Sex and the City 2 has only just premiered, but it is well on its way to becoming one of the most critically derided films of all time.
Among other brickbats, the Guardian‘s film critic Peter Bradshaw called it “misjudged and quite incredibly boring“, the Times said it was “a waste of four great characters“, and the New York Times thought it was “desperate, grating and a little sad“. The movie has scored a pitiful 14% on the Rotten Tomatoes website film review aggregator.
But none of this has dented its commercial prospects — aimed at the bumper Memorial Day holiday weekend at the US box office. Influential website Deadline Hollywood reported that Sex and the City 2 took $17-million on its first day on release in the US, and expects to make a healthy $75m-plus for the entire five-day holiday period. It is the latest example of an ever-more prevalent phenomenon: the critic-proof movie.
The relationship between film critics and the industry has always been fractious, but in recent years examples have proliferated of criticalpastings preceding major box office returns. 2009’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (“like watching paint dry while getting hit over the head with a frying pan,” wrote Bradshaw) has a 20% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but took $836-million worldwide. The adaptation of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code (“bizarre succession of baffling travelogue escapades”) is rated at 25% on Rotten Tomatoes, but took $758-million worldwide in 2006. Back in 2001 Lara Croft Tomb Raider (“it’s all very weak”) may have made a star of Angelina Jolie, but it totalled 19% on Rotten Tomatoes while taking $274-million globally.
Certain factors are all in play when it comes to the critic-proof movie. The film is almost always based on popular pre-existing products: video games, books, toys or, as in Sex and the City‘s case, TV shows. And it helps, of course, if it is a sequel to an already-successful movie, and has a massive marketing budget. The industry may claim that critics don’t matter, but Charles Gant, the film editor of Heat magazine and box-office blogger for the Guardian, said they may care more than they say. “It’s all about putting on a brave face. People would rather make good movies than bad movies. Of course it’s all about creating value for their shareholders, but who wouldn’t rather be JJ Abrams or Chris Nolan — makers of films both praised by critics and commercially successful — than Michael Bay? Of course, when you make the kind of movies Michael Bay makes, you have to harden yourself against the bad reviews.”
There is also the issue that, while negative critical opinion cannot destroy a film, positive reviews can certainly help a film commercially. Gant said: “I firmly believe there’s an extra incremental audience that pay attention to reviews, and will go if they hear a film is good. It’s the floating voter scenario. Had The Da Vinci Code got better reviews I believe it could have earned another $100-million. We don’t know what Sex and the City 2‘s numbers will be, but the same will apply, I’m sure.
“It depends, of course, on who your film is aimed at. Transformers was for teenagers, and they don’t care what other people think. But if you want an adult audience it does make a difference. It takes a lot to get them out, what with childcare and work commitments and whatever. But they’ll make an effort if they think a film is good. I’m not sure there’s a adult-aimed movie that is totally critic-proof.” – guardian.co.uk