The moment I heard about “Harry Brown” I couldn’t wait to see it.
Sir Michael Caine. Vigilante justice. Solid early reviews from its British release.
But what does that say about my approach to the film? Could I judge “Harry Brown” fairly if, even before the film began, I was quietly rooting for the film to meet my expectations?
Film criticism is as subjective an art form – to use a high falutin’ word – as any other means of expression. But I think a reputable critic is rooting for every film to be the next “Citizen Kane.”
Or “Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo,” depending on one’s tastes.
In a way, “Harry Brown” had a bigger hill to climb to win me over. Having Caine’s name attached to the project ratchets up expectations, and few critics are immune to that feeling.
Some films actually benefit from low expectations. I remember stumbling into the theater to see “Malibu’s Most Wanted,” the ill-fated Jamie Kennedy comedy, as if I were a Sean Penn’s character in “Dead Man Walking.”
Yes, film critics can be over the top with their rhetoric.
But a funny thing happened during that screening. I laughed. A lot. And I ended up giving the film a mostly sunny review.
So film critics aren’t perfect – shocking, I know. But it’s not unreasonable to assume they enter the theater hoping what they’re about to see will force them to break out the superlatives.
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Film critics are human, and as such will always be burdened with biases. Doesn’t bother me, as long as they admit them up front.
Perhaps I’m in navel gazing mode, but I think artists of all stripes (even bloggers!) should also be self analytical.
I wouldn’t consider going into every film hoping it will knock your socks off a bias, more like a requirement of the job.
As long as having different expectations of an actor, writer, director…..doesn’t stop you from judging how good or bad something is I can’t really see a problem either. We all have different expectations for different performers, we shouldn’t go into a Rob Schnider film and expecting Shakespeare.
You can only be truly unbiased about a subject if you don’t actually care about it in any way. Who wants film reviews from somebody who is completely indifferent to film?
I think the average fan is the same way. We have certain actors we like or types of movies we enjoy and have expectations based on those opinions. And we know when the movie or performance was good or when it stunk up the place. Everyone should self-analyze occasionally to see if adjustments are needed, but I feel you are very even-handed with your reviews and make sure your biases are acknowledged so we can be more informed.
One problem, I believe, with film criticism is that film critics are probably a bit more jaded than regular moviegoers.
A film critic who sees 5 movies a week (for a living) is unlikely to see a film the same way as someone who sees 2 movies a month (just for fun).
My guess is that the critic sees and analyzes so many movies that, for good or ill, it takes a lot more to impress him or her.
I sometimes wonder if some indie films get good reviews merely for being different.
Art is a slippery concept, but just because something’s different doesn’t mean it’s art. Originality, per se, is not automatically good.
Me jumping up on a table at a mall food court and shouting “my shoes are black to match my soul” and then skipping all the way back to the parking garage would be original, but it wouldn’t be art, for example.
“form,” as in “art form,” hardly is an example of highfalutin (pretentious) word usage. Now “omphaloskepsis” (navel-gazing) is an entirely different matter.
by virtue of downplaying your own vocabulary, you reveal your biases. despite the lessons of J-school (for those few who still adhere to them), journalists cannot be un-biased by their own nature as human beings; they can attempt to be fair, however.
these comments recognize and support the fact that an upfront acknowledgment by the Reviewer of a bias (such as a fondness toward horror cinema, Mister WWTW) makes the review that much more respectable a read. many of us have commented previously about the disdain generated when a so-called un-biased Reviewer peppers a critique with unnecessary and unwanted political and personal commentary.
art is subjective enough without being subjected to personal projection; we know your biases already, T – keep true to them while focusing on why we should or should not screen a film, and you will continue to succeed
D.