EVER SINCE movies were introduced to the eyes of the public, critic reviews have provided a seemingly “objective” criteria for selecting an adequate film to appreciate. Tooled with professional theories and methodologies to validate the content, critics opened a new prospect for the public audience to further engage with film. Despite their prolonged momentum, the surge of film reviews has allowed renowned critics to fortify a certain position in the industry, to the extent of significantly influencing public selection of films. Individuals’ film preferences are now fervently swayed in accordance with online scoreboards of well-known websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Such prevalence of critic influence on the audience is deteriorating into a menace, particularly as a reminder of the film industry’s excessive commercialization.

Transition into the mainstream

   Criticism is a communicative device that inevitably accompanies any form of artistic production. The field of filmmaking is no exception. Initially contributed by journalists from other sections in the 1930s, film reviews progressed to an extent where dedicated professionals offered unique opinions of new releases[1]. The introduction of movies on television transformed such specialized observations into an intrinsic question: are the films worthy of appreciation? Renowned critics such as Roger Ebert cemented in the minds of viewers how valuable a “two thumbs up” rating could substantially be[1]. By setting up a solid set of standards to evaluate a film, critic reviews were praised in both their quality and precision. These efforts resulted in film criticism attaining mainstream recognition, sometimes promoting a wider variety in film selections. In particular, for independent films that cannot exercise much influence to the public solely through promotion, these critic reviews provided a window for greater success; many of them, who struggled even for a limited national release, now often live or die by the critics’ pen[2].

   Such a paradigm, however, underwent a drastic transition with the rise of online platforms as a novel pathway for democratized reviews. Review websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic allowed a mass of individuals to share personal assessments for each film, which are summarized in digitized ranks for simplicity. These platforms then utilized the openness of the internet to provide users with an overflow of film commentaries, regardless of time and space. The rise of such platforms overlapped with the advent of over-the-top (OTT) services[3] such as Netflix or Disney+, further reducing the opportunities for moviegoers to actively select films themselves. Contrary to the traditional procedures of film engagement, which were based on individual taste and public recognition of released films, OTT services utilize mechanized algorithms to suggest content based on the subscriber’s previously watched content[4]. In other words, such online services narrow down the variety of films for subscribers to watch, molding the content curation only to fit their personal tastes. Online critic reviews, thereafter, are applied to reconfirm the “rationality” of users’ selection amongst the meager assortments.

   Moreover, with limited time available to spend on such provided contents, individuals commonly confront an arduous decision-making process on what to watch on OTT services. Substantive data reflects the tendency; Amazon Prime Video provided 12,828 free movies per subscriber, whereas Netflix provided 3,781 movies for each subscriber[3]. With the surge of recommended films on each platform, users often gravitate towards the directionality provided by online review platforms. In fact, Rotten Tomatoes is ranked as the world’s 24th most visited website[4], indicating the worldwide popularity of such critic review websites.

An improper representation?

   Despite the convenience of easily accessible critic reviews, they are subject to considerable social controversy. Particularly, the mechanism of such online platforms induces a significant disparity between the film’s perception and its value on the numeric scale. For one, there is no industry-wide consolidated criteria of rating movies; some critics rate four or five stars, others give a letter grade, while some either have their own rating system or simply do not assign a rating at all[5]. As the variety of evaluations are chained together as a percentage metric, the number may not convey the true value assigned by every critic. 

   Differing requisites of a “good film” between the audience and critics also contribute to a severe disjunction. The connotation of films for critics and the public audience differs, as it can be either a mandatory assignment for one’s career or an enjoyable, cultural delight. Unlike the public, who rate films based on individual preference, critics are “obligated to review numerous films that they might not seek out on their own[6].” Although such an obligation may lead to a relatively objective viewpoint by professionals, it often results in an improper recommendation of films to the public, particularly when combined with the extremely contradictory numeric scoring systems on online platforms. Several films on Rotten Tomatoes such as Star Wars: The Last Jedi display a great contrast between critic and public reviews. The film, acclaimed by critics as “honoring the saga’s rich legacy while adding some surprising twists,” is frequently considered as an offense to the franchise in the fandom with a 42% audience score on the equivalent webpage[7]. 

   Such misinterpretations are then combined with the alienation of certain genres in the hands of the expert critics, potentially creating further disconnection between them and the general audience. The purpose of film production varies for each genre and its producers. While some define the success of a film as its popular appeal, striving for massive profit by attaining as many audiences as possible, others aim to provide a particular artistry through visualization, recognizing film as a type of fine art. In this sense, the fortification of critic influence through online platforms are undervaluing genres created mainly for public entertainment as critics undeniably consider artistic quality as a great part of their assessment. The average Tomatometer score[8] displays this tendency—certain genres indicate a significant gap in audience and critic ratings, such as romantic comedy films with an average of a 57% audience score and 36% of approved critic score[9]. In contrast, genres such as black comedy and documentaries are systematically rated higher by critics than by the public audience[9]. In these situations, newcomers would be confused on which viewpoint to rely on.

Money more than art

   Moreover, as the review industry becomes a massive cultural business, the drawbacks begin to outweigh the convenience. Enhanced opportunities to access so-called “expert” reviews induce individuals to excessively rely on these opinions, significantly affecting their film selection. It is not rare to spot films utilizing their rating on online review platforms as part of their public promotion, as if such numbers are yardsticks for a good film. The audience, consequently, judges the value of each film accordingly. Rob Moore, former vice chairman at Paramount Pictures commented, “When you have that currency that says you have 100 people that agree the movie is great or horrible, you do not need more information than that[10].” Numbers verify his introspection, with 36% of U.S. moviegoers checking such reviews often before seeing a film compared with 28% in 2014[10]. 

     Such standardization of film assessment ultimately results in reviews—originally the byproducts of film production—inversely misleading the industry. In 2020, it was revealed that Tomatometer scores are directly correlated with box office returns[11]. Given the convenient nature of online platforms to assess the value of each film, more individuals are relying on such platforms—and in turn the mass of review professionals—to make up their judgement. Indeed, acclaimed director Martin Scorsese commented that the film production process is simplified in a way that it “reduces the director to a content manufacturer and the viewer to an unadventurous consumer[12].”

   An additional threat is the abuse of such review mechanisms for the gains of mega-corporations. Traditionally, Hollywood boasted a set of giant “Big Five” majors, composed of Universal, Paramount, Warner Bros., Disney, and Sony. Although these enterprises led the industry with massive budgets and manpower, they were unable to completely satisfy individual tastes in film. However, with an abundance of sponsorships for online review platforms and their certified critics, it has become much more convenient to package any contents into a “well-made” product. In one case, Bunker 15, a small public relations (PR) corporation, was accused of using self-published critics to help boost Tomatometer scores, paying them upwards of $50 for each review[13]. It is difficult to view this case as a fragmentary incident. Nadine Whitney, freelance film critic and co-chair of the Australian Film Critics Association, confessed that she has not only seen certain review sites “adjust ratings from their writers, to keep certain sponsors happy,” but also some critics being approached by filmmakers and PR agents with financial incentives to write good reviews[14]. No longer a field of intrinsic assessment, the compilation of film reviews is perceived as “gold mines”—a marketplace for profit rather than an agora of cultural exchange. As the public cannot distinguish whether reviews are displayed for the purpose of favoring certain firms or purely for informing the audience, the danger is somewhat critical.

   The tendency towards commercialization is ultimately indicating a cultural crisis in the film industry. Without an abundance of finances to support the marketing costs that are somewhat necessary to reach the audience, producers cannot withstand the competition against large-scale enterprises of Hollywood. The reliance on online mass opinion, whether professional or not, has put more momentum on elements irrelevant with content quality. The 2023 blockbuster film Barbie was reported to have marketing costs that exceed production costs, with a marketing budget of a staggering $150 million allocated to outperform Oppenheimer at the box office over their shared opening weekend[15]. Contrary to the astonishing success of these mass-production films, independent film producers are suffering from extreme impoverishment as public attention has cornered to blockbuster films. 149 independent film producers in the United Kingdom were surveyed to earn less than $18,720 across a two-year period from producing independent films[16]. This polarization will ultimately result in the extinction of diversity and profundity of film content. 

*                 *                 *

Criticism is an essential factor in any art form as it assures the fruitful exchange of individual opinions. However, the field of film criticism has morphed into a simple business and commercialization, sometimes grasping the industry in accordance with private interests. Indeed, progressive mechanisms are suggested to draw off the influence of critic reviews. Conversations about government fundings to support the thwarted independent film producers, the rise of innovative OTT services such as Watcha that focus on content quality, or providing film previews that exclude the attendance of movie critics are all utilized to maintain the quality of film culture. Although the future is not completely in despair, further measures are needed to prevent both cultural and industrial retrogression. 

[1] New York Film Academy

[2] Everyone’s a Critic: Film Criticism Through History and Into the Digital Age

[3] Over-the-top services: Technology that delivers streamed content via internet-connected devices

[4] A New Studio Era: How Netflix is Becoming a Threat to the Film Industry

[5] Fox Business

[6] similarweb

[7] Collider

[8] Tomatometer score: The scoring system for Rotten Tomatoes

[9] New York Times

[10] The LA Times

[11] Rotten Tomatoes

[12] Vulture

[13] Futurism

[14] Screenhub

[15] Far Out

[16] Screen Daily