Sex and the City 2: The Myth of the Critic-Proof Movie
Ah, Memorial Day Weekend. The unofficial start of summer has finally arrived and so to have the annual think pieces about the relevancy of film critics. If it feels like this is happening earlier here in 2010 than it did in 2009, that's because it is. The debate didn't start last year until Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen dropped a big turd on multiplexes -- it had a 20 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes -- yet still garnered $836 million worldwide from viewers. This year the party got started with Sex and the City 2, a film so roundly hated by film critics that it has drawn comparisons to feces, terrorism and rape. And yet for every negative review, it feels like another 100 tickets are sold. The conventional wisdom states that Sex and the City 2 is "critic-proof," but that implies that critics matter to a film's financial success. Spoiler: They don't.
This isn't another one of those "film critics are irrelevant" posts -- which are so played out by this point that they have become irrelevant -- this is simple logic. To wit: When has it ever been proven that film criticism matters to the success of a big-ticket release? Sex and the City 2 is just the latest on a long (long) list of critically reviled films that found box office nirvana. It won't be the first and it certainly won't be the last. Though it might be the only one set in Abu Dhabi.
Conversely, positive reviews don't bring people to blockbusters either. Does anyone actually believe Transformers would have grossed more with positive reviews? Did Star Trek hit $257 million domestically because critics went head over heels for it? Of course not. People pay to see these movies because they are events. No one predisposed to attending Sex and the City 2 decided against it because Rex Reed compared it to crap. Literally.
In fact, the fate of these blockbusters rests more in the hands of actual ticket buyers than anyone else -- well, once the marketing department has done their job. As The Hangover proved last summer -- and on a smaller scale, How to Train Your Dragon this spring -- positive word of mouth can either make a film or break it like no scathing review could ever hope. Isn't that right, Bruno?
The summer blockbuster season is a consumer driven time period. And consumers -- even those who take the time to research their products -- will inevitably wind up buying the product they feel speaks to them. (At least that's what Don Draper taught me.) That's why critics are marginalized when the temperatures rise; as Woody Allen said -- in a completely different context -- the heart wants what the heart wants. And, right now, it wants Cosmos and camel rides. Film criticism will always be relevant, just don't be foolish enough to think it affects the bottom line.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
The most shocking thing about this article is the revelation that Rex Reed is still kicking around.
Two girls I know saw it and 'loved it', so, unless you're a film geek, it's mostly about knowing your audience.
wow this is the greatest thing ever written
I think criticism certainly matters to big ticket "prestige" releases. Can bad reviews sink a Michael Bay film? No. No one expects a Bay film to get good reviews in the first place. But you can be damn sure that a big ticket "prestige" release like Robin Hood was impacted by its middling reviews. Movie goers were excited about Robin Hood as long as it was thought to be a well made film worthy of the Oscar winners who made it. When they found out it wasn't, interest tanked. I know it did for me.
This line of thought means that criticism has a much bigger impact on the big ticket fall/winter releases than it does on the summer flicks. The success of big ticket films in the fall/winter (the majority of which are "prestige") is heavily dependent on good reviews. Memoirs of a Geisha comes to mind. Its lackluster reviews kept it from doing as well as anticipated.
Everyone has seen movies that critics adore that make you want to scratch your eyes out.
Saw SATC 2 and LOVED it-every movie does not have to have a message-sometimes you just want to have fun with your friends. Hope more are made until the cast and the viewers are both old and gray :).
@Jace: trust me, the cast will never be "old and gray". They'll be botoxed, dyed, nipped, tucked and lasered until they go to the grave. Lots of fans will do the same because they've bought into the myth that middle-aged women aren't sexy unless they look like warmed-over 25-year-olds. I've never understood why people think STC is about female empowerment. Real empowerment will happen when intelligent, savvy, accomplished women with grey hair, wrinkles and size 12 clothes in the closet are considered sexy. Sorry but I'm with Rex on this one.
Sex In The City is a product by the elite to normalize schizoid, consumerist, non-political, codependent, ridiculously-dressed, shallow, narcissistic, badly written characters in an effort to distract and brainwash its largely female and gay audience.
Compare the traditional 'issue' driven films of Hollywood: 1940's era strong female movies, Jane Fonda in 'Coming Home', 'Norma Rae', 'Silkwood' - even 'Erin Brockovich' - to this cynical, anti-human entertainment product.
Cosmo-drinking female sheep should save the time wasted on the viewing of this degrading media ritual, save their money, and do something else.