*sigh* So many things wrong with this.
Critics are terrible. You can't trust them at all. Just because they like a movie doesn't mean it's good. And if they hate something, it may very well be great.
I find myself to be a reasonably intelligent 23 year-old individual. Many of the people who post "reviews" of movies on iTunes are either a) young, whose tastes are not nearly as discerning as mine b) stupid, whose tastes are not nearly as discerning as mine.
Here is one review of Valentine's Day from iTunes:
"Oh my god i love this movie the best movie ever if your knowing you should watchit you should"
I don't consider that a well-informed, analytical critical opinion.
In contrast, critics are generally art-oriented, intelligent people. Most have viewed hundreds of movies; thus, they have enough experience to know what makes a movie good and what makes a movie bad.
I trust user reviews, especially if there are hundreds or thousands of them. Individual people do a much better job of reviewing movies than critics.
I trust critic reviews, especially if there are hundreds or thousands of them. Individual critics do a much better job of reviewing movies than users.
Good thing Rotten Tomatoes is around, huh?
Roger Ebert rocks, but really, the rest of the critics are a dying breed. Newspapers are dying and with them, the critics.
Think about this for a minute. What can be considered the biggest collection of human knowledge, all accessible from any single connected computer, part of which is made up of places dedicated to the subject of movies and reviewing them? Hint: You're using it right now.
Also, you're saying you've read reviews by every movie critic in existence, and the only reviews you liked were the ones by Roger Ebert?
Movies can reach the people today directly. The interloper the critic is a relic.
When could movies not reach the people directly? Isn't that the point? The difference is that with critics I can find out a movie is **** and make an informed decision not to spend my money to see it.
