Originally Posted by Josh Z
What you've just done here is called "reverse snobbery." It's defensive and entirely inaccurate. Critics want movies to be fun and entertaining just as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, far too many of them aren't
fun or entertaining.
Actually, what Shinksma did was use satire and irony to point out how many critics can be closed-minded to lightweight, pure-entertainment fare. His post was able to extol the virtues of both kinds of films in only a handful of words, an ability that appears to be beyond most "professional" critics.
Setting aside the notion that the critic's opinion is better or somehow carries more weight than the average moviegoer's (I'm the only one who knows what I like) it amazes me how many times they don't even get their facts straight in their reviews. I'm reminded of Roger Ebert's negative review of JJ Abrams' Star Trek in which he got fact after fact wrong and, when he was corrected on it by the Trekkies, could only muster a pathetic "I really don't care" as his defense. If you've confessed to not caring for the material before even setting foot in the theater and can't even be bothered to pay attention, then why should I be bothered to read your review. Its that kind of attitude, along with the condescending nature of so many of these reviews which I think turns off so many people.
I haven't seen Transformers 3 yet (hope to see it Sunday) but I fully expect a big, dumb, loud, sometimes incoherent movie full of improbable and absurd events, but as long as its wrapped in a visually interesting package that lets me forget about the world outside the theater for a couple of hours, I'll still feel like I got my money's worth.