Film critics often frown as movie fans delight

[RayChuang]

Michael Medved
USA Today
15 January 2003

Read the full commentary here (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-01-15-medved_x.htm)

Why do the preferences of America's movie critics differ so radically from the tastes of the general public?

This question comes up around this time every year as the leading organizations of working film reviewers announce their arcane choices for top movie awards.

The list of nominated films differs so radically from any catalogue of commercial success that it's tough to avoid the conclusion that critics intentionally emphasize their differences with ordinary moviegoers.

---------------------------------------------------------

This commentary points out the very fact that very few statement movies are moneymakers because the moviegoing public is NOT interested in movies that accentuate the bad things about the real world. Moviegoers go to see movies to escape from the real world in most cases.

A great example of this was The Sound of Music, which was much-disliked by critics but loved by moviegoers. After the movie made US$69 million in 1965 (a lot of money in those days), critics were forced to eat their words and re-appraise why the movie did so well. (The movie subsequently won several Oscars including Best Picture.)

[wolfplus3]

It is a funny phenomenon, but one that has its roots in the reason movie goers and critics go to shows. A critic is there to evaluate the theme of the movie, the preformance of the stars and the overall socio-economic value of the film. A regular audience member is there to be entertained, usually no more or less.
My own personal rating system was very simple. If I became absorbed in the movie, and lost all track of time, it was an exceptional film. If I laughed, had a good time and was not spending long moments punching holes thru the plot, it was a fine film. If I was more interested in talking to my partner while the film was showing, it was poor.
Not very discerning I'm sure, but I vote with my wallet when it comes to films.

[2nd_Amendment]

My criteria for a good film is simple: Was I entertained? That is the sole purpose of the movie industry. So long as I am entertained then they have done their job. Of course, this requires decent scripting, a lack of plot holes you can drive a truck thru and FX where you can't see the wires but none of those things take a great genius to accomplish.

If I want wisdom or influence or social commentary I'll read a book or study some more history. If critics(and the movie industry) could figure this simple thing out and thus take themselves less seriously the industry as a whole might improve. But then again *looks towards Hollyweird* it might not.