whether you agree with a film critic or not. the simple fact of the matter is even though most critics do have PHD's in film and have watched almost every genre of films in general, the simple truth is that it's just an analytical opinion. Not a regular opinion, but an analytical one as there is a difference. The only real difference between an opinion and an analytical opinion is this.
there both basically opinions, but an analytical opinion is basically where you break down a movie to it's simplest context. Like what's the moral of the story? What's the director/writer trying to say? Does it work? Do the special effects (if any) enhance the story or does it merely distract from it? Are the actors convincing? This is just a general example of what some critics would probably ask themselves, then try to write up an analytical opinion.
Where as just an opinion, is basically if some guy/girl watches a movie and says, "whoa, that movie f***ing sucked" or "that film rocked." I know many of you will argue and say they're both basically the same thing, but they're not. In fact, Im damn sure Peter Travers and Roger Ebert don't just watch a movie and say, "this film totally sucked" without analyzing every aspect of the film. Where as the casual viewer like yourselves I doubt seriously ever do most of the time. For if that was the case, then "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" and "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" would've royally bombed in theaters. Not trying to put down anyone who liked those movies but if people had analytical opinions then those movies never would've gotten the success they didn't deserve.
However, having said all that. Although an analytical opinion is much more thorough and detailed than a normal opinion on a film. One could argue that they're both basically the same, and in a sense they are. One just happens to analyze things a bit more deeper, while the other doesn't. However, both in the end once you break it down to their most simplest contexts are just opinions in the end. Therefore, it's really up to you if you want to listen to their opinions on films.
For me personally, I always follow Roger Ebert and Peter Travers. Although I don't always agree with them on every movie. Like I know the film, "Kick-Ass", was given a poor review by Roger Ebert, but I liked it. However, I agreed with him totally on "Green Zone", as that film was so under rated. Then we get to Peter Travers, who wrote a lot of reviews I agreed with like "She's Out Of My League", "Kick-Ass", and many others. However, I didn't agree with him on the remake of "The Wolfman", as I thought it was much better than he described. Although I think Roger Ebert liked the remake far more than I did though. lol. You see it's really matter of opinion though. If you want to follow the critics you can. However, if you believe they don't know more about films than you, then just don't read them.
It's basically that simple. Seriously, why even bash critics for slandering a film you like? I mean you liked it right? isn't that all that matters? Who cares what they think if you liked the movie? Like I said before, it's just an opinion...an analytical opinion..but still just an opinion. Therefore, my advice to you is this. instead of bashing critics for doing their job, then just don't listen to them. Besides, nobody is putting a gun to your head telling you to follow every word they say. If you liked the movie and they thought it sucked, then who cares? if you liked it, then that's all that matters.
