Act of Valor: What’s The Point of Movie Critics?
I finally got to see Act of Valor the other day. This is the Navy Seal action film that stars actual Navy Seals. It’s good! An exciting action yarn with a very intense feel to it. The acting, of course, isn’t first rate, but it’s not bad at all and doesn’t get in the way of the story. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not exactly Laurence Olivier either. Great acting is not what action films are about.
Now, obviously, the film is patriotic and has a very powerful warrior ethos — that’s part of the pleasure of it, and you have to get your John Wayne on to fully enjoy it. This is no problem for me because I’ve got my John Wayne stuck on with KrazyGlue but I imagine there are some people who have to be in the proper mood. Whatever. The point is, the movie does what it sets out to do, and fans of cool, all-American action movies (like me) will definitely enjoy it.
Okay, so after I watched the film I went on Rotten Tomatoes and checked out the reviews. Viewers gave the film 75% positive ratings. Professional critics gave it 25%.
What??? Three fourths of the people who watch this movie like it, but only one fourth of the critics say it’s any good? How does that make sense? I mean, what is the point of a movie critic anyway? He has a job, right? His job is to tell you whether you’ll like the film or not, no? He’s supposed to tell you whether to plunk down your money for it. Otherwise, who cares what his opinion is?
Sure, we all understand that a critic might see a film and have aesthetic or personal objections, but shouldn’t he also have an awareness of what you, his readers, the reason his job exists, might think? Couldn’t he say, “Look, this fails as a work of art in my opinion, but lovers of hard-hitting action will enjoy it?” Couldn’t he say, “Hey, I prefer romantic comedies where guys sheepishly apologize to their girlfriends but if you, on the other hand, have testicles, you might like this instead?” Couldn’t he say, “You know, I’m a wet noodle of a leftist anti-American, but real men who love their country might be edified to watch a story about the tough guys who protect their freedoms?” Because, of course, that was the big objection the Tomato critics had to Act of Valor. Any number of them called it “propaganda.” Right. A piece of anti-American, anti-military, dishonest and poorly written horse wallop like “Valley of Elah,” won 72% praise from these knuckleheads, but a patriotic film is perforce propaganda.
A critic who hasn’t got the judgement or wisdom or simple frankness to tell you whether or not you’ll like a film regardless of his personal opinions should do something else for a living. Same goes for a journalist who can’t cover a story without tainting it with his personal politics. They are wasting skin that could be used to make an honest human being.
***
Related: See Roger L. Simon’s take:
This has been one of my bugaboos for the past 20 years or so. I have a different perspective from most, in that I actually write reviews myself (of tabletop wargames, not movies) and so I actually sat down and thought about this seriously. With almost any other item that you can read a review of (cars, electronics, computer programs, etc.) the reviewer tries to tell you whether you’ll like whatever it is he’s reviewing, or at least whether you’ll find it useful or user-friendly.
Movie critics don’t tell you if you’ll like a movie: instead, they tell you whether you *should* like a movie, and which one you *should* see. They’re too sophisticated for a proper user or viewer review that doesn’t condescend to the reader. It’s not hard to see why. Film critics are almost unique in that no one else gets an education, and then a job, just criticising something. People may go to work at Consumer Reports or someplace, but they didn’t go to school and major in “product reviewing”. Film criticism, however, is an actual discipline, and you can get a degree in it, take courses, etc. There is a similar discipline in the literary world, but many published reviewers are also writers (novelists, historians, naturalists etc.) who write reviews in the side. With film, there’s almost no crossover: you’re either a director, actor, or producer on the one side, or a reviewer on the other.
Sort of a corollary to a response to a review that I read, from a game designer, responding to a negative review of his game (thankfully not my review, but another) “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t even teach, review.”
I haven’t seen Act of Valor yet myself, but having been a U.S. Marine for 9 years I’m pretty sure I’ll have to set aside the time (not to mention any breakable objects) to enjoy this one thoroughly. Plus, I have a difficult time following “professional” movie critics and their misleading opinions.
MSM outlets wonder why they are dying. For starters their bias bleeds all the way from the front page to the freaking moview reviews. As a result I get my movie reviews from friends, family and right wing extremists like Andrew Klavan (he’s the Extremiest).
Same here.
As a screenwriter/script analyst, I find the issue of critic-bias a concern. But that doesn’t mean the sole purpose of a critic is to determine the “likes” of an audience. Everyone has different emotional buttons and preferences.
The critic’s job is to encourage or discourage viewers in an attempt preserve and promote quality work. So that we get better product. Sometimes this doesn’t work, as with Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and others. But this also doesn’t mean championing weak stories that we like either. It should be part of the cultural conversation. So, here’s my Act of Valor post: http://www.bren.us/act-valor-or-why-hollywood-supposedly-hates-america
Last night we viewed Act of Valor. As far as I’m concerned, the movie couldn’t be missing a protagonist’s “inner journey” because its viewers at my house wern’t missing one while viewing it. Why graft on an inner journey if the audience is enthralled, and the story is profound, without one?
The movie illustrates why it is that a free country’s survival is only possible for as long as there are people are willing to fight and die for it. I’m not sure what you mean by “Big Ideas”. But Act of Valor suggests that without certain values and virtues,(and without certain loyalties beyond to one’s family, religious, political or ethnic group) life, liberty and the persuit of happiness can’t be protected in a society.
Here’s what I wondered after watching the movie and reading your review: Would the way this story is told–without a protagonist’s “inner journey”–be less new to me if I had ever read any ancient Greek literature or plays ?
Anyway, I found this movie to be gripping and deceptively simple.
Sorry about a typo in the first sentence of my second paragraph. I meant to write “……for as long as there are people willing……”
Sorry about a typo within the parentheses. I meant to write : ( and without certain loyalties beyond those to one’s family, religious, political or ethnic group)
I’m sorry, Bren, but I agree with Ansonia. In fact, I would add that the concept of the “inner journey” became downright trite more than 30 years ago. It totally jumped the shark during those disaster movies of the ’70s, where every minor character had a personal back story and learned a great Life Lesson just before getting killed off.
Critics are just as progressive as the rest of the main stream media. Just as most sportswriters are progressive. Why is everything in sports always framed as to when the first African-American does something? It happened with Bob Costas last night. It had to be mentioned that Gabby Douglas was the first African-American gymnast to win the gold, blah, blah, blah. It is no surprise that media critics would find Act of Valor not to their liking. THEIR liking, not yoour liking.
Gabby Douglas also has the world’s most beautiful smile. (I have to admit to feeling very proud of this American.)
It requires a certain maturity to understand the difference between “Things I like” and “Things that are good.” Among other factors, reviewers need to understand the standards for what they review; you do not apply the same standards to a Diner as to a White Linen Restaurant — they are only superficially similar. Each film genre has its own standards and it is insanity to apply a single standard across genres.
Well, except that in both the diner and the White Linen Restaurant, the food does have to taste good.
I went to see Act of Valor when it came out. Some of the scenes are riveting. I never use a reviewer from the liberal rags. I got a recommendation on this very blog for a rental a few weeks ago (War of the Arrows) and I wasn’t disappointed. Professional reviewers are too steeped in film school theory. Every one of them will tell you that Easy Rider and Five Easy Pieces were breakthrough films full of honesty and reality. I think they suck. For the most part I don’t think much of Scorcese. I don’t think ugliness for the sake of ugliness is something to applaud. Just give me a story about human beings trying to live their lives as human beings and if I can relate to it at all, I might like it.
Regards,
John
I very much wanted to like this movie, but I saw it and I seriously remember nothing about it. I don’t even remember if it was “shaky cam” or not, which is usually a deal-breaker for me. I remember the controversy about the bad guy being Jewish, and I remember thinking that in the context of the movie it was pretty innocuous, but that’s literally all I remember from seeing it.
They — the reviewers/critics — think they have a “responsibility” to “shape” taste.
And, along with that, as good “jour-no-listas” — and people of leftist inclinations and lack of anything that might be called ethics — they think they have a right to “shape” political opinion — using any and all means — even if that includes pretenses of all sorts.
If Americans choose to oust the O … (heaven help us if they don’t) … I do believe the trends will change … trends and fashions (which is all they’re about) … and these phonies will find themselves out of work — as the rest of us get back to it.
“A critic who hasn’t got the judgement or wisdom or simple frankness to tell you whether or not you’ll like a film regardless of his personal opinions should do something else for a living.”
In most cases, they are unqualified to do anything other than spout their biased opinions, as if they had some actual merit, and criticize what others have created, even though they they lack the vision, skill, ambition and perseverance to create anything themselves.
Hard to imagine, but there are not a lot of employers looking for that particular skill-set.
I was trying to decide on a good movie for a bit of relief from the athletic talent filling the air waves this weekend. I checked the link above, from Klavan, to view the trailer. There I saw it was available from Amazon, so I checked out that. 99centsUS to view for 48 hours ($1.99 for HD) with Amazon Prime. DirecTV sent me a deal for a $5.99 rebate on a movie. So I chose Amazon. All the above is this a.m. alone.
Viewed the movie. One of the best ever. Outstanding. I’m already shuffling my day to see it again. Maybe get some buds over here to enhance the real men odor, along with appropriate grunts and groans. One of my fave TV programs was ‘The Unit’ which I streamed every episode in one sitting, from beginning to end.
And for a touch of reality, the Homeland Security should make this required viewing for all voters.
There are certain movie critics I follow dilligently. Why? Because I KNOW that if they hate a movie, I’ll love it, and if they love a movie, it will put me to sleep. I just apply reverse psychology to whatever they say.
Generally, it’s the same gang of idiots who panned the first Star Wars film back in the ’70s. And look where THAT went…
“They are wasting skin that could be used to make an honest human being.”
or a drum.
Just saw a trailer for Red Dawn. Obviously a patriotic movie. Looked it up on Rotten tomatoes and saw 53%. Applied the liberal critics/patriotic movie adjustment and thought, Wow, it must be worth seeing. But then discovered it’s the 1984 version that’s rated.
Ah well. At least if Red Dawn 2012 is no good I’ll be able to find the old one and watch it.
Michael
PS: Could someone work out a formula so that we could adjust ratings according to how patriotic they are. Act of Valor went 75% to 25%.
What do we do to the critics rating to find it’s real rating?? Is it triple the rating, or is it add 50% or is it reverse the rating (subtract from 100)? becomes 75%.
Maybe when Red Dawn comes out and is rated we’ll be able to get another data point and work out which formula works.