F or weeks, the film "Drive" (2011) built up a healthy amount of hype. Ryan Gosling made the rounds on late night television, and TV viewers were assaulted with advertisements. Then came the reviews, which were, of course, glowing. Everything seemed to be going well.
But "Drive" tumbled an unexpectedly large amount in its second weekend. For a film that garnered a 92% rating from critics on the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, such a drop seems odd. Or is it? If you look beyond its critical reception, the answer becomes obvious. The film's CinemaScore (an exit−survey given on a film's opening day to determine audience's viewing experiences) was a paltry C−. To put that into perspective, that steaming pile of CGI−laced awfulness known as "The Green Lantern" (2011) got a B.
How can we explain this disconnect between critics and audiences? Well, in the case of "Drive," we can attribute this to awkward marketing. Trailers and television spots suggested it was an action−heavy flick with lots of car chases, shootouts and oodles of cleavage (the latter courtesy of Christina Hendricks).
While Drive did include bursts of violence and a couple of fleeting glimpses of Ms. Hendricks' physique, these moments were few and far between. With its minimalist dialogue, stylized cinematography and subtext−heavy direction, "Drive" succeeded in creating a smoldering character study. And that's the way critics interpreted the movie, too.
Unfortunately, what movie critics saw in "Drive" didn't correspond to what audiences wanted to see. These warped expectations killed the film's second−weekend box office results. People who wanted action watched "Killer Elite" (2011), and those who craved gratuitous cleavage stayed home to watch NickiMinaj music videos.
The last critic/audience controversy to erupt over a movie was this past summer. When "The Tree of Life" (2011) hit theatres, critics cooed over its philosophical ideas and impressionistic cinematography. Roger Ebert compared it to Stanley Kubrick's work, while A.O. Scott drew parallels to Herman Melville. Meanwhile, audiences were left scratching their heads and demanding refunds. With such a polarizing response, "The Tree of Life" wallowed in financial mediocrity. For a movie that was supposed to change the way we see cinema, it hardly made a dent in the box office.
Usually, the reactions of critics and viewers align, especially for older audiences. While we can certainly attribute the poor performance of "The Tourist" (2010) to its negative reviews, films that appeal to a younger demographic (think of the "Twilight" saga, which began in 2008) perform well in spite of the bad reviews.
Some films just skip reviews altogether. Maybe you remember a mindless summer movie based on a popular Hasbro toy line? The plot was an insult to anyone with an elementary school diploma. No, I'm not talking about "Transformers" (2007) — I mean "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" (2009). A movie like that doesn't even screen for critics; after all, most hyperactive 10−year−olds don't care what The New Yorker has to say.
One of my favorite Pixar movies is "Ratatouille" (2007). As an unabashed foodie and Francophile, I savored each moment of that movie. I'd go so far as to call it the best child−friendly movie about rat hoarding since the remake of "Willard" (2003). One of the film's best characters is the restaurant critic Anton Ego (Peter O'Toole). With his sunken eyes, Ego peers down on everyone else in the film with a look of haughty disdain.
While Brad Bird invented that character, there's no denying that many people feel this dislike for critics. We often find them to be distant. At best, they are helpful guides to your decision; at worst, they are stuffy and detached. I believe a critic's word should be taken with a grain of salt. At the end of the day, it's your 10 bucks. Go with your gut.
--
