Quickfire reviews: or how to lay the blame somewhere easy

The book of Henry arrived in cinemas and let's just say that reviewers weren't kind to Colin Trevorrow’s latest outing. Harsh, one could even say: 'out for blood'. Reviewers burned down this movie much like Steven Spielberg's 1941 was demolished by critics when it came out.

Now, I haven't seen the book of Henry yet. But reading the reviews I did notice one trend that struck me. Let me explain:

The overall critique of this movie is the meandering plot. It’s drama turns comedy turns thriller turns fantastical and none of these directions pay off (or so I read).

So in short this is a scriptural issue. It's the words on the page that are a mess. Pretty much every reviewer I read agrees on this.

But to condemn a movie the script can’t be the only thing bad: so there must be something else.

This is where things get interesting.

Story or script is just a small (but important) part of a movie. But this is where looking at reviews becomes a mess.

Apart from the script some reviewers attacked the directing of the movie as the main thing wrong. Others attacked the acting of the cast. Then there are those who praised Naomi Watts for making a bad script somewhat watchable. Whilst others lamented the fact that great acting can't help a troubled script.

In short: finding a reason why the book of Henry fails is all over the place and often contradictory between reviewers.

Moreover, I would argue that a lot of reviewers can't recognize good or bad acting if their life depended on it and that, therefore, directing and acting are often blamed for the faults on the page –because it is easier than saying: I couldn’t recognized where the faults were.

“I didn’t like the movie – it must be the actor’s fault.”

I don’t like this kind of movie: so it is bad.

I’ve had this little introduction to an article written over a year ago and never finished it. However, recently I noticed another review: A reviewer disliked the movie The greatest showman and his argumentation was (partly) that the choreography was bad. 

This struck me as strange because it is the choreography that is the strength of the movie. If you are going to blame the greatest showman of any faults it would be the rather simplistic script.

But then I looked into the other reviews this man has written and noticed that he often only reviews low budget art-house fare. Every once in a while he is ‘forced’ (I guess) to review a blockbuster and those reviews are always negative.

So if the ‘tent pole’ movies aren’t his cup of tea why should he review them? I guess his attack on the choreography was an easy way to dismiss a movie he didn’t like anyway.

Just as easy as laying the blame by a director or actor.

I’m missing what I wanted in the movie: so it is bad.

To stay with The greatest showman I want to highlight something else. A lot of reviewers pan this movie for its inaccurate depiction of P. T. Barnum. They go into the movie expecting historical accuracy neglecting that fact that it is a happy musical with song and dance.

Just like my previous paragraph highlighted somebody not liking blockbuster movies here it are reviewers who expected something else than what they got and their disappointment shines through the review.

It is fun to note that it are only the USA-reviewers who highlight this inaccuracy.
Foreign reviewers –who have no idea who Barnum was-
are a lot more focussed on whether or not it is a good movie.

In my reviews I always try to highlight whether it is my cup of tea or not. I wrote an article a few months back stating that The happytime murders probably wouldn’t be for me.

And, as it turned out:I was right.

So, should I review this movie I would have to let go of my personal preferences and just objectively state if it’s a good movie. This is difficult to do.

This is what a lot of reviewers struggle with. And to make it easier on themselves they either (A) don’t. Or, (B) just shove the blame somewhere easy (directing, acting, whatever).

My position.

Now I've always proclaimed myself as a script-junkie first - a movie junkie second. The reason for this is quite simple: I honestly believe that a great actor can save a mediocre script whilst a bad actor can destroy a great one.

The trick here is to find the difference between a bad script and/or bad acting (due to a bad script). I always try to separate the two, but I don’t always succeed.

However, I do enjoy the challenge in trying to find just where a movie goes wrong without throwing out random words of blame just to fill the page.

A handy guide to finding reviews on the internet:

Now, for anybody trying to find a honest review on the internet there is a difficult task ahead of you. There are just SO many! So, me being helpful, I’ve decided to end this article with a little list of the telltale signs that should make you skip a (probably) bad review and move on to the next.

• For starters you’d do best to skip the ‘extremist on the reviewing scale’. So the 10 out of 10 or the 1 out of 10s-people.
• Skip each and every reviewer that –when you click on the name- apparently only reviews this one particular movie you are reading up on. These reviewers are usually bots. I can take a 10 of 10 (or 1 out of 10) rating a lot better from somebody who is actually human.
• Skip two words or two sentences reviews: “The movie was garbage...” that’s not a review that’s just annoying.
• Key-opening-phrases like: “the movie looked terrible” (an entire movie can’t look terrible), “can’t act” (most people cannot recognize good acting if their life depended on it) or “I walked out” (then you’ve just lost your right to review the movie) should immediately make you skip a review. 
• Then there are those reviews that only appear to review the -impression left behind by the- trailer (a lot of professional reviewers do this for some reason-pressed for time I guess).

Ghostbusters is a prime example. In the trailer Leslie Jones's character is terrible.

In the movie the woman is more nuanced.

So any reviewer dismissing her a 'mere' annoying

(without arguments to back it up) only saw the trailer. 

• Stay well clear of overprotective mothers; they are everywhere. Sometimes they even jump by a horror-movie claiming something like: “One star, I can’t let my kid see this.”

• Then there are the emotion reviewers. If a movie carries a gut punch don’t let that influence the rating. There are actually people giving Schindler’s list 1 out of 10 because it’s too depressing.