No one I know listens to the movie critics. Whatever they love, everyone else seems to hate. (Do they take bribes?) So, who are these people that are held in such high esteem, but they are simply full of themselves. So, why do we even have movie critics, anyway? - Jinx 
shrug
I love reading movie reviews, whether or not I agree with them.
If a friend of yours saw a movie, why do you ask him “How was it?”. Because it’s going to give you some kind of information about whether you’d like…at least some data to work with.
If your friend says “It was a non stop action ride! I loved it!” you can say “I’m glad you had fun.” and avoid seeing it. If he says "The commercials make it look like a non stop action ride but it’s really more interesting. " you can reconsider. Or rather I can say those things… I hate action pictures.
I usually read Ebert. Not because he says “This is good.” so I go see it. But because I know his general veiws, and he does a pretty good job of descibing the movie, so I know if I’d probably like it.
In most cases (lord knows not all) it’s at least more objective information than the commercial/trailer.
Held in high esteem? Well I get the film makers suck up to them, but I haven’t seen any parades held in their honour.
Usually, too, critics have seen many more movies than you have. That clever little twist you never saw coming, they’ve noticed dozens of times. That plot you think is so brilliant is merely a second-rate ripoff of an earlier one. A critic can see that, while you remain ignorant.
As far as “full of themselves,” I don’t know of many who are. They are paid to give their opinion. Nearly all will say it is just their opinion. The only difference is that theirs is an informed opinion, not an ignorant one.
Lots of people like talking (or writing) about what they like or don’t like. Lots of people like reading those opinions. Seems pretty straightforward.
Are you thinking, Jinx, that a movie critic is like a weatherman, and should be fired if he’s wrong?
You’re right, realitychuck. Informed opinion is the difference. (I wrote the following before I saw your post.)
Everyone has an opinion, but some are more valuable than others. The internet, especially message boards at the IMDb, have turned everyone into instant critics. Unfortunately, many of the customer reviews found there are meaningless, because the opinions expressed are not informed opinions. Saying “I hated this movie and don’t understand why anyone would want to see it,” is not expressing an opinion.
It’s not enough to say “I hate this movie” or “I love this movie.” You have to be able to explain why. Critics of any medium whether it be film, television or the theater walk a fine line; in order to be effective and taken seriously, they need to not just give an opinion, but tell their readers how they arrived at it. Here is what I have observed over 35 years of reading and writing film reviews (although not often for pay—it’s usually been a sideline).
Some critics like Roger Ebert, who is clearly the best known movie reviewer in the US, probably see too many movies. They get jaded, and I think because they see so much dreck, they sometimes overlook the little gems that come along every now and then. They sometimes fall for the hype and overpraise movies that end up not being especially good or wearing very well. On the other hand, because Ebert and, say, Leonard Maltin do see so many movies, their BS detectors are fine-tuned, and they sometimes see the flaws the rest of us miss, but they can see the merit and value of sleepers that the public might miss as well. They’re also human, and come to certain movies with their own biases and prejudices. If they don’t like Jodie Foster’s work, for example, it will be hard for them to be won over by her performance in a new movie.
(1) The best film critics love going to the movies, and it shows. (But there are professional reviewers who seem to have a contempt for the very medium which puts food on the table.) (2) I think it helps to have seen a great many movies and to understand something of film history. (3) It helps to know the director’s previous work, if any, and that of the stars and the crew and to be aware of the source of the story so that the reader can be given some context. (4) A really fine movie critic doesn’t need a big ego. And he or she doesn’t need to love a movie to give it a good review: Roger Ebert gave Josh Whedon’s Serenity a rave review earlier this year, while pointing out that it had a small, built-in audience and that those who don’t know Whedon’s work would either be totally bewildered or bored stiff.
Critical acclaim and box office success are almost mutually exclusive. Look at http://www.rottentomatoes.com on almost any given week and the Top Five movies will have all been ruthlessly drubbed by the critics. So, no, the critics really can’t make or break a movie’s chances at the box office. But what the best ones can do is what Ebert has said is his stated goal: to try to inform taste, not dictate it. I don’t agree with his movie reviews as often as I once did, but I do respect and share his aims.
Have you considered that perhaps your friends have bad taste in movies?
I certainly like checking reviews before seeing something. In some cases, it saves me seeing what is almost certainly a bad movie that happens to look good in previews. And a lot of reviewers write interesting, cogent discussions of movies that are interesting to read after seeing the film because they give me something to think about, or some context that I might not have from not having seen as many movies as they have.
I respect professional movie critics because they have to watch the crappy movies as well as the good ones. They have to watch all the movies … the chick flicks, the mindless action flicks, the horror flicks that are mostly just disgusting, the bad nature documentaries, the romantic comedies that are neither, erotic thrillers that are wrong on both counts … hell, almost every time one of those brave souls ventures into a movie theater, he or she is taking one for the team! They watch bad movies so we don’t have to … that’s you, and me, and the cop on the corner, and the old lady buying tofu and hummus at the corner market. I salute these brave souls, and if you had an OUNCE of sense, you would, too!
I like looking at reviews to get a good idea. Even if they don’t like it, it might be for reasons that I would disagree with.
[Jay Sherman]
It stinks!
[/Jay Sherman]
Mind your tongue, serge; you can get burned at the stake for them words in these here parts.
What I dislike is when the entertainment news report that a movie was a financial disaster (a box- office disaster) because of all the critics giving it bad reviews.
Look at all the news about Gigli, Shanghai Surprise and Stealth. The news always impies that because the reviews were so bad, therefore the movie did badly. But the whole success of a (blockbuster )movie these days depends on usually the first week(end).
Do people read the review before they watch the movie? I only read reviews after I have seen the movie.
There are some few critics I trust. I don’t always agree with them, but when I read their reviews, I know their tastes, and how mine mesh and disagree with theirs. So I can judge from the review whether I’d like the movie.
I’m not so sure about that. Look at the top 10 movies of the past decade, from your linked website:
Titanic - 86%
Shrek 2 - 89%
Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace - 63%
Spider-Man - 89%
Star Wars Episode III: ROTS - 82%
LOTR: The Return of the King - 95%
Spider-Man 2 - 93%
The Passion of the Christ - 51%
LOTR: The Two Towers - 98%
Finding Nemo - 98%
All except two received very good to excellent reviews. As to those two, I’ll concede theat fundamentalist Christians and Star Wars fans are immune to bad reviews.
Good reviews certainly can’t assure box-office success, nor can bad reviews prevent a strong opening weekend (as we’re seeing right now with the DVC). But with box-office totals, and more importantly, with DVD slaes, I suspect critics have more influence than people think.
Take note that Serge managed to say it without having to belittle anyone else.
Marc
What betenoir said.
Thank you, and I was referring to posters on other MBs, not this one, and certainly not the OPoster on this thread.
P.S. Despite my tiny post total, I was a long-time member of SDMB once before under another name, but between several moves and a computer that fatally crashed, I had to start over. So I know the drill. It’s certainly never my intention to offend or hurt anyone else’s feelings.
Alessan: You are comparing apples and oranges. The current time 5 of the box office is not the same as total gross. There are a huge number of films that make a lot of money for 1 or 2 weekends and disappear. The teen-horror-flick-of-the-week is a prime example.
I think it depends on how you’re defininng box-office success. Nobody will argue that a number of movies that get panned by critics get moderate box-office success. I think that Alessan’s listing is a good one of the films with the greatest amount of overall box-office success, and he makes a point that the large majority of them got favorable reviews.
Take note that who says it is more important than what is said. Put these exact words in my mouth–“Everyone has an opinion, but some are more valuable than others”–and imagine the teeming wrath. Imagine the motivations and attitudes ascribed and assigned and taken as given. Take note, therefore, the “belittling” is as often in the mind of the belittled as of the putative belittler.