A Gentle Reminder That Film Critics Matter

You never want to make yourself seem too important. Especially when you have a “fun” job, it seems ridiculous to be on a high horse about it. So, whenever there’s a situation where film criticism is being put on the ropes for one reason or another, I always like to defend the craft, as well as my profession, but in a gentle way. If someone doesn’t think reviewing a film is worthwhile, that’s their opinion. I certainly disagree, but I’m unlikely to change their mind. At the same time, you don’t want the industry to be working against you. For my money (literally, in some cases), we’re all in this together.

What had me thinking about this is the recent decision by Warner Bros. to essentially skip screening Trap for critics. Now, as Myles reported here in his review after putting down his hard earned money to see the flick opening weekend, it wasn’t some kind of dog. This wasn’t the kind of film that needed to be shielded from critics. M. Night Shyamalan may not be a critical darling anymore, but his last movie was largely well received. This seemed like an unforced error on the part of WB.

Did Trap need reviews? Maybe, maybe not. The thing is, it shouldn’t matter. For the entirety of cinema’s history, it was an art form that got critiqued. We’ve certainly evolved from the days of the grumpy old man typing up his review for the newspaper. The internet has changed the game. For years, I’ve said that the internet is great because it allows anyone to do what I do, but it’s also made the job harder to appreciate, since anyone can do it. There’s an uptick in bad criticism, which I think is contributing to the sense that reviews aren’t needed anymore. Folks, they are. You just need to know who to read. Some of that is a matter of taste, but avoiding the clickbait and the overt trolls can be harder than ever.

I obviously believe in the value of critics. When I spoke to colleague Matt Singer here about his Siskel & Ebert book, it was implicit that we find worth in our line of work. Not all film critics are Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, obviously. At the same time, it’s far from impossible to find reviews that are overt literature, in my eyes. While we’ve mostly seen things like Trap hidden from critics, as well as films that studios clearly believe are bad, if the thought process extends further, not only will the profession be devalued more, but we’ll be losing out on thoughtful takes on these works.

Without reviews, it’s harder for smaller films to catch on. Without reviews, it can be harder for blockbusters to become more than just money printers. Does Top Gun: Maverick still make a billion dollars without rave reviews? Potentially, yes. Does the movie manage to get a Best Picture nomination at the Academy Awards? That I think is far less likely. Sure, what I do is more clearly tied into Oscars than other critics, but it’s 100% part of how audiences find those works. Someone doesn’t need help deciding whether to see Deadpool & Wolverine, I’ll concede that, but independent cinema, foreign cinema, and anything not based on IP? They need us, so when studios make it harder, as well as when audiences seem nonplussed or actively crusade against critics, we all ultimately suffer.

Where do you fall on the importance of film critics? Let us know!