Should the only critics who review comedies be comedy fans? But wait, what if they prefer spoofs? What if they prefer uncomfortable comedies that aren't designed to make you burst out laughing every three seconds?
Should the only critics who prefer horror movies be horror fans? But wait, what if they prefer ghost stories? Or what if they prefer slashers and hate horror that isn't gory?
Do they love horror movies too much? Do they give a pass to every horror movie because they're fans of the genre?
If this is what we're working with, we're always going to find bias if we want to, because someone out there is always going to disagree with our opinion of a movie.
But that's the thing - the reaction isn't that negative. It's mixed. Sure, some critics hate it. But there are critics on the other side of the spectrum who love it. One isn't more biased than the other.
Yes, professionally speaking.
If I'm unsure about seeing the latest new horror film, and a critic
who has an interest in horror and has developed a keen sense of
what makes a horror film great reviewed it negatively, then I might just
save my money and not worry about seeing the film.
On the flip-side, if it's reviewed by someone who really doesn't care
for horror films and doesn't understand what makes a horror film great,
and he or she reviewed it negatively. Well, how does that help me as a
general moviegoer? After all, the point of critics is to inform the general
public of what's out there and give you a general idea of what's being
reviewed. I'm supposed to take their word on it, when they don't have an
interest with it to start with?
That's all I'm getting at.
I'm not bashing any critic.
I'm just wondering about their legitimacy to make such strong statements.
It's a fair question.
