DISQUS

Robert Fure · 7 months ago

I think print journalists were just jealous that the on-line guys were defending all the "hip" and edgy films like Watchmen and Observe and Report so they latched on to the most paint-by-numbers-anti-hip-edgy film they could and chose to defend it.

Seems everyone has forgot that critic is derived from critical, the definition of which is a mixture of careful evaluation and an examining of flaws. These days, critic might as well be synonymous with publicist.

Mick LaSalle · 7 months ago

But I gave good reviews to WATCHMEN and OBSERVE AND REPORT and I still went easy on STATE OF PLAY. Also, you assume that critics sit around thinking about other critics. I usually have no idea what other critics have to say. Once I've written a review, I'm thinking about what I have to do next week. The public might read ten reviews in a row -- because someone in the public, who hasn't seen the movie, might be trying to decide whether to go or not. But a critic has already seen the movie and written the review, and by Friday, it's pretty much old news.
I like this site, by the way. You get intelligent comments on this site.

Mr.Death · 7 months ago

I love the internet, but I still love to read the newspaper every now and then (which is odd, seeing as I'm 16). That being said, I did find it kinda strange when i saw what so many critics are calling a mediocre film is getting a 80% positive, which is more than The Reader got. But isn't most of the rottentomato reviews from internet bloggers anyway? I know a lot of it is print, but they take almost any review, so I'm pretty sure most of them are from the internet. And the top critics (which are usually all press) gave the film a more fitting 65%. So I don't know, I think it's more miscommunication on the bloggers part. The reviews you put up were interesting though.

Also, no IntenseDebate?

Cole_Abaius · 7 months ago

No, no Intense Debate....it died for a while.

But just to clear up - Rotten Tomatoes is an interesting animal. I'm even confused by how it's structured, but it's basically that 1) Everyone can write reviews (but they don't matter for the meter) 2) Some critics have access to publicly post their reviews which get more of an audience (but still don't matter for the meter) 3) Another select group of critics get their reviews to count toward the meter and 4) An even smaller group comprises the Top Critics.

The critics that count toward the meter are a mixed bag of online and print. I don't know the numbers, but there are a lot of print critics.

Jason · 7 months ago

I think that some people have different opinions about movies... These reviewers point out that the film is very entertaining but they dislike the ending. Perhaps they don't value the ending of a movie as much as you do. It's not like they're giving the movie 5 stars, 3 stars is not THAT good. It basically means it's entertaining enough to be given a shot but it's not for everyone, and they clearly point out that they find the movie great until the ending. This is the case with most generic thrillers... Critics kind of change the criteria and give more leeway for minor implausibilities and twists because that's just the way a lot of thrillers are.

Basically, the general consensus seems to be that in a genre that produces formulaic and over-exaggerated movies, State of Play doesn't reach any new standards but perfects itself in other areas. But because generic thrillers aren't for everyone, some may not be as impressed with the other areas this film shines in because they can't get over the weak areas of the genre.

Mick LaSalle · 7 months ago

I think there may be some truth to the idea that a movie extolling old media might have some extra appeal to people working within old media, but I really don't think there's a reluctance on the part of critics to slam this movie. My real feelings about STATE OF PLAY are in the review. I LOVED it for 115 minutes -- thought it was going to be one for the top ten list -- and then it indulged in one last twist and went off a cliff. Normally, that would be enough to tank a picture, but this was different, in that the ending didn't feel like an ending, but like a SECOND ending.
Imagine, if at the end of LORD OF THE RINGS Part III, after the climax, after the elves get on the boat, Frodo and Samwise go back to middle earth, and Samwise reveals that he has really been working for the evil wizards all along. Would it wreck the movie? Well, maybe not, because it would be SO ridiculous, and would be coming so long after the REAL climax, that it wouldn't feel part of the movie. It would feel like some extraneous appendix that could easily be imagined around -- especially after you take a minute to think of it, long enough to realize that Samwise's odd turn doesn't make any sense at ALL.
This is why I said it was a bad ending different from anything I've ever seen -- in some ways worse than any I've seen, and yet in another way so bad that the damage is almost (ALMOST) contained.
Bottom line, the curious phenomenon that you're seeing, and that really is there, is not to do with the movie's journalism angle but with the curious nature of the movie itself. But congratulations to you for noticing.

Cole_Abaius · 7 months ago

Mick - you make a really good point (and back it up with a solid analogy) although my only hitch in completely agreeing is that the genre itself usually relies heavily on the ending. Would a bad ending have completely ruined it? Maybe yes for some, maybe no for others.

It's good to have another answer to the question, although the trend does seem to be pretty heavy among print critics. Though, I did find an online blogger who made concession after concession for the film before giving it a praiseworthy grade - so it's clearly not totally contained to the ink and paper world.

Christopher Campbell · 7 months ago

The Mona Lisa actually looked better with a mustache in Marcel Duchamp's version, so there.

Cole_Abaius · 7 months ago

I liked his toilet with a mustache better. But, good point, sir.

hollywoodland · 7 months ago

This version cannot compare with the BBC's brilliant State of Play miniseries, on which version was
based.

Besides, who wants to see a bloated Crowe?

emad · 7 months ago

you are biased, that's all. what is about all this "lets divide print and web" thing? you are talking like it's about one of the biggest scandal in journalism history!
" i didn't like a movie but a print critic liked it, so it's because of the subtext that he/ she liked the movie"
you know what? it works on another level too, i would say that you disliked the move because of the subtext! you know why? because the grade that yo gave (D) is the lowest grade that i have seen, period!
and there is a lot more articles in FSR about print media dying than other blogs or papers!
sure, internet is the winning side, but i think it doesn't have the integrity of print critcism, by the way they have done so many for cinema, what has internet ever done?

BethanyP · 7 months ago

great article, cole.

Murph · 7 months ago

This film was pretty shit compared to that awesome mini-series.

Cole_Abaius · 7 months ago

So it looks like some of the comments that were made while Intense Debate was down aren't apppearing on the site page (at least for me). Which sucks, because there were some really great comments - I'm working to get them back up.

El Patro · 7 months ago

Looks to me like newspaper critics gave the movie good reviews to spread the word about the industry being in danger.