Do critics critisize animated movies fairly?

[Antiyonder]

Wanted to satisfy my curiousity.

Last month, on The Spongebob Squarepants Movie Talkback I read someone's post stating that the movie got a lot of bashing. I figured the bashing is due to the movie being animated (of course I'm sure the critics would have welcomed profanity and sexual situation).

So, do animated movies get fair critisizim, or do critics just dislike cartoons altogether?

[Samurai]

Well to be fair, critics did give good reviews to Shrek and The Incredibles. Heck, I think The Incredibles has one of the highest rated reviews overall.

But most mainstream critics still see animation as something for kid's. That really hasn't changed. They're movie critics, so 99% of the movies they see is live-action. I think the problem with animated movies is just the lack of variety, and only a few get released per year (compare that with live-action movies, in which every week you've got at least a few coming out).

Plus, I think cartoons themselves are partly responsible for the perception they're for kids. Because most cartoons are family-oriented. So when the critics see these family-oriented cartoons, of course they're going to think it's for kids. But no American studio is willing to make an animated movie that is solely for adults. They want to target the family market (and who can blame them, it racks up huge sales).

[Michael24]

I think it could be both. Some critics may just view all animated movies as "kid's cartoons," but others might actually be willing to give them a fair look. I know Siskel and Ebert liked MASK OF THE PHANTASM, though they missed it initially, and Ebert late gave SUBZERO his Video Pick of the Week when it came out.

[Dudley]

Plus, I think cartoons themselves are partly responsible for the perception they're for kids. Because most cartoons are family-oriented. So when the critics see these family-oriented cartoons, of course they're going to think it's for kids. But no American studio is willing to make an animated movie that is solely for adults. They want to target the family market (and who can blame them, it racks up huge sales).
I sometimes ponder over the fact that if anime films like Innocence, Millenium Actress, or the Ghibli films were to be relased mainstream, that would break the perception that cartoons are just for kids.

[Tobias]

Ebert actually gave Spongebob a thumb's up. Roeper's reasoning for the thumbs down was because there are so many Spongebob DVD's, videoes, etc, that he couldn't recommend going to see the movie.

[Fone Bone]

I think it could be both. Some critics may just view all animated movies as "kid's cartoons," but others might actually be willing to give them a fair look. I know Siskel and Ebert liked MASK OF THE PHANTASM, though they missed it initially, and Ebert late gave SUBZERO his Video Pick of the Week when it came out.Ebert has gotten loopy in his old age though. He said The Powerpuff Girls Movie was horrible because it didn't take September 11th fears seriously and that he wouldn't like to meet any adult fans of the show.

I think the biggest thing that critics are biased against isn't animation per se but properties based on television shows. Almost EVERY movie based on a TV show is judged solely on if the critic understood what what going on. Most critics don't watch TV for some reason (maybe they are too good for it?). I mean the absolutely lame X-Files movie got positive reviews because the critics were able to understand it since everything was laid out a second time for newbies.

I doubt a movie like Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker would gain a lot of critics favor. TV Guide in fact gave the movie ** while giving Mystery of the Batwoman ***. Continuity is NOT a good thing in critics eyes for a movie.

I'd hate to think how 2001: A Space Oddessy would be judged if it were made today: "I just don't get it! Movies that make me think hurt my head!"

Edit: And yes, I'm aware that was a popular reaction to 2001 in 1968. I'm just saying it would be worse today since critics are force fed "blockbusters" like Van Helsing and The Scorpion King.

[Samurai]

I'd hate to think how 2001: A Space Oddessy would be judged if it were made today: "I just don't get it! Movies that make me think hurt my head!"

Edit: And yes, I'm aware that was a popular reaction to 2001 in 1968. I'm just saying it would be worse today since critics are force fed "blockbusters" like Van Helsing and The Scorpion King.I don't know, I think most critics hate popular movies, at least from the reviews I always see. Van Helsing and Scorpion King got horrible reviews. As a rule of thumb, big action blockbusters will get bad reviews from critics most of the time.

I think most critics are in the "art-house" category in that they mostly give good reviews to little arty independent movies.

Except Roger Ebert has lightened up a lot in the past few years. Before, he'd pan any big popular movie. Now, he generally tries to give them at least decent reviews.

[Captain Harlock]

To me, Ebert always seems to have favored animated movies. In terms of recent animated movies, he gave Spongebob 3 stars, The Incredibles 3 1/2, and Shrek 2 received 3 stars. However, it seems like he has a spot in his heart for anime. Spirited Away was his 8th best film of 2002. He gave Ghost in the Shell 3 stars, and calls Grave of the Fireflies one of the best war movies ever made. He seems to understand the mature themes exhibited in anime, as well as other animated films like The Lion King.

As for the other critics, I really don't bother in following them. I've found that Ebert is usually reflective of my own opinions, minus the excessive interest in foreign films.

[Speedy Boris]

IIRC, the majority of the reason why Ebert gave the Pokemon movies a below average grade was because he didn't comprehend the fandom and the trading card frenzy. Maybe he would've fared better if he didn't ask a hyperactive 8 year old before viewing the movie what Pokemon was about.

Otherwise, yeah. I've found Ebert enjoys animation, assuming that the animation is above TV quality and that the plot isn't terrible or incomprehensible.
He even did a 5-minute special on an episode of his show about anime (I believe it was on a "tribute to foreign films" or something).

[RayChuang]

Well to be fair, critics did give good reviews to Shrek and The Incredibles. Heck, I think The Incredibles has one of the highest rated reviews overall.
I think the reason why Shrek 2 and The Incredibles have done well is the fact both movies have an appeal to more "adult" sensibilities, which explains why many serious critics have especially liked The Incredibles. Shrek 2 did very well because the movie was absolutely brilliant in its parody of the entire Hollywood entertainment culture. :anime:

[Mynd Hed]

If anything, I think most critics tend to give animated films extra leniency-- precisely because they're perceived as childrens' entertainment, critics are surprised by and therefore heavily praise any attempt at depth of plot, character, etc.

[Beat]

Depends. I remember Spawn the TV show being universaly bashed for its adult content in animation. At the same time, Incredibles garners fantastic reviews.

[Samurai]

Depends. I remember Spawn the TV show being universaly bashed for its adult content in animation. At the same time, Incredibles garners fantastic reviews.That's because Spawn was violent and bloody. Critics don't like that. I mean, a lot of critics gave bad reviews to the Cowboy Bebop movie for the same thing.

To them, Spawn and Cowboy Bebop has too much "mindless" violence. It's the same reason critics hate a lot of low-brow comedy movies for all the toilet humour and offensive gags (even if the movies are funny as all hell). But critics prefer "high-minded" intellectual fare.

[Michael24]

I don't know, I think most critics hate popular movies, at least from the reviews I always see. Van Helsing and Scorpion King got horrible reviews. As a rule of thumb, big action blockbusters will get bad reviews from critics most of the time.
I don't know about SCORPION KING, but Ebert gave VAN HELSING a thumbs up, which surprised me.

Personally, I tend to never listen to most critics. If I did, I'd see nothing but crap movies and miss all of the good ones. Leonard Maltin is about the only critic I ever come close to listening to, though even he's gotten kinda strange of what he likes/doesn't like in recent years.

[Chris Wood]

[Samurai]I don't know, I think most critics hate popular movies, at least from the reviews I always see. Van Helsing and Scorpion King got horrible reviews. As a rule of thumb, big action blockbusters will get bad reviews from critics most of the time.

Critics don't hate popular movies. Look at the glowing reviews for stuff like Harry Potter, LOTR, Spiderman, etc. Critics usually dislike big dumb action pictures though, hence bad reviews for Van Helsing and Scorpion King. Of course, those happen to be bad movies anyway. The general public wasn't a big fan either.

I think most critics are in the "art-house" category in that they mostly give good reviews to little arty independent movies.

That's generally true. In particular critics look very favorably on foreign movies.

Except Roger Ebert has lightened up a lot in the past few years. Before, he'd pan any big popular movie. Now, he generally tries to give them at least decent reviews.

I hate to say it, but Ebert has degenerated into somewhat of a hack. Most of his reviews are still on the money, but more and more he'll sing the praises of generic blockbuster junk, perhaps to get quoted more often. He gave freakin' Garfield his "thumbs up." That's just sad.

[Fone Bone]

I don't know, I think most critics hate popular movies, at least from the reviews I always see. Van Helsing and Scorpion King got horrible reviews. As a rule of thumb, big action blockbusters will get bad reviews from critics most of the time.

I think most critics are in the "art-house" category in that they mostly give good reviews to little arty independent movies.

Except Roger Ebert has lightened up a lot in the past few years. Before, he'd pan any big popular movie. Now, he generally tries to give them at least decent reviews.I know those two got horrible reviews. But considering most movies that come out are like them I feel that critics have to have different standards than they did back inthe day. They HAVE to like some of the crappy movies like Van Helsing and Garfield or their readership and viewership will drop because people actually like those kind of movies.

Sometimes I feel movie critics cater to the public there days because this country has gotten so stupid in recent years. We live in a culture that celebrates stupidity and rewards assinine behavior with fame (Paris Hilton, Britnay Spears, Donald Trump). People don't generally care about a movie critic's opinion because they can come off as intellectual know-it-alls and again stupidity is prized these days.

When exactly did being well-read become a crime?

[T.T.Raven4]

I mean, movies like Shrek got extremely high ratinggs, but other movies get horrible. I guess it's just the fact that no adult is really going to be addicted to Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh, or possibly even Spongebob, despite it's hilarious content. Adults, and even I (Being only 13) would much rather prefer an extremely funny, pee your pants scary, or action packed movie over some kind of babyish kids movie. That's exactly (I think :sweat: ) that they are thinking. I mean, no kid is going to rate Oceans 12 good, because chances are, if they're not at least 10, they won't understand a single thing. Think of it that way.

[Antiyonder]

I guess it's just the fact that no adult is really going to be addicted to Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh, or possibly even Spongebob, despite it's hilarious content. Adults, and even I (Being only 13) would much rather prefer an extremely funny, pee your pants scary, or action packed movie over some kind of babyish kids movie.
I still stand by my decision that the majority of adults and teens find cartoons to be a waste of time because:

A: They prefer sex and profanity, and most cartoons lack thoses. Most people (not all) who reach the age of 13 let their hormones do the thinking, and therefore lose common sense.

B: They prefer shows that are grounded in reality. I've seen shows like Kim Possible given bad reviews because the show is unrealistic (Chearleader/Crime fighter). If these people want reality, they should: Read a newspaper; Turn on the news or just go out for a walk in the world of real life.

End rant.

[Jaime_Weinman]

I think that if anything, a lot of critics are too nice to animated movies. That is, because they consider these movies "kids' stuff," they apply a lower standard to them than they would for a "grown-up" movie. Roger Ebert for one has sometimes written reviews of Disney movies (like Hunchback of Notre Dame) where he glosses over or ignores flaws of writing or story structure that he would definitely attack in a live-action film. If animated movies are to be considered "real" movies, and I certainly think they should be, then they should be judged by the same standards and not get a free pass for cheesy dialogue or bad comedy relief.

[Speedy Boris]

Roger Ebert for one has sometimes written reviews of Disney movies (like Hunchback of Notre Dame) where he glosses over or ignores flaws of writing or story structure that he would definitely attack in a live-action film. That's true, too. I still remember his review of A Goofy Movie- he didn't really review the film but more described certain scenes in the movie, so apparently parents could decide if that sounded good to take their kids to. He gave it three stars without really saying why.

[Mynd Hed]

Depends. I remember Spawn the TV show being universaly bashed for its adult content in animation. At the same time, Incredibles garners fantastic reviews.

I think that has more to do with the predilections of critics than with Spawn: TAS being animated. I bet it would've gotten the same reactions as a live-action show. It was fun as hell and I loved it, but it was hardly highbrow, and as has been mentioned, critics tend to be extra harsh on anything with lots of naughtiness unless it's EXTREMELY artsy or has something else to balance it out (like, say, Kill Bill, which I'm convinced only got away from critics as lightly as it did because it has Tarantino's named attached to it and for some reason in certain circles the man can apparently do no wrong).

I still stand by my decision that the majority of adults and teens find cartoons to be a waste of time because:

A: They prefer sex and profanity, and most cartoons lack thoses. Most people (not all) who reach the age of 13 let their hormones do the thinking, and therefore lose common sense.

B: They prefer shows that are grounded in reality. I've seen shows like Kim Possible given bad reviews because the show is unrealistic (Chearleader/Crime fighter). If these people want reality, they should: Read a newspaper; Turn on the news or just go out for a walk in the world of real life.

End rant.

Cynical, much? (-: I guess I can see a basis (however pessimistic when it comes to human nature) for item A, but all due respect and everything, but item B is bunk. Your average Joe American doesn't look to entertainment for realism, they look for escapism. Flip through the major networks during primetime-- I defy you to find anything even apporaching realism. (-: I'm afraid we're going to have to seek an alternate explanation for the marginal status of animation. (Argh, the rhyming! The unintentional rhyming!)

[Antiyonder]

Cynical, much? (-: I guess I can see a basis (however pessimistic when it comes to human nature) for item A, but all due respect and everything, but item B is bunk. Your average Joe American doesn't look to entertainment for realism, they look for escapism. Flip through the major networks during primetime-- I defy you to find anything even apporaching realism. (-: I'm afraid we're going to have to seek an alternate explanation for the marginal status of animation. (Argh, the rhyming! The unintentional rhyming!)
The majority I'm refering to prefer tween/family sitcom, or reality shows.

To them escapism is Raven trying to become popular.

To me and other toonzoners (I'm guessing at least) escapism is Goliath battling a sorceror on a magical island.

[Samurai]

I know those two got horrible reviews. But considering most movies that come out are like them I feel that critics have to have different standards than they did back inthe day. They HAVE to like some of the crappy movies like Van Helsing and Garfield or their readership and viewership will drop because people actually like those kind of movies.Well that's true. Critics can't be too harsh of some movies because of it's massive built-in fandom. Prime examples are Spider-Man 2 and LOTR: ROTK. Personally, I think both movies had some major flaws. But I think too many critics were way too generous with their reviews. Partially because some of them grew up reading the comics and books and have a sense of nostalgia (the ultimate bias in reviews), but also because they didn't want to piss of all the hardcore fanboys that probably have their heads on a stick. I remember Ebert received some complaints about comments he made about LOTR fans on his show.

It's a catch-22 when reviewing these ultra-popular movies with major fandom. Like Star Wars. Even if Episode III just flat-out sucks, a lot of critics will still probably be fairly generous because it's Star Wars (and the fact it's the final Star Wars movie... at least for now :p).

[lostrune]

I think the biggest thing that critics are biased against isn't animation per se but properties based on television shows. Almost EVERY movie based on a TV show is judged solely on if the critic understood what what going on. Most critics don't watch TV for some reason (maybe they are too good for it?).
It's because they're movie critics, not TV critics. They're paid to watch movies and write reviews all day. There's only so many hours in a day - who has time to watch a TV series just to understand a movie? They judge a movie whether it can stand on its own - because, frankly, that's how most movie-goers decide whether to watch a movie anyways (TV series fans will most likely watch a movie based on that TV series regardless, so it's not worth critiquing on their point of view).


The majority I'm refering to prefer tween/family sitcom, or reality shows.

To them escapism is Raven trying to become popular.

To me and other toonzoners (I'm guessing at least) escapism is Goliath battling a sorceror on a magical island.
Oh, you mean fantasy. The fantasy genre has usually not been popular with movie critics - that's why fantasy film hardly ever win the Oscars and why the Lord of the Rings's win was extra-special.

[Fone Bone]

It's because they're movie critics, not TV critics. They're paid to watch movies and write reviews all day. There's only so many hours in a day - who has time to watch a TV series just to understand a movie? They judge a movie whether it can stand on its own - because, frankly, that's how most movie-goers decide whether to watch a movie anyways (TV series fans will most likely watch a movie based on that TV series regardless, so it's not worth critiquing on their point of view).I'm saying that whether a movie can stand independantly of the series is not an indicator that the movie is any good. The X-Files movie took great pains in being understandable by all. And it still sucked.

I don't think movies should be judged on if they can standalone. They should be judged on whether they are good or not. I would prefer it if critics who don't watch television would actually say "I didn't understand this movie because I don't watch the show so I can't judge it fairly."

That's why I like Entertainment Weekly. Lisa Schartzbaum actually watches TV and reads books. (Although Owen Gleiberman is the biggest ass is criticdom. Always ignore his reviews unless you like movies that are pompous and self-important.) Most of the other critics (except Gleiberman) do too.

[lostrune]

I don't think movies should be judged on if they can standalone. They should be judged on whether they are good or not. I would prefer it if critics who don't watch television would actually say "I didn't understand this movie because I don't watch the show so I can't judge it fairly."
Well, some critics do say something like: "I'm not familiar with the TV series, but those who are [will] / [will not] probably enjoy the movie. For those like me, it's [not worth it] / [still worth it]."

[RayChuang]

Oh, you mean fantasy. The fantasy genre has usually not been popular with movie critics - that's why fantasy film hardly ever win the Oscars and why the Lord of the Rings's win was extra-special.The problem with SF/fantasy movies is the fact with a very few exceptions, most of them were not exactly deemed even by the moviegoing public Oscar-worthy to start with. The three Lord of the Rings movies did get Oscar notice because 1) they were all of very high quality, 2) Peter Jackson did the near-impossible by adapting J.R.R. Tolkien's work successfully and 3) it was one of the most complex and expensive undertakings in movie history.

[Samurai]

Oh, you mean fantasy. The fantasy genre has usually not been popular with movie critics - that's why fantasy film hardly ever win the Oscars and why the Lord of the Rings's win was extra-special.
Well let's be honest here, it's not like most fantasy/Sci-Fi films were that great to begin with. There's a few exceptional ones, but many were just plain awful with campy dialogue and cheezy special affects. So when something like LOTR comes along, fans flock to it in droves because it's one of those rare fantasy films that doesn't suck.

[Speedy Boris]

Well that's true. Critics can't be too harsh of some movies because of it's massive built-in fandom. Prime examples are Spider-Man 2 and LOTR: ROTK. Personally, I think both movies had some major flaws. But I think too many critics were way too generous with their reviews. Partially because some of them grew up reading the comics and books and have a sense of nostalgia (the ultimate bias in reviews), but also because they didn't want to piss of all the hardcore fanboys that probably have their heads on a stick. I remember Ebert received some complaints about comments he made about LOTR fans on his show.

It's a catch-22 when reviewing these ultra-popular movies with major fandom. Like Star Wars. Even if Episode III just flat-out sucks, a lot of critics will still probably be fairly generous because it's Star Wars (and the fact it's the final Star Wars movie... at least for now :p). Not entirely true- Ebert gave Star Wars Episode II only 2 stars. Of course, he's not the ONLY critic, but I'm just saying they aren't hard and fast rules.

[Samurai]

Not entirely true- Ebert gave Star Wars Episode II only 2 stars. Of course, he's not the ONLY critic, but I'm just saying they aren't hard and fast rules.I still feel that many critics are biased against big action blockbuster-type films. Sometimes they give good reviews and when they do, they tend to be overly generous so they don't piss off the fanboys. Look at the reviews for Spider-Man 2. A lot of them, even though they're positive, have this condescending tone, like "for a comic book film, it's pretty good."

I just don't think critics truly like those type of films. Hence their bias against Fantasy/Sci-Fi films, because they associate it with the action blockbuster category. Of course, this is not true of EVERY single critic, but a good majority of them. And I will stand by that statement.

[T.T.Raven4]

I still stand by my decision that the majority of adults and teens find cartoons to be a waste of time because:

A: They prefer sex and profanity, and most cartoons lack thoses. Most people (not all) who reach the age of 13 let their hormones do the thinking, and therefore lose common sense.

B: They prefer shows that are grounded in reality. I've seen shows like Kim Possible given bad reviews because the show is unrealistic (Chearleader/Crime fighter). If these people want reality, they should: Read a newspaper; Turn on the news or just go out for a walk in the world of real life.

End rant.
You quoted me. I didn't disagree with you though....110% of what you said was correct. That is all true. And I being 13, yyes my hormones do the talking. And no, I have no common sense. :D

[Beat]

A lot of critics will review films without looking at them. A while ago, a local critic gave the Power Rangers movie one star, quoting "This film is not worth talking about."

A few years later, the same critic reviews the movie for a TV guide with the quote "Not as bad as one might expect."

So it's a double standard. Remember folks, critics are people too.

[Samurai]

A lot of critics will review films without looking at them. A while ago, a local critic gave the Power Rangers movie one star, quoting "This film is not worth talking about."

A few years later, the same critic reviews the movie for a TV guide with the quote "Not as bad as one might expect."

So it's a double standard. Remember folks, critics are people too.That's even worse. If any critic does that, they should be fired. Automatically. I mean, if they don't want to review a film, then don't see it. But if they are obligated to see a film, and getting paid to do it, then they must review it FAIRLY. No if's, and's, or but's about it.

Which is why I can't stand it when some critics whine that their job is not as easy as everyone thinks because they have to see a lot of awful films. Oh shut up, I'm not going to pity them for that. Now working in some back-breaking job just trying to make enough to eat... that I'll agree sucks.

In fact, that applies to anyone who complains about how crappy their job is. Some people have legitimate beefs, but a lot of people don't know how good they really have it. And if you don't believe me, then take a good look around the world, and I mean take a really good look, and then tell me with a straight face if your job is that bad. If not, then quit complaining. And for movie critics, sitting there for 2 hours and seeing a movie, no matter how awful it is, is not as bad by comparison.

P.S. - Excuse me for my rant. I'm just really pissed right now.

[Chris Wood]

I sometimes ponder over the fact that if anime films like Innocence, Millenium Actress, or the Ghibli films were to be relased mainstream, that would break the perception that cartoons are just for kids.

Maybe, but the trick is getting people to actually come to the theaters to watch them, which hasn't been easy so far.