People try too hard to attach a sense of purpose to film criticism. Coming from an aspiring film critic, this statement seems blasphemous, I know. Stick with me, though, I’ll explain.

For years, people have complained about film critics, calling them “film snobs” and overly negative people. First of all, the film critics that constantly criticize and rip every new movie to shreds should really get out of the business. Film critics should first and foremost demonstrate a love for film, not a craving to belittle movies as a form of art.

Secondly, and more importantly, film critics these days who think they are “important” are really kidding themselves. Blasphemous once again, I know. Don’t worry, stick with me. Yes, Roger Ebert’s always original views shaped film criticism and gave it a more respectable appearance. However, there are too few critics like him that actually contextualize movies and provoke rich, original discussion. Instead, there are critics like Peter Travers who simply string a bunch of flashy adjectives together and call it film criticism. Calling a movie a “pulse-pounding thrill ride” does not constitute real film criticism. Flashy statements like that do not provoke thought and therefore, have no value. Because of shallow, throwaway pieces of praise like this and critics like Travers, films critics are losing their relevance. Too few of them are actually working to earn that relevance.

Let me let you in on a little secret— Film critics don’t matter in the long run. People flock to certain movies no matter what critics say. People rarely listen to them. Maybe, just maybe, that is because film critics are not giving them enough insights that are worth listening to. Critics now need to emulate the old days, the days when Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael first started writing reviews, the days when film criticism actually meant something. Then, they will matter once again.

Film critics rarely if ever actually make a significant impact on any one film or filmmaker. People need to realize this. Like I was saying earlier, people try too hard to attach a sense of purpose to film criticism. Film criticism is not supposed to change or influence film. It’s not even really supposed to influence readers because it is not the critic’s job to market films. A lot of critics don’t realize this. Like Peter Travers, they think they are supposed to “sell” films  to their readers. Film criticism should be viewed as simply another form of personal expression like poetry or painting. It is ideally    meant to be an extremely personal, uncompromising, intimate form of art, yet many critics try too hard to form a relationship with their audience and take on a conversational stlye. They care too much about other people’s movie tastes and  focus on what the audience may or may not like. They don’t own their opinion and these days, their reviews are not introspective enough.

Now, I’m not saying I hate film critics. They are my heroes. There are many I admire– Roger Ebert of course, Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly, Adam Kempenaar and Matty Robinson from the radio show, Filmspotting. However, they are the only critics that really say something with their reviews. They are the kinds of critics I can only dream of being. I worry though that with all these shallow critics around these days and their unfortunately pedestrian views, the field of work I dream of being involved in may be slowly fading away and losing the integrity it once had. So, I ask fellow movie fans to take a stand and fight for their dreams (as corny as that sounds), their dreams of a world where film criticism belongs and is alive and thriving.