Film Critics - a Useless Profession?
Art is subjective to the eye of the beholder. Films are art, so is there any practical use for grading films? I would say sometimes yes in terms of strength of performances, oringinality, cinematography, and conveying mood. Many universally acclaimed films ride off the success of those elements. But in my view, the buck stops there. As to some of my reasons why...
Genre films can feature great storylines and concepts but be snobbishly treated by critics for not being "serious" enough in terms of acting or God knows what.
Horror films were known to receive particular scorn but captured fear and mood well and were therefore entertaining.
European art house fare often fails to garner audience and critical acclaim in English speaking countries, derided for being "slow" or featuring "stale" characters, despite the films being all about conveying mood and themes.
Then there are the critically acclaimed films such as Citizen Kane that fail to reasonate with many people now.
Most annoying of all to me are those critics and regular on line critics who deride films without much elaboration - that I can never figure out why they hate the films in the first place. Using terms such as dated or pretentious - how can art be pretentious? It's either conveying something or it's not in my view. Almost like saying an athlete is trying too hard to play sport. Leonard Maltin's brief capsule reviews come to mind here in regards to these types of vague criticisms.
So is there any point to "professional" film critics being turned to and their views being compiled into rankings and such? That a film should have to stand on their views or be degraded and forgotten?