Criticism is an ancient and respected art form. Since stories were first written, many people have been writing down their views on these stories. Such criticism can always help others form their own views on the work and make wise decisions about whether it is worth their time. Of course, since Aristotle wrote poetics, storytelling has changed a lot, and so has criticism.

Similarly, movie reviews have existed since the birth of films. As early as the early 20th century, early film critics sometimes used movie reviews as a way to enter other film related work. If you want to find a job as a screenwriter or director, it is meaningful to start with criticism. This has not really changed in the past century, just as it is now popular for film college students to blog their career achievements and film meditation on the Internet in order to increase their chances of being noticed.

But before we enter the digital age, we need to report the popularity of critical art.

Movie reviews go mainstream

In the 1930s, as movies changed from acrobatics to a more mainstream form of entertainment, the media began to make movie reviews more frequently. At first, these film critics were reporters from the sports section or other parts of the newspaper, but soon, special film critics began to report new films and express their views on Hollywood news. During this period, famous critics such as Otis Ferguson and James Agee frequently commented on local newspapers.

Over the years, movie reviews have been about both the film itself and the critics themselves. Comment is an art form, and it is also an opportunity for critics to place some beautiful phrases and profound comments in comments. Because local newspapers usually have only one commentator, this person's view has a great impact on the audience in the region - it is not easy to get the second view. Movies, like restaurants and hotels, are rated by stars. A rating of four to five stars is the symbol of a valuable movie.

However, the situation began to change after movie reviews entered television. Siskel and Ebert's at the movies brought criticism into the living rooms of people all over the country. Their comments abandoned all early arrogant literary criticism and focused on the important question: are these films pleasant? Are they worth seeing? Until his recent death, Roger Ebert was still the loudest name in modern film critics, and let audiences everywhere remember how valuable the score of "two thumbs" is.

The end of an era

In other words, Ebert may be the last of this kind. The Internet has made comments more democratic. Now, there are so many blogs and comment websites like rotten tomato and metacritical that anyone who has an opinion on a movie can widely express their opinions, and anyone who wants to find it can see it. There is no single authoritative voice on what film is worth watching, but countless people have endless views.

This makes film experts very nervous. Many reporters are crying for the demise of film criticism, but in general, more views are a good thing. However, this does bring a unique problem: with so many views to choose from, how do you know which one to listen to? Is the opinion of a film critic as valuable as the average score obtained from hundreds of film critics and bloggers?

In short, this is a matter of personal preference. Film lovers tend to look for film critics whose tastes match their own, such as David Edelstein or Elvis Mitchell, while more casual audiences can go to a movie review aggregation website to gain a broader consensus on the quality of a film.

Therefore, although some opponents may think that the golden age of movie review is over, others easily believe that the democratization of film criticism has made this field more equitable. Whether this is a positive or negative development, it is ultimately up to the individual film audience to decide how he or she wants to treat film criticism.