Movie Reviews

Film critics Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert

Have you ever noticed that reviews for movies are really pointless? I know, a strange thing for a movie reviewer to say, but it's true. I've seen movies where I've totally disagreed with every review I read concerning those movies. Movies that the critics loved and I hated. Schindler's List for example. And I've loved movies that the critics hated. Highlander for example. Does anyone go to see a movie just because the critics loved it?

To me, the point of reading a review of a movie, isn't to tell me whether or not I should go and see it. But rather, it's a way of me listening to a different point of view about a movie that I saw. Perhaps the reviewer saw something in the movie that I didn't see. Maybe they picked up on some subtlety that I missed. Or maybe they failed to pick up on something that I saw. Sometimes it's fun to violently disagree with someone over a movie. It creates a talking point or a matter for discussion. It's not a way of deciding whether or not you should see a movie.

It can also be an ego trip to read a review. If the reviewer agrees with what you thought about the movie, you feel like a movie snob. "See, I told you this movie was good. All the critics agree with me." And if the reviewer disagrees with you, you also feel like a movie snob. "Hey, what do critics know? This movie wasn't generic enough, or mainstream enough for them."

Reviews can also be a way of finding a consensus regarding a movie. One reviewer who wrote that a movie was bad, wouldn't affect me at all. If every review I read, regarding that same movie, said it was bad, my expectations for that movie would probably drop. It still doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy that movie, but my expectations going in would be lowered. Especially if every reviewer commented on the same specific bad area of the film. A bad performance, or poor writing for example.

"Aren't movie reviewers too Movie Savvy?" I hear you ask. "Haven't they seen so many movies that they are now jaded?" Good point. Having seen so many movies, reviewers are more likely to see where a plot is going than your average moviegoer, having seen that same plot in five previous movies. What may be a rip off of a previous plot, might be completely original to some one who never saw the movie whose plot is being ripped off. As reviewers, we may have lost some of the wide eyed innocence of the amateur moviegoer, I will admit. But as I said, reviews should be read for a second opinion rather than a thumbs up/thumbs down, I will/won't see this movie because of what the reviewer said, kind of situation.

So to answer my own question, movie reviews are far from pointless. They offer second opinions, ego trips, and consensus opinions. Read them to know what others thought, get an idea about the movie before you go. I don't think I've ever not gone to see a movie because of what a reviewer wrote. If I want to see it, I will go and see it. And that's as it should be. Reviewers should not be the stoplights on the road of what movies people see. Go and see what you want to see, then come back here and see if we have any original thoughts to add to it.