Σ(critics) = λ2xy[
] + 2xy[
] = ...??
Logos courtesy of Metacritic.com and RottenTomatoes.com
I
love movie reviews -- which is why a key perk of my day is plopping
down in any given Newsweek critic's office and getting the scoop on
what's out. "Revolutionary Road: riff." Their opinions almost never
overlap ("Road" was, varyingly, "uggghhh-two-hours-of-fighting" and
"mesmerizing"), but the lack of consensus only makes me want to see a
film more.
Which is why I read with interest the Wall Street Journal's thoughtful piece
last Friday about online movie ratings -- specifically, the knee-jerk
reaction of print movie critics when they see their reviews turned into
a number. It's well known that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes compress
critical musings -- tally what percentage
of Roger Ebert's thumbs are up -- to limited success and sometimes
hilarious results. (How could you quantify something like A.O. Scott's
delicious send-up of "Mamma Mia,"
equal parts vitriol and generosity, and my favorite review of the year?)
As the WSJ writer more bluntly puts it, "A movie that pleases everyone
but thrills no one thus can beat out a polarizing masterpiece." True
to form: right now on both sites, palatable pap like "Madagascar: Escape
2 Africa" wallops Kate Winslet's elegiac, Oscar-nominated turn in the
Oscar-nominated "The Reader," which itself earns a D-minus equivalent
(RT) and an F equivalent (MC).
These sites haven't yet
started to account for the very purposeful way that today's consumer
attends movies. In the age of On Demand, DVR, Netflix and Hulu, those
who go and pay their $15 are looking to be pleased or challenged in a
very specific, niche way. What average filmgoer is really
crossreferencing the evals for "Marley & Me" against French film
"The Class," looking for an expression of each film's merits in like terms?
And by the same, like-term token -- by branding "Revolutionary Road" as
two-thirds of a good movie -- we're bound to accept that a fusion of
"Corky Romano" (20) to "Frost/Nixon" (80) would yield "The Godfather"
(100).
Both sites also cull from the reviews of many
mainstream critics, with Metacritic weighting the scores of more
important voices, and Rotten Tomatoes separating out the elite
reviewers into a "Top Critics" tab. But they can be surprisingly
different in what grades they assign. The following are a handful of
films nominated for major Academy Awards -- acting, writing, director
and best picture, among others -- and how they fared on the two sites:
"The Wrestler." Nominated for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress. 81 on Metacritic, 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. (Wow.)
"The Reader." Nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress. 58 on Metacritic; 60% on Rotten Tomatoes. (Comparable Ratings To: "Zach and Miri Make a Porno," in which a climactic scene involves feces splattering the face of a cameraman).
"Slumdog Millionaire." Nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay. 86 on Metacritic. 94 on Rotten Tomatoes. (That's "generally favorable" at MC to "certified fresh" at RT).
"Frost/Nixon." Nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay. 80 on Metacritic, 68% on Rotten Tomatoes. (Comparable Ratings To:
"Happy-Go-Lucky," "Milk" (both rated the same): 84 on Metacritic; 93% on Rotten Tomatoes.
What do you think?