Should certain filmmakers be judged at higher/lower levels in reviews?

BlitzKrieg

So I have over the last year did quick facebook/boards reviews of a number of films and 3 of them (one not on boards yet) stick out for getting a bit of slack for me being too hard on the director/film crew and 1 for being too light on them.


This got me thinking, should filmmakers like James Cameron, Christopher Nolan and Pixar (the 3 in question) be reviewed at a much stricter higher standard then say Nimrod Antel (who did Predators) Or should regardless of their prior work treat every film to the same standards and expectations.

I didnt exactly slate these films, but I was quite aggressive on Avatar for not being up to the Cameron's prior work, especially around script writing and character development and I was accused of having no heart when I said Toy Story 3 was not an outstanding masterpiece only a fine film that suffered from an overextended cast. Again from a studio that has delivered some of the best films of the last 15 years.

Its also topical because Uwe Boll, the most hated filmmaker on the internet has come out with a film called rampage with a very low key release. So low that it hasnt picked up much in the way of reviews, but some internet reviewers (spoony, cinema snob) have both reviewed and come out admitting they actually like it and its actually a huge leap forward for the director.


comments discussions etc?

amacachi

Each film should be appraised purely on its own merits, but I think that even subconsciously certain critics will also judge on past works and on expectations. Then there's the trouble of if that's acknowledged then there may be an over-correction.

Karl Hungus

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Or should regardless of their prior work treat every film to the same standards and expectations.

I don't think it's possible to judge a film in a vacuum like that. All films are invariably measured up to other films, the person judging the work based on their own experiences, preferences and expectations. The best way to do this is compare like to like, much in the same way that you might compare an action film to Die Hard, or a horror film to The Exorcist, and see how they measure up. There's no universal standards.

I don't necessarily agree that taking into account the body of work of a director like Cameron when considering their latest output is being stricter, or holding them to a higher standard exactly. It's extremely relevant to know how a film holds up to previous efforts from the same director, and if Cameron's latest isn't as good as what he's made before then it's fair to point this out, just like it's fair to say that a director who's previous work was poor has surprised you and is worthy of praise for that, that shouldn't mean that the latest film from the latter director is better than the latest from Cameron. It's important to take note of how any film compares to something similar. Case in point, Chan-Wook Park's work, it's definitely worth noting that I'm A Cyborg But That's Ok is a vastly different film to Oldboy and not to expect the same thing, but reviewing it without any reference to Park's other films might not give them the best idea of what to expect from the film.

seraphimvc

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I don't think it's possible to judge a film in a vacuum like that. All films are invariably measured up to other films, the person judging the work based on their own experiences, preferences and expectations. The best way to do this is compare like to like, much in the same way that you might compare an action film to Die Hard, or a horror film to The Exorcist, and see how they measure up. There's no universal standards.

I don't necessarily agree that taking into account the body of work of a director like Cameron when considering their latest output is being stricter, or holding them to a higher standard exactly. It's extremely relevant to know how a film holds up to previous efforts from the same director, and if Cameron's latest isn't as good as what he's made before then it's fair to point this out, just like it's fair to say that a director who's previous work was poor has surprised you and is worthy of praise for that, that shouldn't mean that the latest film from the latter director is better than the latest from Cameron. It's important to take note of how any film compares to something similar. Case in point, Chan-Wook Park's work, it's definitely worth noting that I'm A Cyborg But That's Ok is a vastly different film to Oldboy and not to expect the same thing, but reviewing it without any reference to Park's other films might not give them the best idea of what to expect from the film.

like the man said!

there are just too much diversity of the perception and taste between different viewers. for instance, i hated Jacky chan's hollywood movies so much for many reasons because of i grew up from his hongkong movies.

while obviously i do believe if two people are 'good' movie lovers(that watch and love and know/analyse whats good or bad in different genre of different films), they will have some agreement on how good of a film in some aspects in a rational way, like i agree Avatar's story is sh!t too but to me it is understandable caused' it is a winning formula, why bother to change it?especially we know james cameron put so much money on the CGI, he cant afford to lose it. while we generally agree Avatar's pacing/structure is indeed a fine work from a 1st class director(right?), hell how many of us sit through 3hours and come out without realising its been passed 3 hours!!(unlike that Baysformer 2.5hours rubbish,arggggghhhh)

Chriptoher Nolan hasnt yet disappointed us in his films so far,and he did produced some fine films and indeed is talented.Momento being a remake maybe is the only one can caught some movie snobs to rant on it(about the story etc caused' they thought nolan wrote the story). i mean,his films are not flawless, but there is no way a 'movie lover' would say his films(so far) are awful.

Toy Story 3 havent seen but i figure it will deliever what most people want. 'masterpiece' or not is merely a word used by people, which in my experience, people are overusing that word.

Karl Hungus

seraphimvc wrote: »

Chriptoher Nolan hasnt yet disappointed us in his films so far,and he did produced some fine films and indeed is talented.Momento being a remake maybe is the only one can caught some movie snobs to rant on it(about the story etc caused' they thought nolan wrote the story). i mean,his films are not flawless, but there is no way a 'movie lover' wouldnt enjoy his films.

Memento wasn't a remake, it was based on a short story Jonathan Nolan wrote. Insomnia is the film you're thinking of, which is a remake of a Norwegian film or the same name starring Stellan Skarsgard (who puts in a far better performance than Pacino did in the remake). I didn't really enjoy Nolan's Insomnia, it was a poorer film than the original.

mikhail

Compare, yes. Award an inconsistently low rating to a movie because it's not up to the director's standards, no. After that, it's about style - critics vary at least as much as filmmakers.

Miguel_Sanchez

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I didn't really enjoy Nolan's Insomnia, it was a poorer film than the original.

I thought Insomnia was decent.

Although I did fall asleep during the opening credits of it in the cinema - is that Alanis Morisette irony or actual irony?

johnny_ultimate

Comparisons are indeed vital to film criticism. How can we review Inception without comparing it to say Nolan's other films or typical summer blockbusters? How does Toy Story 3 stand up against the first two and Pixar's other films? It's a necessity, one of the central foundations of writing and discussing film.

There are cases - lets take Cars for example - where comparisons get trickier. Cars isn't quite as transcendent as Pixar's other work, but it's pretty good by it's own standards. Compared to the other animated films that year, it probably emerges positively too. This is important to stress in a review - it may be good, but may not be as impressive as some others.

For me the real problem with film criticism is star and number ratings. I hate this practice. I'd rather read a review that makes in-depth points and comparisons than an arbitrary rating. Rotten tomatoes style collation of review scores is a better practice that gives a general overview.

Nolanger

Who cares? Most films are overrated and the ones that are truly great most wouldn't watch because they're in black and white or subtitled

BlitzKrieg

There are cases - lets take Cars for example - where comparisons get trickier. Cars isn't quite as transcendent as Pixar's other work, but it's pretty good by it's own standards. Compared to the other animated films that year, it probably emerges positively too.

actually Cars came out the same year as Over the Hedge and Happy Feet both of which I felt were better films personnaly

seraphimvc

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Memento wasn't a remake, it was based on a short story Jonathan Nolan wrote. Insomnia is the film you're thinking of, which is a remake of a Norwegian film or the same name starring Stellan Skarsgard (who puts in a far better performance than Pacino did in the remake). I didn't really enjoy Nolan's Insomnia, it was a poorer film than the original.

woot lol get them mixed up:o

Karl Hungus

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

I thought Insomnia was decent.

Meh. It was average. The original was a bleaker film, and even the main character was much darker. Nolan's film just felt like a typical remake, and Pacino's acting-autopilot couldn't hope to match Skarsgard's performance. The ending was better in the original also.

Decuc500

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

This got me thinking, should filmmakers like James Cameron, Christopher Nolan and Pixar (the 3 in question) be reviewed at a much stricter higher standard then say Nimrod Antel (who did Predators) Or should regardless of their prior work treat every film to the same standards and expectations.

Bit unfair on Nimrod Antel there. I haven't seen his last US film but based on his first film, Kontroll, he has a lot to live up to!

Handsome Bob

I think for your own benefit it might be best to lower your own standards when it comes to certain directors. I enjoyed Terminator Salvation for what it was, maybe that's because I wasn't expecting a whole lot from McG. Whereas others might have gone into the cinema expecting something on a par with Cameron's films, which was something that was never going to happen. Why ruin your enjoyment of a film by applying impossible standards?

However, the other side of the coin are directors that are consistently excellent, should they be judged by the standard of their previous material? Personally I think it's hard not to. I can't help put compare Nolan's backlog or Eastwood's backlog with their latest respective projects. I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting a director to at the very least, take a sidestep in terms of the quality of their work (rather than a step backwards). I mean if it was James Cameron that made Terminator Salvation then yes, I think my estimation of the film would have been lowered. After all, it is his baby, no-one knows the franchise or the world or the characters better than the man who created it. There definitely should be a standard applied in this regard.

][cEMAN**

Could you then do this in reverse? Could you look at a film made years ago that you hadn't seen before, and compare it considering every film that's been made since, or are you stating that the film has to be comparable to everything that's come before it - as if the director/writer have seen every film that's come before it?

And in the same sense are you then saying that a reviewer who's seen a certain other film that it's comparing the one in question to, is a better reviewer because another reviewer hasn't?

At what point do you let individual films stand up on their own right, and not have to use everything else in the industry to drag them down?

purple_hatstand

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Comparisons are indeed vital to film criticism. How can we review Inception without comparing it to say Nolan's other films or typical summer blockbusters? How does Toy Story 3 stand up against the first two and Pixar's other films? It's a necessity, one of the central foundations of writing and discussing film.

There are cases - lets take Cars for example - where comparisons get trickier. Cars isn't quite as transcendent as Pixar's other work, but it's pretty good by it's own standards. Compared to the other animated films that year, it probably emerges positively too. This is important to stress in a review - it may be good, but may not be as impressive as some others.

For me the real problem with film criticism is star and number ratings. I hate this practice. I'd rather read a review that makes in-depth points and comparisons than an arbitrary rating. Rotten tomatoes style collation of review scores is a better practice that gives a general overview.

I agree. You can't have RT-style collation without individual reviewers' star-ratings, though;)

And, IMO, The RT-style collation actually makes matters worse - "9 out of 10 reviewers gave this film 4 out of 5 stars" (or whatever) is even more arbitrary and proves nothing.

I would rather rate the reviewers themselves (or, at least, the publications they work for). Just because 'Inception' is everywhere at the moment, here are two reviews of it:

This one is just a brief run-through of the plot (and not a particularly accurate one at that!) followed by a one-line opinion. This one, on the other hand, is IMO what film reviews should be.

Going back to the OP (and with this /\/\ in mind), a review of the new film in the 'Predator' sequence ought to compare it to previous instalments/similar recent films in the same genre and/or recent franchise reboots as a way of conveying information about the film to the review's readers.

mikhail

' wrote:

[cEMAN**;67036235']Could you then do this in reverse? Could you look at a film made years ago that you hadn't seen before, and compare it considering every film that's been made since, or are you stating that the film has to be comparable to everything that's come before it - as if the director/writer have seen every film that's come before it?

There are films which were genuinely innovative in their day, but which have been copied to such a degree that if they were released today, they'd not leave much of an impression. It's worth knowing their place in history, but if they've been so diluted, I'm not sure they were ever truly great, just novel.

mikhail

purple_hatstand wrote: »

I would rather rate the reviewers themselves (or, at least, the publications they work for).

I'd bet that most movie buffs have film critics whose opinions they respect. I pay some attention to RT scores, but I give them no more weight than I do to my favourite reviewer. Both sources have their own biases I account for, e.g. RT tends to score blockbusters high early as fanboy reviewers see the film first, and rate films from certain genres a little higher or lower than I do, my favourite reviewer is incapable of criticising Tarantino, and he's more sensitive to perceived racism in a film than I am.

Renn

Once the reviewer isn't Mark Kermode, it's usually okay.