Coming off of compiling a year end list followed closely by the Sundance Film Festival, I’ve been giving movie reviews a lot of thought lately. Here are some of the things I’ve been pondering and turning over in my head.
It’s Not Math. There’s a strange obsession among some readers when it comes to the scores at the end of reviews. And it’s not just the people who read me, either – almost any scored/starred/etc review on the web will have comments claiming that the score/stars/etc do not reflect the review as written. It’s as if these people are at home with a worksheet, and they’ve got QED written next to their finding of ‘4 Star Review.’
I’m not a fan of scoring reviews, and even after doing this professionally for years I struggle with what the scores mean. I’m partially hemmed in by Rotten Tomatoes, who has a system that defines what is Rotten and what is Fresh. Their system is a bit more forgiving than I think it should be, but it raises an interesting point: once a movie has hit the Rotten phase (essentially anything under a 7/10) does it matter HOW Rotten it is? For some people a 5/10 is exactly average, but for me it’s a disaster. Anything below that and we’re in short bus territory.
There’s nothing more frustrating than being told by a reader that my score doesn’t match my review; first of all, it does. I both wrote the review and handed out the score (at least here at CHUD). But above all, who cares? The text of the review – the careful choice of words, the decision about what to discuss and what not to discuss – should be the barometer you use. That’s the review; a numerical score is a handy shortcut, but never a substitute for the real thing.
I’m Too Kind. Somehow I’ve gotten a reputation as being a particularly hard-nosed critic. Looking back at my reviews I think I err on the side of positivity. At Sundance last year I was very kind to (500) Days of Summer, a movie I’ve come to really dislike in the months since. The film didn’t sit right with me at the time, either, but I overcompensated with the review and might have been too even handed. I look at reviews of movies I’ve forgotten I’ve seen and it’s hard to believe I gave them reviews that skewed positive.
I Change My Mind. Some readers have a real problem with this (and so do some of my colleagues), but the realistic fact is that my opinions about movies will change. They can change in a short time – maybe between an early screening and a final release – or over a long period of time. Just like all other thinking people my opinions evolve over time; but even beyond that the fact that movies are art means that a movie can work for me one day but not another. If I change as a person or if my understanding changes, my perception of the movie will change as well. The dynamic aspect of watching movies is actually something I love.
I Like To Write Very Slow or Very Fast. I only have two review modes: immediate response or considered over time. There’s a purity to the immediate response, especially because I’m always terrified of my opinion being contaminated by someone else. I have a cadre of smart, witty film critic friends, and as you can imagine we talk about movies a lot – there’s nothing worse than having a set opinion of a film and finding it utterly changed by a few words from someone else. That said, I really like chewing over a review. I write in my head before I set a word down, and spending time going over what I thought and what did or didn’t work sometimes leads to my best reviews. It’s when the time between viewing and review is in the middle – maybe a Tuesday screening for a Thursday review – that I often find myself lost.
I Don’t Take Notes. Many critics take notes in screenings, but I can’t. It pulls me out of the movie. If I’m engaged in a film it tends to stick in my head well enough that I’ll be able to write about it, even weeks later. If I’m not engaged in a movie I’m spending the time writing my review in my head. Either way, jotting things down on a pad in the dark simply doesn’t work for me. Sometimes this means I’ll avoid specifics in a review – if I can’t remember the name of a town in a movie and it isn’t on IMDB, I’ll just say it’s “a town.”
Overhyping Is Bullshit. Nothing pisses me off like being told I overhyped a movie. No, I didn’t. You did. My job is to be enthusiastic about movies when I like them; it’s you who took that enthusiasm and turned it into unrealistic expectations. This is part of the internet’s large bipolar disorder, where things can only suck or rock – should something not rock sufficiently it is deemed to suck, and further those who championed it are deemed to have caused it to suck by ‘overhyping’ it.
Look, film critics can get more excited about movies that normal audiences. That’s often because we’re in the unique position to discover movies. I see films at Sundance and other fests that you won’t see for months, and for which I haven’t seen a single image, photo or review. A movie like Catfish from this year’s Sundance is a great example: I walked in blind on a recommendation from a friend and I really liked it. I wrote a glowing review. I’ll likely talk about it more in the next few weeks/months as it gets closer to release. And someone who reads what I have to say will go see the movie and then complain that it wasn’t the greatest movie ever.
Part of it is that it’s hard to get people to the movies today. A film like Avatar doesn’t need anyone championing it, but a smaller movie like Catfish could definitely use cheerleaders. And that cheerleading gets misconstrued by some folks as ‘overhyping,’ But again, the blame has to fall on the overhyped person. My crime was being enthusiastic about a film I really liked.
This Is How I Watch Movies. Some people have expressed the opinion that critics must watch movies in ways that normal folks do not. For me this isn’t the case. I watch movies today just the way I did when I was 16 years old and renting every last horror movie at Video Van. I love thinking about what I’m watching, whether it be on a technical level or a psychological level or a political level or an artistic level. I’ve always watched movies this way, and it’s always made me happy. It makes each viewing experience rich and rewarding. And it isn’t like I only watch high falutin’ films; I love movies that are dumber and badder than most, and thinking critically about them has never kept me from also enjoying them.





53 comments
I really enjoyed this article. This is one of the reasons I visit this site everyday.
I'd like to be a voice of positivity. The last paragraph is a relief to read. Movies should have more going on than just what happens in the plot, and its the best of us who can see what's going on in the shittest of shit movies.
There's no way to compare TRANSPORTER 2 and OLDBOY, besides they both have action scenes in them. But I love watching both of those flicks precisely because the director is engaging us in precisely the way he wants to. There's a lot going on behind the glossy shots.
Thanks, Devin, for championing watching a film with elevated perception – whether or not you're getting paid to.
And now, we return you to your regularly scheduled name calling.
I agree with you on the scaling system. Your perception of what a 5/10 is can be entirely different from someone else's. However, RT's fresh scale is set at 60% (6/10) as the minimum which I do feel is the right line to classify what's fresh or rotten. The issue is those surfers/readers who look at the scale quickly to make a decision. A film tacked with 58% may still be worth watching while a film that has an average of 67% might still be complete rubbish. Its the review itself that's most important, not the score given as its very subjective.
If only you gave your reviews as much care as you devote to analyzing yourself.
I’ve always found Devin’s reviews to be excellent, I’ve seen many films over the years I would otherwise have given a miss based on his reviews. Though he downplays the rating system, I find his numbers to be (mostly) pretty spot on. He got a lot of flack over the Dark Knight, but what many people forget is that he gave the film a very respectable 8.5/10. The Dark Knight is a great film, but it certainly has enough flaws to knock a 1.5 off a perfect score. He gave that juggernaut of a film Avatar a 6.5/10. Why? Because he won’t take style over substance, and for that fact he should be commended not vilified. Where Devin is receiving the most ire, though, is the fact that he will heap unreasonable amounts of praise or scorn on projects long before they reach the screens. His prediction for Scott Pilgrim is that the best case scenario it it’s awesome, worst case is it’s awesome but gets a poor release. Really? There’s no concern that Cera and Winstead are miscast (I can’t picture either of them in the roles), and that Wright fails to convincingly cram a whole stack of graphic novels into one film? His reviews are good, but his News items not so much, nor his habit of starting new projects and never finishing them. What can I say? I have a love hate relationship with the guy.
before computer gaming world the magazine went under, they actually tried a few things to fix the idiocy of numbered reviews – first they tried fixing the scale so that 5 or 6 or 7 mattered, for the same reasons you stated above – a score of 5% and 35% are both shitty, is this one game really 8 percentage points better?
then they got rid of numbered scores in their reviews altogether for the specific purpose of making the reader use the actual content of the review
shame that the magazine was turned into Games for Windows like right after this happened (and then promptly went bellyup as well)
I base that 1-10 scale on a grading system. 10 is an A. 9 is a A-. 8 is a B+. 7 is a B. 6 is a B-. 5 is a C+. By the time you hit 5 you are no longer recommending the movie. This system makes sense, right?
Good piece Devin. I'm looking forward to your Four lions review……you seem to be really mulling that one over in your head.
"I Change My Mind"
You left out your surroundings. I saw–dang, for the life of me I can't remember if it was "Howard's End" or "Remains of the Day"–anyway, I saw it with a friend at the Port in Corona Del Mar one hot, August afternoon. The a/c had gone out and it was like an oven inside, so they opened the side doors and had fans blowing, causing the sides of the screen to be slightly blotted out by sunlight.
Oddly enough, I hated the movie. People began to rave so I gave it a second chance in a controlled environment and enjoyed it to my surprise.
..about rating movies: 7.5 is acceptable, but 7.4 or 7.3..? come. on. You stopped doing it but some people keeps doing it — why?!
Hey Devin, how about actually reviewing more movies instead of writing articles about reviewing movies?
Decimal scales, percentage scales and star ratings are total shit and have become a curse on the critic’s art. We’ve got to such a blip-culture, espresso-shot, at-a-glance stage with these viral measurements that movie posters don’t even use critics’ quotes anymore, they only repeat the star ratings. It’s ridiculous – by any sober assessment, a poster should only ever quote 5/5 star ratings, but of course loads of them wear 4/5 and even 3/5 badges with pride. 3/5??? Like, you’re PLEASED to be mediocre??? Magazines like Empire are pretty much to blame for this state of affairs, and back in the early 90s there was a lot of debate on the subject on its letters page. Some argued that star ratings are a handy ready-reckoner; others countered that, in every single case, they should be irrelevant after you’ve read the review. I think the wrong side won. Emotional and intellectual responses to cultural artifacts do not happen in arbitrary numbers, and only language can convey the subtleties and nuances of someone’s appreciation, or lack thereof, for what they’ve seen.
Good article. Pity this stuff even needs to be spelled out. But it really really needs to be spelled out.
The very fact you admit to changing your mind about movies upon second viewing, Devin, means that your reviews are never to be trusted in the first place. Films must be reviewed impartially, in other words any reviewer worth his salt removes himself from the equation. You're clearly letting your mood on a particular day impact on your feelings for a film, making objective reviews SUBJECTIVE – and hence worthless to anyone with half a brain. I mean, perhaps you were dying for a shit during Avatar? Wouldn't surprise me, the amount you evidently chow down on. You numb nuts.
Yeah I've recently learned that even filmmakers have their own political agendas and stuff with their movies, so it's interesting to decipher whatever their message is. I used to just watch movies and like with music used my intuition alone to decide whether they were good or bad, but there's a lot more to it than that. Psychologically I view movies differently than I did years ago, and perhaps realizing it's all fake and I can go check out the actor's youtube channel has hindered the experience now. It's like discovering santa's your father in a red suit. Oh to be a naive kid again. But even so, I am an artist and there is a clear difference to me between good art and bad art, as there must be to others who've struggled for hours with their work. That's where criticism is still relevant in my mind, cuz sometimes I just don't give a damn and phone it in.
Which is worse, star ratings, numerical ratings, or the "Thumbs up, Thumbs down" mentality that Siskel and Ebert popularized 20 or 30 years ago? I read the reviews and ignore the ratings 'cause they're worthless.
I think the main problem with people treating it like it is maths (at least as far as scores go) is that sites use such absurd rating systems. Rate out of 10, and use .5, and you have 20 different marks to give out. That is a ridiculous level of precision for something that isn't an exact science. And forget about rating out of 100 (or 10 with a .1, which is the same). I rate (games) out of 5, and use no decimals. I've written 50ish reviews to date and no one has ever told me I've mis-scored a review.
Devin, I like your reviews. I agree with you as much as I disagree, but that's beside the point. I don't care how you rate your films, I don't even care if you change your mind. The only thing I want from you is an honest opinion that isn't influenced by an outside source. If you can keep doing that, you're cool in my book. Also, stop taking yourself so seriously.
Jeff Is Always Right – that's silly. I will sometimes change my opinion on a movie, generally for the better. This usually happens because a film or filmmaker annoys me for some reason while I'm in the theatre seat, but I discover over time that the film is sticking in my mind, while other films are forgotten, and I sit down and try to figure out why that is. The day I saw YOU AND ME AND EVERYONE YOU KNOW I hated it, and belitted it to everyone I talked to about it. But over time I've found it so memorable, and found I'll make mental allusion to it occasionally, and so I have revised my opinion of the film up. And there's nothing invalid or "untrustworthy" about that.
@Jeff Is Always Right – What are you on about? How is it possible to write an objective review when the very act of reviewing – i.e giving your opinion- is inherantly subjective? That's what a film review is: someone's opinion, and opinion's are subjective. Haven't *you* ever changed your mind about a film on a second viewing? Reviewers aren't machines. For the record, I think Devin writes consistanly excellent reviews; even when I disagree with everything he says, it's good to hear another viewpoint, and a highly informed one at that.
Oooh I'm Devin this is how I review movies,blah blah blah.SHUT THE FUCK UP and get some decent taste in movies Mr 6.5 for Crystal skull.
Thank you for the not writing notes thing.
Nothing pisses me off more than reviewers who sit in the back row, looking down on the movie and taking notes the whole time.
I saw an early screening of Body of Lies, and that Ben Lyons cocksucker was texting on his cellphone for half of the movie.
Devin, you're doing a great job, and you're one of the most entertaining and insightful reviewers out there. Don't let the misanthropic virgins drag you down.
Devin: When do you come up with the score? Do you have it in mind when you sit down to write the review? If you do, try to avoid that because it could warp your thinking as you write. Sit down, think, write the review, and don't let numerical scores influence you. Once you're done with the review, read it over and then assign a number. Of course, if you do this already just ignore my unsolicited advice.
@#21 – You are right. 6.5 was way too nice for that POS. – Keep up the good work Devin, even when I don't agree with you and your review makes me mad, it is at least an intelligent oint you have made.
Hey Jeff is Always Right:
Reviews are ALWAYS a balance of objectivity and subjective thought, you dumb fuck.
Go suck a shotgun, shithead.
So basically, any problem anyone has with your reviews is because they don't understand, not because of any shortcomings you may possess as a writer. Thank you, Devin Obama.
Dear Jeff (real name or Quint-style pseudonym i wonder),
Your attack on Mr Faraci overlooks several facts:
1. He is a respected movie journalist/blogger, and you are, in all probability, not. Ladies and gentlemen i present evidence exhibit A, jealousy.
2. He is not a robot, and suggesting that he should remove himself from his reviews is a silly, childish idea. It's what works for him, and it got him where he is today.
3. Are you proposing that if a reviewer changes his mind, he is instantly untrustworthy and deserves to be ignored? Sir, i have more respect for the man who can admit when he was wrong, than the man who steadfastly refuses to be HONEST with his readers. I watched Transformers, rated it 10/10 on IMDB. Now i can hardly sit through more than ten minutes of it without throwing up lasagne into my mouth a little. I'm a bigger man for saying it…
4. Personal attacks might be amusing in the talkbacks of FHM but here sir you just look like a Gibbon. After sitting through 166 minutes of any film, some people are always gonna have numb nuts…
Why all the hate? The guy's doing his fucking job.
You made it through a whole article without Trolling. That's a step in the right direction.
You still talk about yourself waaay too much.
Why would you even have a ten point scale if everything below 5 is utter shit? And then there are reviews that are like 4.5 or 8.3 out of 10? How the fuck do you come up with those? 10 different grade levels isn't enough? An A-F or 1-5 star scale makes the most sense to me. That way each point actually means something. A-Excellent, B-Good, C-Passable, D-Bad, F-Fucking Dreck.
Yeah but, Josh Tyler from Cinemablend is still a vicious little loser.
I always appreciate your introspective articles, Devin. They help me understand how you approach your review/reaction process, which helps me understand those reviews ever better. Thanks for taking the time.
How's that navel looking?
"I'm Too Kind" Well, you need to correct this, then. When you say this, you're telling us that we can't trust you as a reviewer. Having identified this problem in your writing, you must now act. "I Change My Mind" A tougher, more subtle problem. The strident tone of so many of your articles and reviews doesn't allow for this. Either the you that wrote the initial (500) Days of Summer is a misogynist moron, or the new you is wrong. And if you change too often, then your reviews are merely the results of moods and whims, and are useless as criticism. You're no longer a critic at that point, but possibly an entertaining blogger.
It's unfortunate that some comments have gone towards the juvenile bashing of Devin. At least he's a reviewer who spends time thinking about his job with some depth, even if I don't agree with the reviews. Head to Variety (or other places like it) to get the shallow-Hollywood-hyped reviews.
Devin, will CHUD comment on the Paul Fischer Saga, or will it be like Dark Horizons and be radio silent? …
Devin, you inspire me like no other film critic I've read. Thank-you for your continued devotion to bringing us the unadulterated you.
Why do people bring up "trust" with a reviewer? He's not your friend, nor does he owe you anything. The "misanthropic virgins" (good one) don't yet have a real grasp of their own taste and need a champion to validate what they wanted to feel about a movie. They get angry if the champion doesn't give them the answer they wanted.
Children.
Is that guy in the picture talking about Avatar months before it's released and trashing it before he has even seen the movie? That guy's an ass…
It's really a catch-22 when critics champion (or "overhype") a movie. You're trying to convince people through your writing that they should see a certain movie. You want people to trust (there's that word again) your opinion and pay money to see a movie. No matter what, some people will end up disagreeing with you, and, because they saw the movie based on your recommendation, they will hold you at least partially accountable. It's an occupational hazard that's balanced out by the people who end up seeing and liking a movie you praise.
The only problem Devin has is Jackass readers like Three Oranges. Devin does not have "Problems" that he "must act" on. He is letting us know how he reviews movies, that he is thinking human being who can change his opinion on films. He DOES owe his readers explanations for why he changes his mind, but that's it. I suppose you still have the same exact opinion of Star Wars after 30+ years. Which makes you a retard
Nice article, even though you're still an insufferable jackass, Devin. After reading this site for the past 6 years, I'm thoroughly convinced that you lack the ability to review a film objectively. No matter what your sycophantic followers might say. I will agree with you that aside from the 3-D and the CG, Avatar was mediocre at its core. That still doesn't make you less of a raging jackass.
Devin, you are awesome. CHUD is the only review site I trust and you're a big part of that. Thank you for being you.
Boy, I'm glad I'm not the only one who changes his mind on the grade of a movie or how I felt about it and later, second guessed myself.. It happens, but lots of luck trying to convince people of this.. I normally post at World of KJ.com and have been given shit about this in the past, but I still think it's normal to change one's mind about a movie, perhaps depending on what sort of mood your in at the time you saw the movie could cause this???
I take reviews with a grain of salt. I do not base my seeing a movie on a review. For the the most part you can tell from a trailer if you want to see the film or not (with some cases who stars, directs, produces, edits, scores, or even the cinematographer)…I have read many of Devins reviews some are spot with what I think (i.e. Avatar) some are not (what he thinks of Transformers…or maybe just Michael Bay)…I think the problem with people is they cannot think for themselves and they need someone to make their decisions for them!…So…If you hear about a movie (most typically through a trailer) and it looks interesting go see it! If you like…you like…you do not like…well then you do not! I will say reviews are possibly great if you are not sure about film…maybe on fence…and you want to know more….typically you can read between the lines of hate and/or like to discover if you want to see a movie or not.
I find Devin, Nick…and even the dude at Horrormovieaday.com quite entertaining to read…and that is it…it is entertainment!
Letter grades would probably work better (ranges). Nothing is an exact number score, only to the one person reviewing the film.. especially when garbage movies start beating other garbage movies and troll rage ensues; they're all 0-6 out of 10 to me (or just an F, time to ride the 'Fail' phenomenon before its not the cool word anymore).. theres more specific ground to a 7, 8, 9 or 10 out of 10, then say a 2 or 3 out of 10..
I do not always agree with your reviews Devin, but it is clear that you love the art. I always look forward to your reviews. The number system works, don't change it. It's kinda like the same way you would grade a hot chick. You would never give a hot chick a 5 but she could be a 8.5 or a 9.2 =D
Good critics are worth reading for their writing style and unique voice (if they have one) and not for any kind of opinion they form. I read Devin's reviews because he can be mighty entertaining when he's on form. What I hate is the whole idea of film criticism in general. It is in no way possible for anybody's review to be an objective discussion of a film based on its merits. It never happens. The reviewers biases always get in the way of any objectivity. When you define something as art its value/quality immediately becomes subjective and no amount of my-professor-said-this justification will convince anybody otherwise. To me the only people that have any kind of legitimate viewpoint in reviewing films are other filmmakers. They know what it takes and have been through it, they know the process and everything behind it. Oh and me.
Hey Devin, I really enjoy your reviews. Even though you can come off as an ass-hole 35% of the time – at least you bring a fresh take on things. Sometimes your fanboy performs obligatory self-hate love on comicbook related things but I'm no different. Keep it up!! Always entertaining.
This site is sure up its own ass lately. I remember when it was about movies, not about their wishes and dreams for the upcoming film projects they've horned in on or the fucking feelings of the reviewers about REVIEWING.
If you don't give a shit about people's critiques of your reviews, I have an idea. STOP PAYING ATTENTION. Do you really think they are going to read this article and stop? No, in fact you've got to know you're just inviting more of it. Save us all some time and just schedule once-a-week sessions at your local S & M dungeon.
Go get more sources, contacts, and perhaps something interesting like interviews with yesterday's filmmakers (there's got to be a line producer or something who worked on Apocalypse Now who has been itching for someone to ask him what went down) and start making this site about MOVIES. Because lately it is reading like the Devin and Nick Facebook Status Update page.
Now blow off what I'm saying, proving the futility of writing this article in the first place.
Review something objectively? Apparently some of the commenters on here have forgotten that a review, BY ITS VERY NATURE, is an entirely subjective practice. Not sure what planet you idiots are living on.
Make no mistake, art criticism is not about the art itself. It is about the vindication of the critic's own opinions. It is only loosely related to the art it claims to love. I propose that Devin, whether he knows it or not, in fact does NOT love the movies themselves and instead loves the act of watching them. That's the difference between an artist and a critic, and most of the time that's fine as critics see things average consumers don't see and the artists may or may not care to discuss. This is simultaneously where critics come in handy and where they cross the line. Just because I know that The Battle of Helms Deep is recreated almost shot for shot from the castle siege in Army of Darkness doesn't make my opinion of The Two Towers more valid because it's more "informed".
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.