New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Tom Houseman: Every review I've read said the exact same thing: "it's exactly the same as the first one." Every friend I have who's seen it said the exact same thing: "it's exactly the same as the first one!" The critics made it very clear whether or not people would want to see this movie, which is their job. Critics aren't supposed to tell you what movies to see, but rather to help you make informed decisions. I found The Hangover mediocre, so I knew based on the reviews that I would be waiting to see the sequel on DVD. Most of my friends, however, loved The Hangover, so reading the reviews would have in no way dampened their expectations.

Matthew Huntley: I think moviegoers are avoiding critics' reviews because they'd rather be part of a pop culture phenomenon and (potentially) endure bad/lazy filmmaking than not be in the know. I don't think it's a conformity thing, but rather about being in tune with the collective consciousness and being able to discuss the latest "it" thing with others. Summer movies like The Hangover Part II are "event" pictures, and people inherently want to be a part of it, no matter how temporary or inconsequential it may be. I think Kim's question would make a good sociological case study.

Edwin Davies: Reviews tend to have more of an impact on the performance of a film when it is a new, untested product than they do on established brands because they can convince people to take a chance on something with which they aren't familiar. We've seen the extremes of this behaviour illustrated beautifully in the last few weeks with Bridesmaids, which has seen great reviews and solid word-of-mouth turn into consistently good holds, and The Hangover Part II, which owes its huge opening weekend to the goodwill generated by its predecessor. A lot of people liked the first Hangover, so they were going to see it regardless of what critics said. The greatest effect I can see the reviews having is over the coming weeks, since they might be bad enough to dissuade people who didn't see the first film, or who did and didn't like it, from taking a chance, but the momentum that this opening gives the film means that this impact will probably be pretty negligible.

David Mumpower: The critics forgot to focus on what's important about The Hangover II: it has a monkey. I agree with Matthew that this is a sociological phenomenon worthy of detailed examination. What I can say with certainty is that all of my life, there have been films that I have just known people were going to see no matter what was said of them. We delude ourselves into seeing things that aren't true of them as well. I've seen intelligent people offer reasoned treatises on what Michael Bay was trying to accomplish artistically with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I've looked on quizzically when people justified the boring economics seminar of the first Star Wars prequel or the real estate transactions of the latest Superman film. And I myself have passionately defended The Matrix sequels as worthy of their predecessor.

We all have our cinematic blind spots. This is exactly the reason we asked Samuel Hoelker to write his Guilty Pleasures column and his bravery shines through at those times when he stands up and says, "The Happening is actually pretty entertaining." I...don't line up with him on the topic, but that's exactly the point. Do you know anyone who agrees with you on even 90% of the movies you watch? North American consumers looked at the reviews this weekend and said, "Who cares? WE'RE GOING TO BANGKOK!!!...vicariously." And they did.

Continued:       1       2       3