'Transformers' Opens Big: Does That Mean Critics Are Clueless?

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen: Is there a gap between audiences and critics, or do they just have different jobs? Paramount Pictures

 

by Linda Holmes

An AP article argues today that Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen "sets a new standard for the gulf between what reviewers and mass audiences like."

The film is on its way to make insane amounts of money, while critics have mostly hated it. Rob Moore, vice-chairman of Paramount (the movie's distributor), offers the smug claim that audiences "kind of roll their eyes at the critics and say, 'You have no idea what you're talking about.'"

But is that right? That audiences read reviews of Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen and think, "You don't know what you're talking about"?

Or do audiences understand what critics mean by "good," and simply think that's not the kind of "good" they're looking for on a Friday night?

Imagine a restaurant review of McDonalds. Now think about how much money McDonalds makes. It seems like a stretch to assume that the disparity means that people who eat at McDonalds are rolling their eyes at restaurant critics and thinking they don't know what they're talking about.

That's because not every purchase is conceived as an attempt to buy quality, either with burgers or with movie tickets. Sometimes you just want what you want.

Moore insists that critics "forget what the goal of the movie was. The goal of the movie is to entertain and have fun." This is a common argument leveled against movie critics — awfully common, for one that's so easy to prove false.

Some counterexamples, after the jump...

Look at all the pure-entertainment movies that have recently gotten excellent reviews. Is the purpose of The Hangover not to entertain and have fun? Is the purpose of Up not to entertain and have fun?

For heaven's sake, Drag Me To Hell got very good reviews; does anyone think critics were crediting it for being anything other than a very well-executed holler of "BOO"? Many, many films that have no higher purpose than to entertain receive excellent reviews and develop enduring reputations as terrific movies.

So unless we have reached a point where discussions of mass entertainment are going to be so reductive that quality and commercial viability are by definition the same thing, it's possible for audiences to embrace something and for critics to reject it, and for them both to be right. Just as critics acknowledge that some movies are likely to make enormous amounts of money despite being terrible, audiences acknowledge that some movies are likely to be terrible even as they're standing in line for a ticket.

There's a big difference between audiences thinking critics don't know what they're talking about — which goes to whether criticism itself is considered credible — and audiences thinking they simply aren't looking for critical quality — which goes to whether criticism is, as regards a particular movie, relevant.

It's not that audiences conclude that the criticism is inaccurate, so much as it is that the box-office fate of the movie is immune to even accurate bad reviews. There are good movies where stuff blows up, and bad movies where stuff blows up; some people enjoy stuff blowing up whether the movie is good or bad, and they'd tell you so.

Figuratively speaking, movies show up with a variety of ribbons pinned to their chests. One of them is "Contains Critically Evaluated Quality." And lots of people look for that ribbon, but other people don't. Other people are looking for "Contains Zac Efron." Or "Really Loud." Or "Not Very Demanding." Or "Includes Giant Robot Fights."

Criticism is there to comment on the subjective things about the movie; some people are going because of the objective things: what it is, as opposed to how it is. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But it seems like a leap to turn that old, old truth into a new chasm yawning between audiences and critics. In a world where critics gave hugely positive reviews to Borat, it's nonsense to argue that they hated your robot movie because it wasn't Shakespeare.