How the opinions of 'they' affects the opinions of 'me'.

Here is a nice little piece by The Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan and the even better response by Dave Poland about how the effects of other critics often infect your/our/my own criticism of a given movie. Although it's more noticeable this summer (witness the instant mass lynching of Hancock and Speed Racer, vs the trip-over-themselves adultation of Iron Man and Wanted), there has always been the 'gang' aspect of film criticism. Whomever sees the movie first often sets the tone for the criticism to follow, and often that is the only reason to be first. Although I hope to god that they are right, want to bet that if Peter Travers had panned The Dark Knight two weeks ago, that the reviews from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter would not have been quite so positive?

One of my first reviews was of the 'bear whisperer' documentary Grizzly Man. Having not read any reviews, I entered into the 2005 movie relatively blind, and I absolutely loathed the picture. Imagine my astonishment when I banged out my review only to read nearly every critic and columnist I knew calling it a masterpiece, a classic, one of the best documentaries ever, etc. Did I change my opinion? Nope. I still hated Timothy Treadwell and have no wish to spend any time with the delusional fraud. Did I wonder if I had missed something elemental that precluding me from joining in the chorus? Of course I did. Especially as a novice film critic, it's tough being the only one.

Whether I'm the one guy who hated Spider-Man 2 and liked Fantastic Four, or you're the lonely soul who hated Almost Famous and Fellowship Of The Ring, there is and always has been a herd mentality. I had a film professor who once said (incorrectly) that if you don't like a critically praised film that you were missing something. No, it couldn't be that the movie didn't work for you, or that you weren't as approving as the critical masses, it must have been that you missed something that everyone else noticed and that you should see it again. He was wrong. Criticism is by its nature a subjective medium. No matter how much others try to persuade you, and the end of the day your feelings are your feelings in regards to any work of art. Yes it is absolutely possible to change your mind down the road upon reviewings (I now prefer The Mummy to The Mummy Returns, and I prefer The Living Daylights to Licence To Kill), but in the end it is your feelings that determine a piece of art's value, not how high the Tomato Meter is or whether your friends all liked it.

It's tough climbing uphill in the world of film criticism. It's tough being the only person to dislike Transformers, to dislike Iron Man, and to love Speed Racer. Doesn't mean I'm right anymore than it means they're wrong. And, if group-think really is the culprit, then history will judge these films in a far more fair manner than the current 'instant narrative' (Turan gives the classic example of Vertigo, widely panned in 1958, now considered one of Hitchcock's best). I firmly believe that Spider-Man 2 will suffer the same fate as the similarly plotted Superman II, an allegedly improved sequel that will plummeted in esteem compared to the original as the years went by. But don't let the early reviews color your appreciation of a movie. Just because Variety hated it, doesn't mean you won't love it. And it doesn't make you wrong.

Scott Mendelson