Why Film Criticism Needs to Evolve: Moving Beyond Entertainment-Driven Analysis

After more than a year of uncertainty, I’ve decided to take my media output as a podcaster and blogger in a new direction—one that I hope will foster deeper, more nuanced conversations about film. The landscape of film criticism has increasingly leaned towards surface-level analysis driven by audience expectations, Hollywood's formulaic storytelling, and the rise of social media and personal blogs. This shift has led to a devaluation of deeper artistic engagement with films, resulting in criticism that is more reactive than reflective. At the heart of this issue lies audience expectations. As blockbuster films dominate the box office, Hollywood has adapted its storytelling methods to cater to these demands. Formulaic narratives, predictable plot twists, and action spectacles have become the norm, prioritizing profitability over originality. This results in a cycle where audiences expect immediate gratification, stifling appreciation for films that challenge conventions or require patience—such as arthouse or higher-brow films that encourage thoughtful engagement rather than spoon-feeding the audience.

A multitude of social media platforms contribute significantly to this trend, thriving on the immediacy of criticism. YouTube channels like Cinema Sins are a major influence in this regard. They often focus on identifying flaws, fostering a culture that dissects films for their shortcomings rather than celebrating artistic achievements. This quick-fire critique discourages deeper exploration of themes, character development, and stylistic choices, which are vital for understanding artwork across mediums.

The criticism surrounding?The Phantom Menace?offers a perfect example. Red Letter Media’s viral video deconstructing the film’s perceived flaws entertains, but also reinforces a reductive view of cinema. It encourages younger critics to equate humor with depth, fostering a culture where dismissive commentary is more valued than meaningful critique. This trend becomes problematic when reviewers prioritize cleverness or snark over genuine engagement with a film’s artistic intentions. A more thoughtful approach to criticism requires time, reflection, and an openness to experiencing films on their own terms—qualities that are becoming rare in today’s discourse.

A recent example of this flawed approach can be seen in the reception of Francis Ford Coppola’s?Megalopolis. Before its release, discourse around the film fixated on production challenges and impractical ambitions, overshadowing Coppola’s artistic vision. Many reviewers entered the conversation expecting?The Godfather?and judged the film harshly when it didn’t align with those expectations.

Sean Fennessey and Amanda Dobbins, hosts of?The Big Picture Podcast, exemplified this kind of shallow critique. Instead of appreciating?Megalopolis?for what it is—a bold exploration of storytelling and urban mythology—they focused on perceived "messiness" and shortcomings. Their critique drips with condescension, particularly as they recount a Q&A session where they complain about Coppola's verbosity. Despite the privilege of attending, they seemed unable to appreciate engaging with a cinematic legend. Amanda’s criticism of Coppola’s portrayal of female characters felt more politically charged than artistically grounded, revealing how personal biases can cloud objective evaluation. These personal biases also extend to personal beliefs in how films should be constructed at the technical level. For instance, when Sean describes the film’s setting?as "Rome implanted into New York," Amanda interjects with "CGI'd in," dismissing a legitimate filmmaking technique despite its prevalence in contemporary cinema. She does this many times throughout the podcast, utilizing specific language choices in an attempt to devalue the film they're discussing.

This type of criticism points to a deeper issue: the lack of art literacy among many viewers and critics. Engaging with works that demand patience and a willingness to navigate ambiguity clashes with the expectations of audiences accustomed to fast consumption and straightforward, linear narratives. When filmmakers challenge conventions, they often encounter resistance from both critics and viewers. Rather than embracing artistic ambition, many audiences gravitate towards familiar structures that provide instant gratification. This narrows the scope of critical discourse, reducing it to debates about entertainment value instead of meaningful explorations of artistic merit.

Aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes contribute to the dilution of critical discourse by reducing complex film evaluations to binary scores—“fresh” or “rotten.” Even thoughtful critiques get lost in this system, as nuanced perspectives are overshadowed by aggregate percentages. This approach encourages a consensus-driven mentality, where audiences rely on numbers rather than engaging with the substance of individual reviews. The result is a binary understanding of quality that stifles meaningful dialogue about art and storytelling. We need to move beyond this framework if we want to cultivate richer conversations about cinema.

Through the new direction of my media work, I hope to inspire a paradigm shift in how we talk about movies. I want to encourage film lovers and aspiring critics to adopt a more academic approach—one that goes beyond simply saying, "I liked it" or "I didn’t like it."

Cinema is an art form that deserves more than surface-level criticism. By engaging with films thoughtfully and without preconceived expectations, we can create space for meaningful conversations about their themes, intentions, and artistry. My goal is to contribute to this shift, promoting film criticism that values depth, reflection, and an appreciation for the unconventional.

#cinema #moviereview #moviecritic #criticism #filmcriticism #makingmovies #indiefilm