Film criticism, by its very nature, is subjective. Yet, the perception of bias – whether conscious or unconscious – continues to be a recurring conversation within the industry. Veteran film critic Richard Roeper recently discussed this phenomenon, highlighting how external factors can influence reviews, even when critics strive for objectivity.
Roeper, known for his years co-hosting “At The Movies” with Roger Ebert and later as a solo critic, touched upon the issue during an appearance on “The Adam Carolla Show” podcast. The discussion centered around the surprisingly positive critical reception of the 2016 Ghostbusters
reboot, a film Roeper himself deemed a horrifying mess
. Despite his strong negative assessment, the film garnered a 73% fresh
rating on Rotten Tomatoes from critics, a figure that struck Roeper, and podcast host Adam Carolla, as incongruous with audience reception (which clocked in at 57% on the same site).
The core of the discussion revolved around the idea that critics’ personal beliefs, particularly their political leanings, might subtly shape their evaluations. Carolla posited that critics tend to be more liberal
, and that this predisposition could lead to a more favorable assessment of projects perceived as progressive or socially conscious. He specifically pointed to the Ghostbusters
reboot, which was widely framed as a corrective to the industry’s historical gender imbalance.
Roeper largely agreed with this assessment, suggesting that critics might lean a little toward it
– offering a nod
to a film seen as empowering
or representing progress
, even if the film itself didn’t fully deliver on its artistic merits. He acknowledged that this influence could be subconscious, but nonetheless present. This isn’t to say that critics intentionally inflate scores based on ideology, but rather that their worldview can subtly color their interpretation of a film’s value.
This conversation echoes broader debates about representation and the role of criticism in a culturally charged environment. The Ghostbusters
reboot, in particular, became a lightning rod for controversy, attracting both fervent supporters and vocal detractors. The film’s success, or lack thereof, became entangled with larger discussions about gender equality and the pressure to diversify Hollywood’s traditionally male-dominated landscape.
Roeper’s willingness to discuss potential biases within the critical community is noteworthy. He’s known for his directness and willingness to engage in honest conversations about the complexities of film evaluation. This stands in contrast to a tendency within the industry to dismiss such concerns as unfounded or conspiratorial.
The dynamic between Roeper and Ebert, a partnership that captivated audiences for years, often involved contrasting viewpoints. A look back at their review of Attack of the Clones
(2002) illustrates this. While Ebert expressed dissatisfaction with the dialogue, the lack of chemistry between Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman, and even Yoda’s lightsaber duel, Roeper defended the film on all counts. He found the dialogue effective, believed Portman and Christensen shared genuine chemistry, and thoroughly enjoyed Yoda’s action sequence. This divergence in opinion, while not necessarily indicative of political bias, highlights the inherent subjectivity of film criticism and the validity of differing interpretations.
Roeper’s career spans decades, and he has consistently provided reviews and commentary for the Chicago Sun-Times and Rotten Tomatoes. With over 2,737 movie reviews to his name, his perspective carries significant weight within the industry. His willingness to acknowledge the potential for bias, even if subtle, is a valuable contribution to the ongoing conversation about the role of criticism in a rapidly evolving cultural landscape.
The incident with Ghostbusters
serves as a case study, demonstrating how a film’s reception can be influenced by factors beyond its inherent quality. It underscores the importance of critical self-awareness and the need for audiences to approach reviews with a discerning eye, recognizing that even the most seasoned critics are not immune to the influence of their own perspectives and the prevailing cultural climate.
