This post announces a two-part series I will be doing on film criticism starting next week. The series will be split into a short history of film criticism (have no fear, I’ll keep it interesting) and a guide to reviewing movies.

The last few years have been a bumpy ride for film criticism as a craft and for those who have traditionally made a living as film critics. With the growth of the internet and the onset of a major economic slump, traditional media have had to shed weight to stay afloat financially, and often it has been the film critic packing his things and heading for the door. Many have predicted the nearing end of professional film criticism entirely. Some have questioned the need for critics. Who needs some pretentious nerd telling them what to see anyway? I’d like to see those geeks try to make a movie! Others, like Roger Ebert, have more reasonably argued that the world will always need critics, but it is critics’ responsibility to adapt to the changing world.

I believe people want recommendations. Because of the sheer quantity of movies released every year, people face a dizzying number of options when trying to decide what to see at the theater, movie store, or computer. Movie trailers are so flashy and neatly-packaged these days, one’s gut reaction to a trailer can’t be wholly trusted. I remember a few years back being ecstatic after seeing the trailer for X-Men 3 only to be utterly deflated on opening night. So, we need secondary sources of information when choosing a movie.

We need recommendations to find movies we will like, but we also need help understanding good movies that just don’t connect with us on the first viewing. Here again, film critics can help. And what about those limited release films, the quiet independents? Those films are commonly more original and engaging than studio productions, yet if not for the championing of film critics, would remain unrewarded and unenjoyed.

One legitimate problem with traditional film criticism is it’s impersonal nature. As a rule, the better you know the recommender, the better you know how to interpret his or her recommendation. For example, if your drinking buddy who claims American Pie 4 is his favorite movie tells you that The Sorcerer’s Apprentice rocks, you’re likely to nod, smile, and completely disregard his advice. But if your best friend tells you The Sorcerer’s Apprentice rocks, well, you’ll laugh and make some quip about Nic Cage’s hair, but you’ll watch it because you trust your best friend’s taste in movies. Now, if some writer from New York, a complete stranger to you, says a movie is good, how do you even begin to interpret that? The film critics of the future are people like me who will allow readers to get to know their personality and tastes before offering their advice on movies.

Check back next week for part one of my series on film criticism.

Some related links: