. So a movie in which 60% of reviewers thought was OK will be rated as highly as a movie in which 60% of reviewers thought it was the best movie they'd ever seen.
Posted by: Jacqueline at Nov 9, 2009 2:26:03 PM
Do you understand how ridiculous this statement is:
"I judge movies by the preview, the director, and by mentally aggregating the first five reviews I happen to read."
I judge theater plays by the sources of finance, the cleverness of the title, and the attire of those leaving the venue.
Posted by: enough already at Nov 9, 2009 2:26:34 PM
I generally judge a movie based solely on having viewed it. That could just be me.
Posted by: Ryan Vann at Nov 9, 2009 3:05:36 PM
Tyler is talking about judging which movies to see.
Posted by: yc at Nov 9, 2009 3:15:46 PM
Plagued by the same problem, I invented a system that gives a whole "picture" of the movie and lets the patron decide whether to watch it or no. I am still adding more movies to this list...
http://www.bookrum.com/blog/2009/09/a-unique-and-useful-movie-rating-system/
and the examples are...
http://www.bookrum.com/blog/2009/10/zombieland-2009/
http://www.bookrum.com/blog/2009/10/paranormal-activity/
http://www.bookrum.com/blog/2009/10/the-informant-2009/
etc.
Posted by: Arnav at Nov 9, 2009 4:10:25 PM
I quite agree with Tyler. As a movie reviewer, I don't see my function as attempting to impose my tastes on readers, but as doing the work necessary to add value to their relationship with movies, to help them get more intellectually out of movies. This requires me to do a fair amount of research.
For example, what were the recent movies "District 9," "Inglourious Basterds," and "Disgrace" actually about? Reading interviews with Blomkamp and Tarantino, it was obvious that the press was misinterpreting their main intentions. With the adaptation of J.M. Coetzee's Nobel-prize winning novel "Disgrace," other critics shied away from actually explaining what the book and film showed in the starkest terms, which my quoting from the novel rectified.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 9, 2009 4:52:50 PM
Perhaps the Golden Age of great American film critics has passed. Andrew Sarris is gone. Richard Corliss is marginalized. Vincent Canby and Roger Greenspun no longer grace the pages of the Times. J Hoberman has been reduced to mostly writing blurbs. Is Molly Haskell
still active? I think David Edelstein is clever and David Denby is articulate but they don't teach me how to see.
Posted by: malcolm at Nov 9, 2009 5:49:29 PM
"Tyler is talking about judging which movies to see."
Of course, but his phrasing was a bit awkward, and I couldn't resist.
Posted by: Ryan Vann at Nov 9, 2009 6:34:31 PM
"Transformers 2 was actually a highly enjoyable mindless action flick."
Anybody who says this does not deserve the chance to comment on film. Even highly enjoyable mindless action flicks should make sense and not have awful acting.
Posted by: John Hall at Nov 9, 2009 7:11:26 PM
The only review column I ever bothered to read with any regularity. Exploding head fu.
Posted by: Eric H at Nov 9, 2009 8:24:36 PM
fixing tags
Posted by: Eric H at Nov 9, 2009 8:25:12 PM
Mine is Roger Ebert. I track with him about 90% of the time. Of course, I'm very concerned about placebo effects, as I love this man.
Posted by: anonymous at Nov 9, 2009 10:26:04 PM
Anthony Lane is the most fun to read, but he reviews far to few films to be a regular go-to.
Posted by: Travis at Nov 9, 2009 10:45:44 PM
Before my time became extremely valuable, the only movies I stopped in the middle of were Batman 3 and Transformers. Now I just don't view anything I don't know I will like, unless I have nothing better to do and view it as an educational experience. God knows education isn't supposed to be enjoyable.
I feel physically sick when I think about Transformers II. Micheal Bay should be prosecuted for a crime against humanity. I find myself thinking there should be some form of intellectual property that protects it from the owners.
The problem with screening based on director is how do you find a new one? You have to wait for popularity. That's a big problem.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 10, 2009 2:57:44 AM
I couldn't care less how a critic's choices conform to the average (geometric? harmonic? arithmetic? median?) of some population or sub-population of critics. What I want to know is how good a return I'm going to get for the money and time I spent watching a movie. I've found some critics that can do a reasonably good job of this and other whose opinions I find worthless. Some critics do a good job of this by having a strong positive correlation with my opinions, others by having a strong negative correlation. The sign is irrelevant as long as I know what it is.
Posted by: Ken at Nov 10, 2009 9:56:19 PM
All Bay Area readers of Mick LaSalle will find the study amusing. He is a very widely-read critic but also one most people say they both totally agree with on some picks and vehemently disagree with on others.
Also, oddly, once I read his reviews for the quality of his writing rather than as a gauge of whether I should see the movie or not, I started to become more and more persuaded by his reviews. If Mick liked it, I likely would too.
Posted by: AF at Nov 19, 2009 8:12:33 PM
