Reading the IMDB user reviews for Avengers: Endgame was an experience that, for me, was equal parts frustrating and odd. Not odd in the sense that it was unexpected, however.
I should mention that my opinion of the film is overwhelmingly positive (perhaps a 9 out of 10), and the reviews I took issue with many of those negative. However, it is not the dislike of the film that I take issue with. Appreciation of art is subjective, and any level of love or disdain is valid. Considering my own controversial opinions on the likes of A New Hope, The Godfather Part 2, and Spirited Away, it would be out of place for me to claim that Endgame possesses any divine ordinance that makes it immune from negative criticism (not that anyone would have the right to claim as such in the first place).
Rather, my problems with many of the reviews have little to do with Avengers: Endgame in particular, and more to do with what I perceive to be a broad problem in most media criticism. First, let’s discuss some fundamentals.
What makes a good review?
When I ask this question, I am not talking about technicalities. Sure, the finer details of writing and communication play a colossal role in determining the quality of criticism, but what I want to focus on here is, to rip off Aristotle, “telos.” The essential purpose of a review of a work of art is either to communicate to someone whether or not they will enjoy said work or to express a perspective to them which might resonate with them and help them to appreciate it differently.
If one seeks to inform the audience of how much they should expect to enjoy something, they might either write disregarding their own opinion, instead focusing on what their intended audience is likely to care about, or they might write strictly from their own opinion, being as genuine as possible in regard to their experience with the work. Each approach has merit.
The second approach also has merit when one’s intended audience consists of those who have already experienced the work. Hearing a genuine and personal take on a piece of art, even a take one might disagree with, can enrich one’s understanding not only of that piece, but of art in general.
Helping No One
When I look at most of the negative reviews of the film, I see a commonality among them, usually focusing on ‘plot-holes’ and ‘messy pacing’ and many of the criticisms of any film one would expect from a 14 year old video essayist. It’s the type of check-box criticism that comes from attempts at being “objective,” and I expect you know what I’m talking about.
Suppose, as one likely should, that those who would watch and/or enjoy Avengers: Endgame are not the type who go to the movies to pick at technicalities or the finer points of film-making, but for broadly well-constructed writing and weighty catharsis. Would it then be wise or fruitful to review the film with the approach discussed above?
Suppose it would, for one reason or another, be more fruitful to try to review the film in the most genuine way possible, discussing what you personally found enjoyable or less enjoyable, and why. Can one really claim to be genuine when one tries so hard to fit their imagined standard of an “objective critic” — sorry, ObJeCtIvE cRiTiC?
Suppose one enters into discussion of the film with those who have seen it and want to evolve their own perspective. Is your contribution meaningful if you list off a series of soulless and boilerplate criticisms?
You know the answers to these questions, if you’re wise, and you know this is an issue reaching beyond the user reviews of a single movie, if you’re informed. Think for a moment how important criticism is to art as a whole, and seriously consider what’s being wasted with attempts at check-box-objectivity. That’s all.
Lawnchair on the Moon 