While many people think that a film critic’s job is to let his or her audience know whether they will enjoy a movie, this should not be the main goal of a film critique. Film analysis should be used to determine objective criteria for a film and then judge its quality on that basis. Because of this, a film critic should not be concerned with whether or not an individual will enjoy a particular movie. A film critic’s job is precisely to distinguish between what makes a film enjoyable and what makes a film objectively good. Just because you enjoy a movie does not mean that it necessarily conforms to the critic’s views of what makes a cinematic experience a quality one.

Critics disagree, of course, over what characteristics make a film good, but that is beside the point. If it were the case that a critic’s job was to simply tell you whether you are going to like a movie, then anyone could do his or her job. No expertise would be necessary. Critics do not spend the amount of time and energy they do analyzing films because they care so much about whether you are going to be entertained, it is because they think that films are important just like other forms of art, and that by taking a critical view of film, we might take a more critical view in every aspect of our lives. This means that they deserve special consideration and debate over what makes a movie great and what makes one horrible, things that are “just entertainment” are not at that level of importance. This is not to say, though, that a great film cannot also be entertaining, great films often are. It just means that it is not the primary concern of a critic.

I can certainly understand why many people want a film critic to simply tell them whether or not they are going to enjoy a movie, and why people think of movies, first and foremost, as entertainment. Everyone loves to escape into their favorite movies. Cinema is so inherently enjoyable that it is easy to forget that it, too, is a form of art that carries with it all the responsibilities and opportunities that paintings and literature possess. If you read a critique of a painting by Van Gogh and it only told you whether or not you would enjoy looking at it, you might find it strange. You might find it strange that the critic doesn’t talk about the style of stroke that Van Gogh uses or other methodological/technical concepts. You might find it strange that the critic doesn’t mention the meaning behind the paining and its relevance within society. We should give film the same intellectual consideration.

Hollywood has set its face against treating film with this respect, and they are content with that as long as we continue buying tickets to substance-free, big budget blockbusters. If critics simply tell us what is fun to watch then we can expect more of this type of movie. However, if critics have the power to truly analyze the content of a film, then we can finally expect more “Good Will Hunting,” and less “Transformers.”