"Different Names for the Same Thing..."

Though the time and effort it takes to write a review of a major Hollywood motion picture is miniscule in comparison to the time and effort needed to adequately promote one, it can be just as important to its success. Many relentlessly promoted films have flopped based on bad reviews, and many cheaply promoted films have become hits on the strength of good ones. Though famous pundits look for many of the same elements when they review a film, their styles can be vastly different; and they often differ on their final decisions of a film's merit. But what makes a good review? A good review should be honest and free from personal bias. It should consider a film based on its own celluloid, not on the history of its director, or on its prequels or even its genre.

One of my favorite critics is and has always been Roger Ebert. He is giant in his field- quite possibly the most famous film critic in history. His reviews usually lack personal bias, even if he may throw in his feelings as an aside. Consider for example his review of Angels and Demons. The movie was directed by Ron Howard, and is based on a controversial novel by Dan Brown, who also wrote the Da Vinci code- which Howard adapted into a movie first. Rather than focus on the controversy surrounding the novel or on the poor critical reception of the film that preceded it, Ebert takes the film for what it is and manages to write a balanced review. Angels and Demons is by no means a perfect film, and Roger gives it its lumps- mentioning that it lacks subtlety and plays a bit fast and loose with its historical matter. What I have always admired about him though, is his ability to keep an open mind, and this review is no different. One thing I liked that he said in this article in particular was, "This kind of film requires us to be very forgiving, and if we are, it promises to entertain." That is the line a good reviewer must tread- knowing when a film can be enjoyed for what it is, and when it is just poorly made. His style is often humorous, and this review is a great example of what has always made him an enjoyable read. He makes fun of the film a bit, asking questions about obvious plot holes, such as Robert Langdon being not only able but EXPECTED to interpret all of the story's intricate complexities with mind-bending speed; and even pokes a bit of fun at the director for expecting the Vatican to let him shoot in the sistine chapel. Even if you disagree with his decisions, you can always glean helpful information from his insights.

In stark contrast with Roger, is one of my least favorite critics: David Denby of The New Yorker. Denby writes with a far more opinionated style, so some of his bias can be forgiven; but what I have always disliked about his reviews is his unwillingness to open his mind enough to let himself enjoy a wide range of good films. He writes as if everyone already agrees with his haughty views, and his tone is more than a bit condescending. Furthermore he has a habit of making his reviews about everything EXCEPT the film in question. To be perfectly balanced, I ask you to consider HIS review of the same movie, Angels and Demons. Instead of considering the movie as its own entity, he punishes it based on what he perceives the agenda of the source material to be and can't seem to review it without writing a simultaneous criticism of Howard's previous Dan Brown adaptation. He speaks for the actors, filmmakers, and writers of both films by drawing on unsupported speculation about everything from their handling of the subject matter, to their political views (shoehorning in several putdowns of Republicans, even though it is hardly a political debate). His disdain is especially evident in the way he sardonically jabs at everyone involved in the work, and some who were not. He calls Brown- "mad", Howard- a "daft dreamer", the work- "gothic exploitation", and can't even resist a slight stab at unrelated Brendan Fraser- calling him "beefy" when he references the Mummy movies. He finishes the review by saying, "If these movies made any damn sense, the public opinion might be no more than a yawn." His review isn't a review at all, but a self-serving rant based in personal prejudice.

Both of these critics desire to persuade their audience, as is the point of any film review. Denby tries to overbear the reader by presenting his own agenda as fact and daring the reader to disagree. Ebert presents the movie as the work of its creators and offers to help the reader in drawing his own conclusions about its merit and significance. I far prefer the latter, as I like to go to the movies for entertainment and to be spoken to. If you go to the movies to fulfill your own deeply held prejudices and desire to be told what these prejudices should be, Denby's your man.

Erik Russell

______________

"I do my best not to have any expectations when I go into a movie, because it's not fair." -Joel Siegel