Clark wrote--
What I think some film critics forget is that the vast majority of audiences
despise the types of films they like.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I love movies like _Mulholland Drive_, which requires
a
> lot from the audience.  Further it is very interactive as the audience is
> required to decipher the film.  It is much more of an engagement between
the audience and film than _Attack of the Clones Is_.  But by the same
measure
> every friend I've had who has watched _Mulholland Drive_.  Further every
> friend I have has loved _Attack of the Clones_ much, much more than I.

Clark--
I might have missed something there--``every friend I've had who has watched
`Mulholland Drive'.....'' ?? Did you mean to say they all hated ``Mulholland
Drive''? Wasn't sure on that...
    You repeat a cliche about film critics, that they like films that
audiences hate. (And, by implication, vice-versa.) Not at all true. Check up
metacritic.com for their ongoing list of critics' reviews and how films
``score'' on their numbers system. Number one last year was ``Shrek.'' (And
we know how ``Shrek'' did with audiences, don't we?) There are dozens of
others. I mentioned a few postings back about how ``Y Tu Mama Tambien'' and
``The Piano Teacher'' have found their audiences. Is it a mass audience? Of
course not. But there is an audience for these films, and critics
particularly help these films find that audience. Do most critics hate most
blockbusters? I would reckon that they don't. Most critics love
``Spider-Man,'' even while most critics dislike ``Episode II.'' That's just
a case of discriminating between, in the judgment of the critical majority,
comic book entertainment that works and science fiction entertainment that
doesn't. When writing a review, I first ground myself in the nature of the
movie I'm reviewing, and write about it on its own terms. This last week, I
reviewed both ``The Sum of all Fears'' and John Sayles' new film, ``Sunshine
State.'' One is sleek, well-engineered popcorn entertainment, the other is a
personal piece of American storytelling. My prediction is that most critics
will like ``Sum,'' and most won't like ``Sunshine.'' ``Sum'' will garner a
big audience, while ``Sunshine'' will struggle for an audience any bigger
than the one Sayles usually gets. This sounds to me like a lot of simpatico
between critics and audiences. At the same time, it is stunning to watch
opening weekend crowds pile into one bad movie after another, because
they're responding to nothing but advertising and their own gut instincts.
Then what happens? The box office for the movie drops 50% the next week.
Why? Because the suckers who went the first weekend warn their friends, who
warn their friends, and so on. Word of mouth can build a movie, and word of
mouth can kill a movie. If the first weekenders, though, had bothered to
read the reviews of critics they trust, they might have not wasted their
$9.50. And how do they build that trust? By reading reviews, and finding
over time what critics they agree with and what critics they don't. Does
that mean that critics' reviews should be the only thing audiences go by? Of
course not. But a thoughtful review can only help. And then, after watching
a film, reading a review of that film can more than help--it can push things
further. That's when it gets exciting.
Robert Koehler