What a movie reviewer does

I read the following comment on what movie reviewers do, and I thought that it was worth emphasizing.

Movie reviewers (and we're talking here about reviews, not criticism*) are just watching the movie to determine its strengths and weaknesses. They are often out of step because they have seen more movies than the moviegoing public and can recognize cliches more readily. In addition, they tend to be interested in elements like plot and characterization, which a lot of the movie audience these days don't care about, since they're interested in flashy special effects. Ultimatly, though flashy special effects just become dated, making the weakness in the story more obvious (once you remove the "bullet time" elements from The Matrix -- which has become a cliche now -- the movie is very dull and cliched)

I will say that there are very few examples of films panned by all critics, and those that are panned by an overwheming majority or critics are nearly always as bad as the critics say. When you have so many critics saying the film is bad, then those that like it are the ones who are likely to be wrong.

*A reviewer assumes you haven't seen a film and want to know whether to see it; a critic assumes you have seen the film and want to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. Most newspaper film "critics" are generally reviewers, except for occasional special articles.