by Greggory Delman

Created on: July 04, 2009   Last Updated: July 05, 2009

A movie is a piece of art for the masses. It is often shown in a movie theater that can seat well over 100 people and is run multiple times each day. Movies are there to be seen by everyone, and therefore everyone will have an opinion about them. It's human nature to want to express their opinion, so movie reviews are completely natural.

People also want validation. The average person would like to have their ideas validated by other people. They want someone else to see something the same way they see it. If a popular movie gets enough good reviews and a person hates it, they want to be the contrary voice in the masses, screaming out how that "good" movie failed their tastes. Others are not only driven by the desire to share their opinion but also share their knowledge of hidden gems that are almost impossible to find.

These are all natural desires that people have. They have always wanted a voice in the conversations about film. For the longest time their voice could only carry as far as the water cooler where they worked and were not given the opportunity to shout as far as professional film critics could. The Internet changed that, and now they can speak not just to a city, or a country, but to the whole world. Their voices carry just as far as the professionals.

So which type of review is better? Should the reviews be left to those trained in the art of film, or to anyone off the street? Which opinion really matters more and should carry more weight? Some argue that it's the professional training and understanding of not just movies but also how movies are made that should value their opinion. If the professional sees some miracle of writing or acting or other technical achievement in the movie that the average person doesn't see, well then they are better judges of films. Others would argue that a movie should be entertainment. If the technical aspects of the film do not match the entertainment level, critics might pan the film while the average public will love it. The entertainment will resonate with the general public.

The question I have is why does it have to be either/or? Professional critics have their place, they can see technical brilliance, they see more movies and therefore might see weaker versions of similar plots and ideas. They can judge a film based on more criteria then someone with little to no understanding on psychological theories of film viewing or how films are created in the first place. However the average Joe reviewer does

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>