Do People Really Care What Critics Think?

“Justice League” opens in theaters today. The Rotten Tomatoes score is less than stellar. There was some talk earlier this week about the fact that the Rotten Tomatoes score was going to be held until the day before it was released. Most films release the scores about a week, or sometimes earlier, before a film is released. The common consensus is that the later the film waits to reveal the score the worse the score for that film is. While the rating for “Justice League” isn’t horrible, it is certainly not something that most films want to advertise.

But do people really care what critics think? For years, average film goers have been disdainful of what critics say. To them, critics hate the movies they like and love the movies they don’t want to see. Critics are the ones who love foreign films, low-budget films, and depressing  movies. They hate slap-stick comedies, horror films, and big-budget extravaganzas. Yet, that has not always been the case. The films of Steven Spielberg and Christopher Nolan are just some examples of critics who, overall, love the films they make and these same films usually make quite a bit of money at the box-office. Even without the love of critics, films such as “Independence Day”, the “Transformers” movies, and practically everything starring Adam Sandler, has been a smash and have legions of devoted fans.

In the last year or so, film advertising has included Rotten Tomato scores as a way to get people interested in seeing a movie. This isn’t new, of course. Film commercials and posters have always included blurbs from critics. Who can forget the Siskel & Ebert “Two Thumbs Up!” seal of approval? Now, however, having a “fresh” score is somehow meant to be akin to a papal blessing on a film. In some cases, I can see how this is. Films like “It” and “Wonder Woman” certainly benefited from the high scores, though of course a lot could be said for word-of-mouth feedback from friends, family, and co-workers.

When I first started getting into film, Roger Ebert was the biggest inspiration for me. Reading his essays and reviews made me want to see films I hadn’t thought of seeing before and also opened up my eyes to documentaries, foreign films, and obscure low-budget films that didn’t have the benefit of big-name stars and large studio presentations. Now while I loved Roger Ebert and miss him sorely, I still had my guilty pleasures. I loved the early Tim Burton films and David Lynch films, 2 directors that Ebert did not care for very much. I also enjoyed big-budge spectacles and sequels, most of which he gave 2 stars or less.

While critical acclaim can certainly help a film’s performance, I think that the Rotten Tomato score, no matter how high or low, will not keep people away who really want to see a film. If that was the case, why are they still churning out horror movies and sequels and prequels to these same movies? Why is Michael Bay still allowed to direct? If these scores were the final answer in a film’s success, why don’t people flock to see the small, independent films from Europe? People will see what they want to see. The Rotten Tomato score can help nudge people who aren’t too sure about a movie, true, but the true test of a film’s success is, and has always been, word of mouth. Not necessarily the word of critics.