some movie reviewers baffle me (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

It should be noted that there's a difference between "reviewers" and "critics." There's also a discipline known as "film theorist."

Anybody can be a "reviewer"—and who really cares what those talking-head yahoos on your local Channel Four say about a movie? Mr. Ebert, on the other hand, is a genuine critic. Andrew Sarris is a "real" critic, too—but he is also a film theorist, as was the late Pauline Kael.

On a personal note, I don't care for Westerns. Never have. But that doesn't stop me from appreciating such wonderful films as High Noon and Stagecoach.

 

[Ruth_F]

No reviewer should "have" to "like" any genre in order to give a particular film a fair review. A film succeeds or fails according to its own merits. The reviewer's job is to articulate why it failed or succeeded.

I can appreciate what you are saying and probably your more professional critic can do it -- -but i can see how it easily would be a problem for someone who hates muscials to fairly appraise whether the movie was a success at its objective.

For example, i got a call from a friend last night who saw Chicago and hated it -- -but then she doesn't really like film musicals, and admits she was basis going in. i think it is the #2 movie of the year.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Well, I don't care much for musicals either, but that didn't stop me from enjoying the stage production of Chicago nor the film Moulin Rouge (say whatever you will about that one). A film (or play) either works or it doesn't.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

It should be noted that there's a difference between "reviewers" and "critics." There's also a discipline known as "film theorist."
Jack I'm a little fuzzy on the difference between your definition of "reviewers" and "critics" and "film theorist." and how you examples fit into either category.