The Myth: A Critical Flop
The story goes like this: while audiences flocked to theaters in the summer of 1975, high-minded film critics looked down their noses at Steven Spielberg’s thriller. In this telling, they dismissed it as a cheap, manipulative horror flick that signaled
the death of the sophisticated, director-driven cinema of the 'New Hollywood' era. The film was a commercial monster, but a critical embarrassment. This narrative paints a picture of a stark divide between the masses, who were screaming their heads off with delight, and the cultural gatekeepers, who were appalled. But like many well-worn Hollywood tales, the truth is far more interesting than the myth.
The Reality: Mostly Rave Reviews
Contrary to the legend, the majority of major critics loved Jaws. The most influential critic of the time, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, called it a "sensationally effective action picture" and "one hell of a good story, brilliantly told." He praised its character development and hailed it as a great adventure movie. Many others agreed. The Hollywood Reporter celebrated its suspense, and even the famously tough Pauline Kael of The New Yorker called it "the most cheerfully perverse scare movie ever made." She admired its tricky editing rhythms and dark, Woody Allen-esque humor. So, far from being panned, the film was largely embraced as a masterful piece of popular entertainment.
So Who Hated It, and Why?
The kernel of truth in the "panned by critics" myth comes from a few very prominent and vocal detractors. Charles Champlin, the entertainment editor for the Los Angeles Times, truly disliked it. He called it a "coarse-grained and exploitive work which depends on excess for its impact." His review, headlined "Don't Go Near the Water," found the scenes on land to be a "bore, awkwardly staged and lumpily written." Vincent Canby of The New York Times was similarly dismissive, writing that if you think about the film "for more than 45 seconds you will recognize it as nonsense." Canby felt the characters were merely props and that the film failed to generate genuine sympathy for its victims. These critics weren't wrong, necessarily; they were just judging the film by a different standard. They saw it not as a brilliant thriller, but as a shallow spectacle.
A New Kind of Movie
The negative reviews stemmed from a critical culture clash. The early 1970s was the era of the auteur, with directors like Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese making deeply personal, character-driven films. Critics like Champlin and Canby were accustomed to judging films on their thematic depth and social commentary. Jaws was something new. It wasn't an art film; it was a high-concept thrill machine. Spielberg, who even then showed a masterful ability to manipulate audiences, was more interested in suspense and visceral reaction than in complex character studies. For critics who valued the latter, Jaws felt like a step backward—a sophisticated director using his talents for pure, unadulterated sensation. The film's unprecedented success only sharpened this divide, proving that a new formula—the summer blockbuster—had been born, a shift that some critics initially resented.
