web
counter
 

Do You Think Like a Critic or the Average Moviegoer?

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists | Comments (21)



burlesque-movie.jpg

Not all movie reviewers are fortunate to have a readership whose opinions align well with their own, a notion that the exercise I embarked upon today elucidated. Critics and so-called “average moviegoers” don’t always agree obviously, and often the difference of opinion is wide. While I’d say that a critic’s opinion and that of the “average moviegoer” align (within 10 percent) on about 65 percent of films, there’s plenty of cases where audiences think much more highly of a film and vice versa. I think we’re fortunate that our readership, for the most part, is better aligned with the average critic, which is to say: You have a modicum of discretion.

You don’t know how rare that is.

In examining Rotten Tomatoes critics’ score and comparing it to the average percentage score from “aveage moviegoers,” (or at least those who read Rotten Tomatoes) a few things stood out. Critics and audiences are more separated when it comes to broad comedies (like Adam Sandler movies), action pics, and especially movies geared toward young women (which makes sense, if you think about who the average critic is: Older white men with beards). Critics and audiences are more closely aligned when it comes to documentaries, which also makes sense because critics probably make up 80 percent of a documentary’s audience. Anecdotally, most films that received only average scores from critics also received average scores from audience members, while most of the awards contenders this year (The Fighter, Black Swan, The King’s Speech, The Town, etc.) also fared just as well with audiences as they did with critics, which is probably why they’re receiving so many awards.

It’s interesting to me: I know that a lot of people are inclined to call film critics pretentious elitist, and obviously I’m biased because I am one, but in 18 of the 20 instances below, I agree more with the critic’s score and I think that our readers would probably, as well. (And this post is by no means an attempt to prompt a culture war. It’s the holidays, for God’s sake).

Anyway, I was fairly surprised by the top two films here, two of the worst reviewed films on the site this year, and it makes me wonder how far out of the “mainstream” we can occasionally be. I guess it does, however, give the Golden Globes some credibility with audiences, at least.

Anyway, here at the ten movies released in 2010 with the biggest positive differential between moviegoers and critics, that is: Movies that were rated substantially higher by audiences than critics.

1. Skyline 14 percent (critics), 75 percent (audience) (61 percent differential)

2. The Tourist 21 percent (critics), 78 percent (audience) (57 percent differential)

3. Grown Ups 10 percent (critics), 61 percent (audience) (51 percent differential)

4. The Last Song 19 percent (critics), 67 percent (audience) (48 percent differential)

5. For Colored Girls 32 percent (critics), 77 percent (audience) (45 percent differential)

6. Remember Me 28 percent (critics), 71 percent (audience) (43 percent differential)

7. Burlesque 37 percent (critics), 76 percent (audience) (39 percent differential)

8. Life As We Know 29 percent (critics), 68 percent (audience) (39 percent differential)

9. Dear John 28 percent (critics), 66 percent (audience) (38 percent differential)

10. Valentine’s Day 17 percent (critics), 54 percent (audience) (37 percent differential)

Conversely, here are the nine movies that had a significantly higher score from critics than they did with the average moviegoer. I would side with critics on 8 of these, but I can definitely see where audiences are coming from with regard to The American and, especially, Tiny Furniture. I don’t think either were badly made movies, but I didn’t find them very entertaining. Notice, too, that with the exception of The American, all of these movies were liked by audiences, just not as much as by critics.


1. Splice 74 percent (critics), 38 percent (audience) (-36 percent differential)

2. The American 65 percent (critics), 38 percent (audience) (-27 percent differential)

3. Tiny Furniture 79 percent (critics), 52 percent (audience) (-27 percent differential)

4. Cyrus 80 percent (critics), 55 percent (audience) (-25 percent differential)

5. Please Give 88 percent (critics), 64 percent (audience) (-24 percent differential)

6. Piranha 3D 74 percent (critics), 51 percent (audience) (-23 percent differential)

7. The Kids Are All Right 94 percent (critics), 75 percent (audience) (-19 percent differential)

8. The Crazies 71 percent (critics), 55 percent (audience) (-16 percent differential)

9. The Ghost Writer 83 percent (critics), 68 percent (audience) (-15 percent differential)










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Pajiba Love 12/22/10 | Mastering the Single Entendre | A Seriously Random List









Comments

So audiences liked Skyline far more than they did Piranha 3D??

Bunch of morons!

Posted by: Fredo at December 22, 2010 1:15 PM

Strange how Scott Pilgrim has simply been forgotten in all of this. I mean, it was beloved of critics, but the audience was... well, there was no audience for it. So it simply went away.

Posted by: Nergol at December 22, 2010 1:20 PM

I think there are two major reasons why this happens.

1: Critics have more of a grading system, whereas most of the audience is thinking thumbs up or thumbs down.
2: Everyone watches a film for a specific reason. The rating is going to reflect how well the film met expectations. Film critics understand more about film making and film history, so what they're willing to forgive is going to be much different than the average escapist moviegoer.

I've only seen The Crazies (really enjoyed it) so I can't comment on any of these specifically.

Posted by: Fraggle Rocker at December 22, 2010 1:26 PM

is 'remember me' on the wrong list, or are the percentages accidentally switched?

Posted by: dg at December 22, 2010 1:34 PM

This is right up my alley, as a critic, and a movie-goer as well. The obvious difference is star power..like The Tourist, Burlesque. If those films sucked, people would still go...just to see the stars.
Yes, there's a grading system with critics but no elitism. Critics have to see too many genres to be elitist. For example, I looove flicks, like Big Trouble in Little China, whereas some of my regular friends would not even consider seeing something like that. Its regular people..who like the same tried and true Bruckheimer formula. Boy meets girl, things blow up. God Bless you know who!

Posted by: JaneSpotting at December 22, 2010 1:39 PM

I haven't seen any movie listed above in your essay, however, I DID see Scott Pilgrim, etc., as mentioned in Nergol's comment. Which I found oddly humorous.

I don't consider myself aligned closely with critics or the public, generally or specifically speaking. I fell out of the target audience in my 20's and remain MIA some 30 years later. So I guess I'm just a cinematic nonsequitor.

So why do I love Pajiba so much when I can't hardly get excited about movies?

The writing, babies! The writing. In the critical essays and contained within the esnuing comments are nuggets of gold, exquisite gems of wit and wisdom absolutely crucial to my soul's welfare. And then there are the happy bonuses such as linking to the sordid tale of Kenny Loggins' single-handed destruction of Christmas through the simple yet awesome power of his cassette tape (and straight vodka, maybe on the rocks).

So, I guess it just boils down to: I mostly would rather read about 'em than watch 'em. And Pajiba is mine prime!

Posted by: NeoCleo at December 22, 2010 1:40 PM

Fraggle Rocker's hypothesis definitely needs to be expanded upon.

The Last Song--A Miley Cyrus movie. Saying that audience is skewed is calling the kettle black. And then saying it's for boiling water. And then calling it a kettle.

The most well-represented genre in the top part is date movies, all of them types of movies that are pulling in ladies who like that sort of thing, and guys who like doing things that will hopefully get them laid.

If I took m'lady to Valentine's Day, and you're standing outside with a clipboard, and she says "OMG IT WAS THE BEST CAST AND BEST MOVIE SINCE LOVE ACTUALLY!!", I'm not going to tell you that I feel like the movie is part of the reason the terrorists hate us, I'm going to nod in guyproval and try to grab some boob after I pay for this shit AND dinner. (p.s. shut up, it's how the world works, ladies who like shitty movies like this.)

Secondly, the latter list is oddly constructed. I'm assuming RT's "Tomameter" is still un-weighted, so those films that fall in the critics range of "good not great" are going to be approved. Conversely, are people who are less likely to analyze a film in a critical sense more apt to to give a film a thumbs down?

It certainly seems like splitting hairs when both critics and audience's "approve" but have varying degrees of approval when your data is no more sophisticated than the "like" button on Facebook. That being said, Splice and The American are the lone movies that go from critic approval to audience dislike, which for me is the only noteworthy data in part 2.

Posted by: D-Day at December 22, 2010 1:46 PM

Audiences tend to be much less harsh in their reactions. The worst you will usually hear is "It was okay." and if plenty of stuff explodes or farts on screen that is enough to keep a lot of people perfectly happy and in the solid B range. But that doesn't tend to be the case with real movie geeks which, let's be honest, is we the Pajibans and to an even greater extent, the critics. At least the real deal critics as opposed to the quote whores. Movie geeks want more and to be challenged.

I liked The Ghost Writer a lot. Same with The Crazies. Splice was flawed, but still entertaining and opened up some interesting questions. I'm used to my favorites getting passed over by viewers. I thought Scott Pilgrim was absolutely incredible. One of my favorite movies since Stardust. But like Stardust it failed to connect. Hopefully it will find the acclaim is deserves at home.

Posted by: TylerDFC at December 22, 2010 1:52 PM

Most movie critics are fucking retards who are more interested in proving how witty they are than giving an honest, useful review of a movie. Present company excluded, of course. The more highfalutin (sp?) the publication, the less in touch with reality are its movie reviews likely to be. For instance, NY Times movie reviews are worthless pieces of shit much more often than are NY Post movie reviews.

Posted by: sosumi at December 22, 2010 2:06 PM

Having finally been able to see it, I have to say that the audience were right and the critics were wrong about Splice. I really wanted this to be better, and it just isn't. So it isn't always the case that the mass audience knows nothing.

Posted by: PaulB at December 22, 2010 3:00 PM

I dunno, I think most movie critics -- or, well, any critic worth their salt -- are less about elitism and pretension, as well as less about watching a movie for its entertainment value, and simply try to view each film in regards to the history of film. Where does Film A fall in line with other films of its ilk, with other films by the same creators, and with all other films they've seen?

You can objectively compare Citizen Kane, Back to the Future, and Jackass 3D in terms of technical skill, the achievements (or lackthereof) during the timeframe it was made, as well as personal enjoyment. Filmgoers tend to only focus on the latter, but critics have more to consider and think about. It's part of the job description.

Take Dustin's review of Easy A (or, just the snippet in the list posted today). He remarks on the film's overall quality on its own terms, on the terms of its contemporaries, and on the terms of past films in the same genre. He concludes that it's worthwhile on all three counts, but audiences, really, only care about the former. As someone who's studied and loves film and history, and film history, I love reading critics because they do this. I avoid Netflix user reviews and Rotten Tomatoes/IMDB comment boards like Sir Robin in Monty Python and the Holy Grail avoids a fair fight.

Armond White, of course, only reviews movies from the perspective inside his asshole. Peering through his cheeks and savoring the aroma of his own fecal matter.

Posted by: RobP at December 22, 2010 3:01 PM

Oh, and in terms of the movies listed... I haven't seen and have no desire to see any of the films in the first, and only seen a couple in the second, but plan on seeing all of them. Those judgments were based on the films' trailers and what I know of the participants' filmographies.

So, for me, sometimes critics aren't necessary. But I love you guys, anyway.

Posted by: RobP at December 22, 2010 3:04 PM

Of the first list (and, man, what a sad, sad list it is), I've only seen one: The Tourist. I liked it. Is it the best movie ever? No. But it's enjoyable. I didn't feel ripped off.

Of the second list, I've seen Splice, The Ghost Writer and The Crazies. I agree with the critics on those. Splice was kind of ooky, though. It was a decent movie, pretty thought-provoking, but the alien-human sexual interactions were off-putting, to say the least.

Posted by: Slash at December 22, 2010 4:06 PM

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that critics see most movies that come out. You see everything. You've learned to see the tricks, you know whats cliche, you know when you're being manipulated and when the feelings are genuine.

We have the same problem in the slam poetry scene. What the audience loves and the poets love are often two very different things. This is largely mostly an issue of exposure. When you've seen it all before, you're looking for very different things that will impress you.

For example, you've seen damned near every action movie of the year. You see another one. Great, shit explodes, the hero has some mildly witty lines, he saves the world and gets the girl. Fantastic. How was this different from the last action movie you saw? Probably wasnt. It fails to stand out. your take away is "meh".

But the average movie goer might only see one or two action movies this year. Dude, did Helen Mirren really just blow some dudes face off? How is she still that fucking hot? God damn Red is a bad assed flick!

Posted by: Lennon at December 22, 2010 5:22 PM

I saw Piranha this week and now the really high rating makes less sense. All the positive reviews now reek of "ohhh, stupid people are gonna love this, and the film seems to understand that it's B-grade schlock shit, so I'll say it's great".

Either that, or it's another example of a critic saying "welllll, it isn't complete shit, certainly better than most of its genre peers" and having RT consider that a positive review.

Jerry O'Connell did do a damn fine Joe Francis, though. But really, come on, The Statham has the market cornered on "so stupid it's complete fucking fun". And fuck them for killing the last person they killed in Piranha. How fucking DARE they? And why was Paul Scheer's death a deleted scene?! I would have taken so much joy in that!

Posted by: Steve at December 23, 2010 3:24 AM

Piranha 3D was one of the most enjoyable movie experiences that I have had in a while. Apparently mainline audiences take certain types of movies way too seriously and don't take other types of movies seriously enough. Piranha 3D was everything you want in a hilariously purposefully stupid summer action flick. Mainly...it wasn't a bloated over serious self-idulgent steaming pile like every Michael Bay movie out there. But apparently that is what audiences want. Rather Piranha 3D was a gloriously self aware over the top gorey slasher film of Girls Gone Wild proportions minus the creepy sleeziness and plus the gore. What sets it apart is where other summer action movies wallow in their self indulgence this movie makes it a point to make fun of its indulgence and then takes all of the dumb spring breakers and kills them in some of the best ways possible.

Posted by: Michigan Brian at December 23, 2010 8:59 AM

audiences are definitely less harsh than critics; they have to pay for every movie they see while [most] critics do not. I remember talking myself into liking "Terminator: Salvation" because I had spent almost ten bucks to see it. seeing it on DVD snapped me out of that state of denial.

Posted by: ivn at December 23, 2010 5:57 PM

When professional critics' opinions tend to fall outside of general consensus, who do they scribe for? If the review does not serve the need of the overwhelming majority of inquisitive minds, those of us trying to decide what movie to go see tonight, the professional critic deserves one thing only: contempt from the public.

Posted by: David Ian at January 1, 2011 5:01 PM

Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to assert that I get in fact enjoyed account your blog posts. Any way I will be subscribing to your augment and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.

Posted by: Issac Maez at January 21, 2011 10:41 AM

now thats what i'm talking bout!

Posted by: start at January 29, 2011 7:31 PM

All the movies the audiences liked but critics didn't are fucking terrible. What does that say? Average moviegoers are morons.

Posted by: Steve at February 21, 2011 5:41 PM