Critics hate it (44% Rotten Tomatoes)
It's at 36% now.
Stanley Kubrick said critics often get things wrong because they're privy to behind the scenes drama, reshoots, etc. Audiences at the time, he said, were better positioned to evaluate a film purely on what's on screen, rather than how it was made.
Great insight. These days, though, everyone is privy to the behind the scenes drama.
I never pay attention to critics. Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, critique.
I just thought it was interesting that a feminist film like this that critics usually drool over got such a low rating.
>>I never pay attention to critics. Those who can’t do, teach. Those who can’t teach, critique.
Well, I do pay attention to critics, as they tend to be better read and more insightful than the typical person. This movie probably isn't good, but from what I got skimming the RT pull quotes was critics praising Florence Pugh, their god-head. They'll side with her over Wilde. I'll probably watch it eventually.
I don’t let other people do my thinking for me. Also most critics aren’t “insightful.” They’re biased like everyone else. And based on the fact that every indie “critically acclaimed” film that wins awards don’t make a sliver of what more popular films do, they’re obviously out of touch with the rest of the world.share
> I don’t let other people do my thinking for me.
This is a non sequitur.
> Also most critics aren’t “insightful.”
OK, but that's not what I said. They're more knowledgeable about film than general audiences. Most critics can put together a top-five list of their favorite cinematographers. Knowledgeable critics will struggle to assemble such a list.
> And based on the fact that every indie “critically acclaimed” film that wins awards don’t make a sliver of what more popular films do, they’re obviously out of touch with the rest of the world.
It's just a heuristic. I would follow a critic I disagree with 100% of the time; that's a way to get perfect recommendations -- do the opposite of what the critic says. In the case of critics, one needs to be aware of their biases. Critics as a whole tend to prioritize novelty. One of the critiques I've seen of this film is that it's a mishmash of story ideas they've seen before. Audiences are more forgiving. Young people, who have not generally seen a lot of films, will watch the latest horror movie because it's a way to get out with friends. They're not going to know who was ripped off.
Another sort of bias is the one Kubrick hit upon (mentioned earlier). Then you have critics who are devotees of a particular director, which can make them more susceptible to the kool-aid. "I'm supposed to like the latest Terrence Malick film."
The movies I often find the most compelling often do not make the most money. Audiences pay to see sequels, and want franchises. As films become global products, witty dialogue and unique characters matter less than spectacle. Bringing it back to "wokeness," a diverse, inclusive cast can appeal to more markets. Iron Man 3 famously had a for-China-only sequence.