Movie critics become an endangered species

From my view, the big problem with today's film critics is they are truly not film writers. They do not how to write, analyize or cretique on the subject of film. In the past, people like James Agee, Otis Ferguson, Vincent Camby, Pauline Keal, Richard Schikel and Andrew Saris were great film writers. They understood the art of the moving picture and their essays made the reader feel like they were in a calssroom. These writers were also teachers and we the reader, was the student taking it all in. We felt smarter from what they had to tell us. Today's movie critic do not want to be teachers, they do not want to educate us, just tell us how smart they are and how dumb everyone else is. They truly do not respect the art form that is film. When you read some of the reviews today, you almost get the sesne that they resent their profession, that they hate their jobs and wish they were somebody else. This is a great disrepect to not only the reader, but the industry of film itself.

The problem is that film critics are like Academy Award voters: out of touch with the public. Case in point: I am Legend: never once did I see a critic write that this was a remake of "The Omega Man" which it truly was.

Boo. Hoo. We don't have coopers and cobblers around anymore, but the best still can find work nowadays.

Movies for decades were created to provide entertainment for people and provide some modicum of escape from one's personal problems. But many critics are so pretentious and preachy about the high art of cinema that their reviews bore people or worse, make them feel inferior because they don't understand the critic's point. I think that is why Roger Ebert still appeals to so many readers. He may explain how a movie is deficient in one way or another, but he is not afraid to say he liked a "B" movie or reviewing a movie based on its genre, rather than comparing it to Altman or Kubrick.

So movie critics have spent the last few decades alienating their readers as rubes and yokels and then cry when no one wants to read their columns any longer. Boo.Hoo.

I have never particularly appreciated art/film critics. Most seem too hung-up on making social commentary than in simply describing what they have seen. I don't need lessons on social responsibility or morality from critics. I can tolerate "preachy" films, but not "preachy" commentators.

Film makers must use their skills and available co-workers and technologies to produce their products.

I will appreciate some of those products, others I will not. I view films as entertainment -- usually a diversion from the "serious" aspects of daily life. If a film comes too close to reproducing my own more mundane life experiences, I am likely to be bored by it. (Been there, done that, etc.)

If a film touches on that which excites me, I will likely find it entertaining, even if it is less than profound.

Sometimes I enjoy outrageous special effects. Sometimes i enjoy outrageous character behavior. Sometimes I enjoy spectacularly impressive visual images. Sometimes I enjoy intense sound tracks (e.g., realistic sounding machinery, gunshots, airplane engine sounds, music instrumentation, etc. Sometimes I enjoy masterfully developed plots, convincing acting, etc. Some movies are entertaining in the absence of technical excellence.

In the end, movies have to entertain me. I could care less about the opinions of critics.

I do appreciate learning about movie history and trivia, but not within the context of a movie review.

For me, the most useful movie reviews briefly summarize plots, name artists, and post rating (R, PG, U, etc.)

Online trailers are a convenient way to preview movies. Word-of-mouth can be useful. I usually ignore critics. "De gustibus non est disputandem" applies to their tastes as well as to mine.

I tend to like DVD releases better than the theatrical experience due to the fact that the picture and sound qualities can be superior in a well set-up home theater, and I enjoy the absence of annoying audience behaviors (I can do without the supposed social experience of group movie viewing). Sometimes the "unrated" and/or "Director's versions" of movies are more entertaining than the theatrical releases, so I often wait for the DVD release of movies before taking the time to view them.

Movie critics are like food critics. They can never be certain that their backgrounds, biases and tastes match those of any given person other than themselves. Some people might be vulnerable to their attempts to manipulate group opinion. I am not among them.

I am not sure if it was always the case, but I stopped listening to and reading film critiques when I realized that most film critics knew nothing about science and horror, or about children's film. Most of them didn't even have children.
The problem I found was that film critics were writing for some pseudo sophisticated crowd of the 60's and never moved beyond their own perspective. The number of movies I have seen that were blockbusters that movie critics blasted as un-watchable is almost legend. The question becomes, who are they writing for and to whom?
It would be good if many would say something to the effect "that the movie might have mass appeal even though I thought it had some weak points". Fair enough. But, what they betray is an almost total disconnect with the public that they are supposed to be helping.
People are more educated today, with more ways of acquiring information. Most do not like to be told what they should see or do. Many would like to make up their own minds, and would like additional information to help with that. Film critics do not help with either of those propositions. They only help themselves.

I think that with Siskel and Ebert you had the peak of film critic. Their show was entertaining, and you believed they were telling the audience what they really thought. They pulled no punches and they would make great observations and they even argued in an intelligent manner. And the vibe from the whole show was it was just their opinion, you didn't have to agree with it. Nowadays film critics are often pretentious, unentertaining in their delivery, and overly PC. Often when I read a review from a critic I get a mixed review often giving me a dishonest feel. I get the feeling that if they were to bash a movie made by the flavor of the month director it would reflect poorly so they praise the movie but load the review with passive aggressive snide remarks. With all that aside, I actually prefer to wait til the movies out on DVD anyway. I don't really enjoy going out with people and then sitting in a dark silent room getting pissed at those without the courtesy to not talk on the phone.