Here’s another one from the vault! (circa: August 2010)
After watching Dinner for Schmucks (2010) I was accused of being too much like other critics, because, not only did I not enjoy the movie as much as the other people who saw it with us, but also because when I was told that critics never agree with the public, I jokingly stated that it was because the movie viewing public are idiots who drool on themselves before they can tie their shoes.
Despite being said in jest, that comment seems harsh when written down. But being accused of being a stuffy critic for not liking Dinner for Schmucks as much as other people stuck with me. They thought it was great, I thought it was good. Since the beginning of film, critics and the public have toiled over this problem. So who’s right? The critics or the public? The simple answer is that both of them are right and both of them are wrong (yes, that’s the simple answer).
It is often said that opinions can’t be wrong. This is not entirely true. Let me explain. The Godfather (1972) is a great movie. There is no real way to argue against it. Every score of every film site, every award, every fan of the film, the approval of every critic out there, and it’s probably the only film from the 1970s that most people under the age of 30 even know exists, and a few of them may have even seen the film.
Despite all the evidence that supports The Godfather as a great film, I don’t think it’s a great film. I am wrong. I know that I’m wrong, but it does not change how I feel. That’s fine, I don’t have to think The Godfather is a great film, I think it’s a good film, but I know that despite my opinion, The Godfather is a great film.
On the flip side, there are many films I enjoy that I know are bad films. This does not change how I feel about them, but I know they’re bad. Many cinephiles can relate to this, it’s the so-bad-they’re-good phenomenon. Somehow, movies like Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959) and The Room (2003) have a fan base, solely because of how bad they are. If we like something that’s bad, and we know it’s bad, we don’t get hot-headed about people not liking it, but if we love a movie and we truly believe it is great, we can’t handle it when people attempt to tear it apart.
A recent example of this is with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009). It’s not a good movie, and there is more than enough evidence to prove this, however, people were fighting to justify their enjoyment of the film. They just need to admit that it’s just the 15-year-old boy in them that loves explosions and hot chicks. The movie had some good parts, but mostly, it’s crap. But, it’s hard for most people to admit they enjoyed a crappy movie.
Ask yourself, what you think of the public? When you walk out your door, drive down the road, go to work, turn on the TV, go to dinner, wait in line, sit in a movie theater, do you think those people around you are smart? If you’re anything like me, you spend most of your time wondering what is wrong with people. I’ll tell you what’s wrong with them, they’re morons! How many times have you said to yourself, “People will believe anything.” It’s true, people will (and do) believe anything, that’s why corporations run advertising everywhere for perfume and laundry detergent, they know that if you bombard people enough they’re more likely to give in. The same goes for movies, if people see enough advertising they think they need to see it, and, if we think everyone else is seeing it, we’re willing to see it too, even if every critic is assuring us it’s a turd.
Critics spend a good part of their lives watching movies. They understand movies (or at least they should), and if you think you have a better grasp of what’s good and what’s not, then I suggest you start writing your own criticism, and if you’re any good at it, contact me. But I digress, there are bad critics just like there are bad actors, bad writers, and bad directors. The best thing a person can do is find a critic whose opinion they trust and go with that. I follow several critics and make judgements based on their ratings.
Dinner for Schmucks was a good comedy, but not a great one. If my family and friends think it’s great, I’m not going to try to change their opinions. Comedy is the most difficult genre of film to critic because more than anywhere else in film, what makes a person laugh is subjective. Most people respond to a drama that shows a kid get hit by a car, not everyone is going to laugh when Steve Carrell is hit by one in Dinner for Schmucks, but that’s comedy, and that’s why so many comedies receive low overall scores from critics, the critics who love Dinner for Schmucks may hate The Other Guys (2010), so both films get a middle of the road rating. This is where it is most important, and difficult, to find a critic who shares your sense of humor. I’ve seen a lot of comedies, more than most people I know. My mom loves comedies and they were a staple of our movie viewing when I was growing up. This may not make me an expert on comedy, as my taste in comedy may differ from yours, but I can tell when a comedy isn’t working. Even if it’s not my style of humor. That’s one characteristic of a good critic. Dinner for Schmucks had a lot of my style of comedy, but for the first half of the film, it struggled to reach its full potential, it picked up later, and by the end it was smooth sailing, which is why it was good, but not great. The average viewer doesn’t think of this, they may remember laughing a lot (or not at all) which forms their thumbs up/thumbs down opinion of the film as they exit the theater, but in the end, we all enjoyed Dinner for Schmucks, and we’ll be quoting it for weeks to come, and to my knowledge, none of us drooled on our shoes.
