In a follow-up to my last post, I took offence today at a comment posted on IMDB's Studio Briefing.
In the summary of reviews for The Benchwarmers (in which critics had a see on their own due to lack of press screening) the following quote was made by Manohla Dargis of the New York Times (in reference to the lack of press screenings):
“Why would a studio bother, since movie lovers are clearly not the intended demographic? … Filled with sprays of vomit, fountains of spit and enough hot body air to launch a flotilla of passenger balloons, The Benchwarmers is the sort of trash that Hollywood does really well.”
So, movie lovers are not the intended demographic? I'm a movie lover and I saw the movie yesterday (Sunday) and enjoyed it.
If Manohla Dargis' definition of a movie lover is someone who goes to see the limited release independent films that tend to get rave reviews, it should be noted that the next movie I plan on seeing is Brick this Wednesday (at the one theatre it's playing at in Toronto).
That comment proves my point on how biased film critics can be. They don't assume that someone can be movie lover AND enjoy the mindless popcorn entertainment Hollywood spews out.
I have, and I always will, only see movies that I want to watch. I don't care if they are mainstream Hollywood or independent art house cinema.
Film critics never have and never influence the movie that I watch and enjoy. And I hope that you won't let them either.
