How Do You Decide What Movies To See?
King Kong is set to be released this weekend and I don’t think I’ll see it. Not this weekend and probably never. I decided that what it will take for me to see the movie is a combination of sweeping good reviews and friends’ recommendations. The story itself doesn’t necessarily interest me and the media hype/trailers make it look terrible. And when I say reviews I mean by those I respect (see Eric Snider), not the quote whores that will be found on any movie poster. And even if the reviews are good, it would still only occupy a back burner unless my friends (who I respect their movie taste) tell me that I have to see it.
Like described above, my sense is that we make our entertainment decisions based on combinations of the following four factors:
Read the book/know the story: Depending on how much I enjoy the book/story will I base my level of interest in the movie-version of that book/story.
Media hype: Commercials don’t do much for me. Partnerships with corporations (McDonalds, Ford, etc) will usually decrease my interest in the movie. Movie posters are almost all the same (terrible at communicating what the movie is about, good at communicating who’s in the movie). For me it’s all about the trailer.
Reviews: I agree with probably 90% of Eric Snider’s reviews and with that kind of success rate I don’t find it necessary to spend much time reading other reviews. A good movie critic can go a long way in helping you make your decisions.
Recommendations: This is probably the most persuasive of the four. If all three of the others are negative but my friends all say they loved it, I’ll probably see the film.
What do you guys think? Are there other factors? What importance to you put on each of these factors? What’s the most important combination?
You’re forgetting star power. Who is in front of (or behind) the camera can get me to watch some movies, regardless of the other factors. For instance, I think Ben Stiller is hilarious, and even his bad movies have their moments, so I am likely to want to see Ben Stiller movies even if they get bad reviews.
Also important: Can I get my wife to agree to watch it with me. My wife does not like Ben Stiller, so I am likely never to see a Ben Stiller movie again (we had a disagreement over Zoolander
Comment by Bryce I — December 13, 2005 @ 9:39 am
Also, a good movie reviewer will give enough information for you to make a reasonably good decision even if you don’t agree all the time with the reviewer’s tastes.
Comment by Bryce I — December 13, 2005 @ 9:41 am
And why don’t Kulturbloggers post more movie reviews?
Comment by Bryce I — December 13, 2005 @ 9:42 am
Bryce, I’m seeing Syriana tomorrow or Thurs., so look for my review then.
Comment by Supergenius — December 13, 2005 @ 9:54 am
For me, it’s like there’s some kind of X-factor: a combination of storyling, director, and casting that sounds intriguing. If any of these lack, it’s a big hit to my desire to see the movie. Also, for me to spend the money to see something on the big screen, I feel like the movie should have a ‘big screen’ quality: it needs to have scope and size such that it needs to be reflected in gigantic size. Otherwise, my huge-ish TV is enough. So, Syriana and Harry Potter are ticket-worthy, while Fun With Dick and Jane is definitely not. in fact, most comedies I will just watch on video.
Comment by Supergenius — December 13, 2005 @ 10:01 am
Familiarity with the filmmakers is a major factor in my decision. I will see any film written by Charlie Kaufmann. Or directed by Tim Burton. Or by M. Night Shyamalan (I know he’s not cool anymore, but I dig him). There are some others that aren’t quite as automatic, but my familiarity with their previous work plays heavily into my decision.
And even though I aspire to film snobbery (I’ve been watching a lot of Bergman lately) I go see just about every hugely hyped mega blockbuster that comes out. Partially because these are what interest my wife, partially because spectacles can be a lot of fun, and partially because these are the movies that people I know talk about and I want to be in on the conversation (nobody wants to talk about Wild Strawberries). Even if I hate the movie (War of the Worlds), it can be worth it to me just to be in the know.
Otherwise, it’s critics and friends that help me decide. I read Roger Ebert, David Edelstein, and metacritic. I don’t agree with Edelstein or Ebert all the time, but sometimes even a negative review from one of them will convince me to see a given film. I didn’t want to see Dogville until Edelstein blasted it (I still haven’t seen it, though).
Comment by Tom — December 13, 2005 @ 10:02 am
Yeah, okay, so I missed “star power”. That is a big factor.
Steve,
I agree with your x-factor but the only way you can know about the quality and content of those components is through one of the factors that I mentioned. You can’t really know how good the storytelling is unless you’ve read some kind of review… if that makes any sense.
Maybe we should make a list of movies that are out right now and rate them based on these four (now five) components on a level of 1-10.
Comment by Rusty — December 13, 2005 @ 10:52 am
My husband and I are weird about movies. We tend to not like stuff that most people love, and love the stuff that most people don’t like. So we never take people’s word for what movie to see.
We saw one of those VH1 shows, something about the worst decisions celebrities have made–don’t remember, but they went off about how Elektra was Jennifer Garner’s biggest mistake, it sucked so bad, etc. My husband and I looked at each other and both said at the same time, “We have to see that movie.” And we liked it.
Nowadays we tend to only see movies that are family-oriented, that we take the kids to. Last few movies we’ve seen in the theater: Harry Potter, Mine Yours and Ours, and Sky High.
As for renting movies, I usually tend to rent stuff I’ve never heard of but just find on the shelf and can tell it’s something I’d like. That’s how I’ve discovered some of my favorite films–Three Wishes, The Journey of August King, Spitfire Grill. One I recently rented and really enjoyed was The Snow Walker.
Comment by Susan M — December 13, 2005 @ 11:47 am
As you know, my home theater has evolved to the point that I’m not really going to the movies in the theater anymore. I’ll wait for the DVD, or the high-def version on cable, before I see the movie.
That said, here are the movies I’ve seen in the theater in the last month.
Pride and Prejudice
Good Night and Good Luck
Brokeback Mountain
King Kong (tomorrow afternoon)
Comment by D. Fletcher — December 13, 2005 @ 12:48 pm
Hmm…in no particular order (and many already mentioned):
* Who’s involved (director, writer, actors). Example: I’ll see any Pixar movie because I know it will be good. I’ll see anything directed by Wong Kar-Wai. I used to say the same about the Coen Brothers, until I saw The Ladykillers.
* Intriguing/original premise. For contraexample: some people at work were talking about going to see “The Family Stone.” The trailers look okay, but the premise looks incredibly obvious and formulaic. I doubt I’ll ever see it.
* A good trailer (and one that doesn’t give away too much of the plot) can hook me into seeing the movie. Examples: The theatrical trailers for The Usual Suspects and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind were both brilliant.
* A spectical movie that is well done and well reviewed can get me to the theater to see it. Sheer blockbuster power will not. Examples: I saw and enjoyed all the Harry Potter movies, both Spiderman movies, and Batman Begins. I never saw Titanic, and would never go see something like the Fantastic Four. I’d definitely like to see King Kong.
* Sometimes it’s just a matter of picking the best movie that is playing at the theater on a night that we happened to get a babysitter.
Comment by BTD Greg — December 13, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
How is Fantastic Four different from Spiderman, Greg?
Comment by Susan M — December 13, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
I also saw both Spidermans and didn’t see Fantastic Four. The difference for me was the reviews, the star power (FF was much more B-list), and the franchise effect.
Comment by Tom — December 13, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
Writing. That’s why I saw Spiderman and will never see FF. They both have special effects, I don’t really care too much for the stars in either movie so that doesn’t matter, it’s all about the writing.
Comment by Rusty — December 13, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
I saw King Kong yesterday afternoon. It just happened that I was walking along with nothing to do and people were handing out free passes for an advance screening sponsored by some corporation.
Even though it was extra-long, I thought it was worth the time, and wouldn’t have any qualms recommending it.
Comment by Bill — December 13, 2005 @ 3:05 pm
I just see everything. Makes it easy.
Comment by Eric Russell — December 13, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
Sometimes it’s just a matter of picking the best movie that is playing at the theater on a night that we happened to get a babysitter.
I’m so with you on this one Greg. Oddly, this was the reasons that Kristen and I did see Fantastic Four in a theater. We knew that movie was getting bad reviews but we were in the mood for a movie and it seemed like that would suck less than our other choices that night. Anyway, as expected it was highly mediocre but I considered the $18 I spent a good thing when compared to the money we might have spent elsewhere in that 2+ hr. block that date night…
I think the spectacle factor is the main thing that drives my theater movies in general though. Some movies just seem better on the big screen — especially big action flicks. (Recent examples include Batman Begins, Star Wars, Serenity, and others)
Comment by Geoff J — December 13, 2005 @ 4:30 pm
It’s all about the trailer. My wife hates this, but we absolutely have to get to the movie at least 15 minutes early so I don’t miss a single trailer. There was that unfortunate period about 4 or 5 years ago when the trailers were WAY too informative, like giving away the ending of “Castaway.”
If I see a trailer I like, I don’t read any reviews. I am usually a keen plot watcher and hate figuring out the ending/plot twists before I even see the movie. I read the review for “Derailed” and had the HUGE plot twist figured out before I was finished reading.
There are actors (Russell Crowe, just saw Cinderella Man) and Directors (Chris Nolan, Sam Mendes) that I trust, as well as those I do not (Bruckheimer), but it does ultimately come down to word-of-mouth.
Comment by Tim J. — December 13, 2005 @ 6:34 pm
I, too, enjoy reading the reviews of Eric Snider. I don’t always agree with him, but I can usually tell from his review whether I’ll like it or not. Rotten Tomatoes is usually a good bet, too.
side note: I saw Fantastic Four in the University Mall 4 Cinemas =) It was not nearly as good as Spiderman – the plot was almost non-existent (what, they’re heroes because they saved people from an accident they caused?) Spiderman has heart and that’s what sets it apart. Also, I was totally hooked on Spiderman comics as a teenager.
I’m crowd-a-phobic and my wife is Chronologically Challenged, so we rarely make it to movies in the theater. If it weren’t for Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, I might not ever even plan to go.
I would put in a vote for star power, though, for choosing movies to see – anything with Tom Hanks, for example.
Comment by FaithHopeLove — December 13, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
1. Who directed it – we’ll see just about anything by Robert Altman, Woody Allen, Speilberg, and a handful of others regardless of the reviews,
2. Who’s in it – I’m still very likely to see a film with Tom Cruise, even though he’s turned kind of creepy,
3. Reviews from publications I respect,
4. If someone lends me their DVD and says, “Check this out – it’s really good.”
This is all DVD based. I’m in the got-little-kids-don’t-go-out-mode, but when we actually make it to a theatre it’s because the film is really a rarity and I know it’ll never get onto video – small, independent documentaries and the like.
And Tom, people do want to talk about Wild Strawberries, but they’re just hard to find!
Comment by meems — December 13, 2005 @ 8:32 pm
“I’m seeing Syriana tomorrow or Thurs., so look for my review then.”
Good luck with that. Just explain what the hell was going on and you’ll have a good review.
Comment by Eric Russell — December 13, 2005 @ 8:34 pm
1) Find out what is playing at the one theater I can get to.
2) Decide if “no movie” is better than any playing.
Renting is a different matter entirely. Mostly it depends on if the hot girl is working the counter and if I want to impress her with my obvious genius taste in film.
Comment by Pris — December 13, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
How is Fantastic Four different from Spiderman, Greg?
Kind of all of the above. When I saw the trailer for FF, I thought, “this is gonna suck.” It looked really half-baked. I actually liked Barbershop, but it didn’t make me think, “this guy should be directing big-budget comic book movies.” Sam Raimi is pretty great, though.
Comment by BTD Greg — December 14, 2005 @ 12:02 am
Guess I don’t expect a lot out of superhero/action movies. I don’t remember the writing being that spectacular in Spiderman, but I really only remember when he got bit by a spider, and that stupid upside down kiss.
I remember walking out of Fantastic Four with my kids and talking all the way home about which super power we’d each want to have. (Don’t remember very much from the movie, though. Someone lights on fire?)
I hate it when movie trailers sell the movie as something it’s not. Like My Girl–a cute little light-hearted movie, right? Right. EXCEPT SOMEONE DIES AT THE END! I really didn’t need that.
Comment by Susan M — December 14, 2005 @ 9:46 am
As far as the whole FF/Spider-Man discussion, I see very little difference between the first SpiderMan and FF. Both were basically there to introduce the characters and didn’t have much plot. Though, of course, Spiderman did have the classic “With great power” motif….
Comment by Soonerjudd — December 14, 2005 @ 10:00 am
Oh, well I haven’t seen the second one.
Comment by Susan M — December 14, 2005 @ 11:26 am
Reviews, reviews, reviews, and more reviews. Going out to see a movie on the big screen is a major investment these days, and so I have to be fairly sure that it’s going to entertain us and fit our mood at the moment we’re actually able to go see it. For me, this means reading, well, everything about a film. I think it’s good to read certain reviewers regularly, because knowing what they’ve said about movies that you’ve also seen allows you, over the long term, to be increasing able to predict your own reaction to a movie. (The two reviewers I always read on just about any film are Ebert and Edelstein–it used to Kauffmann too, but he’s just become so cranky in his old age.) But it doesn’t hurt to check out other, off-beat reviewers also. All in all, I rarely see a film that I haven’t read a half-dozen or more reviews of already. There’s a downside to this: I am almost never surprised by a film (because everything gets leaked if you look around enough). But the upside is that we’re rarely disappointed by what we go out to see.
We have favorite directors (not so much actors or actresses), but they don’t influence our choices as much as reviews. Besides, these guys are paid to see everything out there; they see movies which we all miss. We’ve discovered great films (like Stephen Fry’s Bright Young Things) solely because of Ebert and Co.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — December 14, 2005 @ 2:23 pm
I’m kind of surprised to see so many people say that they like Ebert (and, to a lesser extent Edelstein). Frankly, I think Ebert’s really not that good of a reviewer, at least in terms of evaluating whether a movie is worth seeing or not. He’s a good writer, and his reviews are very readable, but I think he tends to fixate on certain things about movies that cloud his judgment about whether a movie is good or not.
Personally, I tend to skim use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to get a good gestalt of what the critics as a whole think. Caveat: I think Rotten Tomatoes can be pretty darn arbitrary in how they sort a review as “fresh” or “rotten,” so I don’t rely too heavily on it. I’m more curious about why those who liked a move liked it, and why those who hated it hated it.
And unlike Russell, I’d rather know as little as possible about a movie (other than whether it’s any good) before I see it. I usually skip over the plot summary portion of reviews entirely, then go back and read them after I’ve seen the movie.
BTW – am I the only one who tends to read more movie reviews *after* I’ve seen a movie than I do before?
Comment by BTD Greg — December 14, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
Greg, I very much prefer to go into a film without any preconceptions. If there’s a film that I know I’m interested in seeing I avoid reviews. Sometimes I avoid even seeing any star ratings, thumbs up/thumbs down, or reading headlines of reviews. I want my opinion to be mine alone. If I see something with a bunch of other people’s opinions in my mind I become suspicious of my own reaction to the film, like I can’t trust myself to make an independent judgment. After I see the film and think about it I read a ton of reviews to see what other people have to say about it. This sort of takes the place of conversations with friends since my wife isn’t interested and I don’t have many friends that like to talk about films as much as I do. Poor me.
As for Ebert, I agree with your assessment for the most part. I don’t read him to decide whether or not I’m going to see a movie, but through him I often become interested in films that otherwise don’t get much press. Edelstein is worse than Ebert at fixating on unimportant elements, in my opinion. Often, he seems to be looking for any reason to be offended. But he’s fun to read and like you say, why he liked or didn’t like a film is more important than whether he liked it or not.
Comment by Tom — December 14, 2005 @ 4:30 pm
Saw King Kong today.
It’s reasonably entertaining once dinosaurs and Kong enter the movie. The first hour of it is perfectly terrible though, nearly unwatchable. And it’s almost ruined by the music.
Plus, it’s 3 hours long. Too long by 50%.
Comment by D. Fletcher — December 14, 2005 @ 10:43 pm
Fun discussion. The issue of how much to know about a film beforehand is an interesting one, and as a movie nerd, I must confess it’s one that I’ve struggled with for a long time. My eventual conclusion is that it depends on the movie – which doesn’t help much.
I think that for good movies, it’s good to know as much as possible beforehand. A good movie usually requires at least two viewings to fully appreciate due to complexities of characters and narrative. Reading a lot beforehand allows you to see the movie once, so to speak, so that when you actually do see the movie, it provides some of the benefits of a second viewing without actually having to sit through the movie twice. Then there’s also the issue of outright opacity. I would recommend learning as much as possible about characters and storylines of a film such as Syriana, for example, before going into the theater. If I had just had a simple cheat sheet of who was doing what and why, the movie would have been an entirely different experience.
On the other hand, some movies are best when you know little to nothing about them – for the sheer base pleasure of surprise. There are a lot of movies that have a 10-15 minute setup and then dive into a major plot twist that jumpstarts the rest of the film. Unfortunately, trailers usually have to reveal it to sell the film. But if at all possible, it’s best to see movies like The Island knowing absolutely nothing at all. I also made it into The Manchurian Candidate without having seen the earlier version, or a trailer, or heard anything in particular about it. I had thought, with Meryl Streep and all, that it was a serious political drama. That’s one of the most serious curveballs I’ve ever been thrown in a theater. It was awesome.
Comment by Eric Russell — December 14, 2005 @ 11:43 pm
I agree, Eric, but I’d rather know little about the good movies and a lot about the bad. That way, it’s easier to prepare your mindset.
I saw Domino a few weeks back. My friend and I both expected it to be horrible–it had been utterly panned by almost every critic (though, notably, Ebert and one of the NYT reviewers gave it relatively decent reviews). But because we knew that it was supposed to be bad, and why, we were prepared–and ended up quite enjoying it.
Comment by Pris — December 15, 2005 @ 9:40 am
Regarding Ebert’s and Edelstein’s fixations: you’re right, there are elements of films which grab them and shape their perspective on the film as a whole. But those fixations are reliable, meaning that, as you figure out how you feel about their particular fixations, you can use them to somewhat accurately forecast how you’ll feel about a movie. And that’s what I want. A critic who is “open-minded” and “takes things whole” might make a much better conversation partner after the movie, but they’re lousy critics. Give me opinionated, sharp, idiosyncratic critics any day of the week.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — December 15, 2005 @ 10:52 am
Russell, of course, you’re right; Ebert and Edelstein are both good critics. Maybe it’s just that their tastes are often much different from my own. Sometimes I’ll watch a movie and then check the reviews and think, “He liked that movie? How’s that?”
Two of the critics that I actually enjoy the most are a couple of guys that used to post reviews to the alt.rec.movies Usenet group back in the day: Steve Rhodes and James Berardinelli. They’re both opinionated, but unlikely to be swayed by Hollywood glitz (like, say, Peter Travers) or drawn offsides by socio-political fixations (Edelstein, Slate, or, to a lesser extent, The New Yorker).
Comment by BTD Greg — December 16, 2005 @ 8:46 am
I personally like Joe Morgenstern for reviews. I thought I liked Eric Snider but have realized recently that he’s more hit and miss. Did anyone read his review of Syriana? He starts off by explaining how he’s smart because he has a college degree but then admits to being lost through the whole movie only to wrap up the review by giving it a passing grade with some surface excuse of “it’s well shot” when in reality the whole review screams “Everyone else I know who has reviewed this movie thinks it’s good, so I better think so too, to a certain degree.”
Comment by Bob — December 20, 2005 @ 1:00 pm
I might be jinxed, but for me, the “theater experience” has become so uniformly unpleasant, that it takes a lightning bolt scar to the forehead to get me inside one.
I think I saw four movies in the theater last year, tops.
Hitchhiker’s, Serenity & GOF (twice – because they cut off the entire end credits the first time)
but netflix is my second husband. big smoochies to netflix.
Comment by Jennifer — December 20, 2005 @ 3:20 pm