Why do you read the output of film critics/reviewers?

Obviously, first, to find out what a film is about. Next to see if the film is worth our hard-won money. But really, the best reason is to see if the film is worth our time and attention: we have literally hundreds of other things we could do in that typical filmic span of anywhere from 84 minutes to 178 minutes (or longer).

But what’s the difference between a film critic and a film reviewer? I put myself in the latter category: a reviewer’s job is to write a review that 1) doesn’t give too much away and 2) helps the film find the right audience, i.e. the people who will like it best. A film critic, on the other hand, discusses the more aesthetic filmmaking elements within the movie itself, possibly relating it to other films. A critic talks about the work; a reviewer talks about the work as something you buy, consume and maybe talk about/think about afterwards. In its very best incarnation, a film can change your life. (I know they’ve changed mine.)

One of the world’s best known American critics, Roger Ebert, wrote how he doesn’t make Top Ten lists anymore. He writes, “No list of films has the slightest significance, unless it involves box-office receipts. Every film critic I know loathes making lists. Most of us make an annual Year’s Best Films List, because that’s our equivalent of signing the Hippocratic Oath when you’re a doctor.”

I would disagree with that. Most of the ‘critics’ (Here, I’ll use that word interchangeably with ‘reviewers’ because it sounds better) I know don’t mind making lists. I don’t mind because I’m very sloppy with my lists: one year I’ll like this, the next year I’ll like that. My tastes in films depends on what I’ve seen lately. Sometimes films that don’t seem to age well then suddenly reappear, reanimated and glorious, years later. That’s one of the great things about film: you can be moody about it. Your perception of it changes and so it changes in relation to you.

I don’t, on the other hand, try to humiliate or insult those who read my reviews or who might query a list I made. Ebert says, “Lists inspire endless e-mails from readers asking questions like, “How could you possibly put ‘Bad Lieutenant’ above ‘The Hurt Locker’?” I shot back an instant reply: “Because my list is alphabetical.” Man, did that make them angry.”

Yes, it would make them angry. If it is alphabetical, then the list has no order of preference, which means the critic likes ten films and they’re all equal. Typically, if you see a list, you figure there’s some other kind of ordering system in place. Typically.

Rather than seeing lists as a lot of meaningless work that benefits others, I think they’re FUN. Fun is something people like.

Meanwhile, I tread carefully when I personally advise folks to see films. A friend returned from seeing ‘The King’s Speech’ – a film I like for reasons I can actually list – saying, “It’s just a movie about a guy helping another guy! This is not an Oscar film!”

Well, I can get it wrong. As can Ebert, who also said that ‘The Haunting’ (1999) was underrated. Jan de Bont’s remake-ish of ‘The Haunting’ (1963) is a terrible film. It has some lovely things in it – and a dream cast – but overall, it’s the kind of film you should only see drunk and then sleep through the middle. Next Halloween, get both films. Watch. Compare. Underrated? I don’t think so. Even the fabulous Anne Billson agrees, as she tweeted Halloween night. (Not that the IMDb ratings are always accurate, but one has a rating of 4.6, the other 7.8. Guess which one’s which?) Okay, Ebert’s been reviewing since 1967; I’ve been reviewing professionally since 1988. So he’s got me beat on time and mileage.

My advice on what to do when the film experts don’t agree? Go see the film yourself. Trust no one after that – unless you read a review and it changes your mind. As long as you don’t think Tarantino invented the Red camera, you’re probably going to do okay.

After all, you’re the only reviewer who really counts. I’m just the beard.