People here in Indiana wouldn’t know a good movie if it hit them in the face. I saw it last night, I’ve read the book about 4-5 times, and I loved it.
I don’t know if these movie critics are just boring or haven’t read the book or just plain unintellegent. Maybe they should be focusing on the audiences’ reaction rather then what they think.
This movie is based on a book that was the #1 New York Times bestseller.
It’s made for teenagers. Not old guys who sit at a desk all day trying to get a rise out of readers.

Some of the Left Behind books have been #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. That doesn’t make them worth reading. And I should hope that audience reaction wouldn’t play into a critic’s musings. For example, the audience reaction to both Milli Vanilli and Hitler was very positive, but I wouldn’t suggest buying either of their albums.

I don’t know. Hitler’s ’68 comeback special — with his original backing group of Goering and Goebbels — was pretty good, especially the “Blue Suede Shoes/Blond-Haired Aryan” medley.

I’m hurt…just when did I become an old guy? I’m only 31! C’mon!

In response, in all honesty and after reflection, I felt like I was if anything a little generous in my review. I did give it 3 stars, after all.

And Drinky is very correct that writing critically about a film has nothing to do with what other people think about the movie, but strictly and wholly what I think about the movie. I feel like I fight a constant battle not to just go with prevailing sentiments on a film, but rather give my honest opinion. To do anything else I feel would be a disservice to my loyal readers (what few that number may be).

Having said that, I’m glad you liked the film even if I didn’t so much. It’s obvious that it wasn’t made specifically for me, and I don’t have a problem with that (actually, though, I believe there are a couple of posts on this site from people who loved that book but thought the movie was lackluster).

The editor who originally gave me this job once told a reader disgruntled with my opinion of a film that the critic’s job is to give his opinion; the reader’s is to decide whether the critic’s opinion will match up with their own. You can respect the critic’s opinion without agreeing with it, and you can even potentially gauge if you’ll like a movie even when the critic does not, if you read them over time. I believe Drinky has a reader-critic relationship with my colleague Ed Johnson-Ott that is similar to that.

I guess what I’m saying is thanks, keep reading. :)

I love the fact that a movie critic’s opinion of a movie may not match my own. I love the fact that a movie critic might echo exactly what I think of a movie.

I saw Twilight with two of my daughters last night. Funny, of the three of us (40, 20 and 16), it was my teenager that liked the movie the least. I think her exact words were, “I hated it!”

If people here in Indiana knew a good movie we’d have more than one theater showing them.

As said best by the great White Goodman…Touche.

That bit about finding a critic who shares your tastes is very true. Anyone who pays attention to such things will quickly determine whom they should listen to. For example, I find that I disagree with the two film critics who currently criticize for the New Yorker, especially David Denby. He can’t write a paragraph without commenting on how an actress looks. He strikes me as a bit of a sexist jackbutt, who cares more about Jolie’s lips and Johansson’s funbags than he does about whether or not the script was written by some half-wit committee of dumb. So, I don’t listen to him.

To be honest, I’ve had some trouble finding a critic I can trust since Siskel went to that big balcony in the sky. I should probably examine the track records of Messieurs Shearer and Lloyd and see how well we match. Finding your critic is a bit like dating, except there’s no sex. Usually.

I’ll admit that when I’m considering relying on a critic I will check out their blog, or whatnot and see their list of favorite movies and most of the time I will take that into consideration. If I agree with most of the list then my “respect” for that critic will determine whether or not I will see a movie on their opinion alone.

It’s also fun to get all snarky with movie critics too, I’ve been known to go a few rounds with some celebrity critics. It’s funny, because really it’s all about personal taste.

I agree with Joe — the most useful critics aren’t necessarily the ones you most agree with. I disagreed with Pauline Kael most of the time, but she was one of the true great ones.

I probably learned more about criticism from reading critics I was at odds with than ones who synced up with me all the time.

The key is for the reader and critic to develop a relationship over time where the reader has some expectations for the critic’s tastes, just as you would for a friend. If your buddy Frank says he loved the new Sylvester Stallone movie, but you happen to know that Frank is a doofus who also thought “Cliffhanger” was the best thing ever, then you’ll take it with a grain of salt.

I’ve often said this: Even the old saw, “He hated it so I know I’ll like it” is an example of a successful reader/critic relationship. The critic’s job is to inform you about what you might expect from a movie, offer an opinion, and hopefully start a community discussion about film.

Needless to say, this is impossible to achieve with wire reviews. (Yeah, yeah, I will stop flailing that expired equine.)

Personally, I love getting feedback, whether it’s someone saying “I agree with you all the time,” or “You know nothing about movies, you’re cinematically illiterate, and your choice in footwear is highly questionable.” I don’t have to agree with someone in order to have a discussion with them about movies, and sometimes it’s fun arguing with someone about certain movies (when that person doesn’t take the discussion too seriously).

Of course I’ve had readers write me stuff all the time, mostly ranging from someone telling the editor to fire me and hire them as the reviewer, calling me a “Junket W——,” or attacking me for not liking the Robin Williams movie “RV.” And yes, those three all really happened.

Drinky is right — some of the crummiest things end up on the bestseller list. This movie looks like it falls right in line with that, but I’ll be happy to look at still photos of that kid with the magic hair.

Funny — when they named Pattinson as the actor who will portray Edward, there were outcries from Twilight-dom that he was too scrawny and not handsome enough to be the Vampire Love God.

$70 million over the weekend — they already greenlighted the sequel.

Cedric Diggory playing a vampire. Wow…I guess I don’t get the hooplah myself, but listening to girls around me…they ooh and ahhh over this guy. My cousin put on his Facebook page “Why do girls fantasize about a guy who doesn’t exist?”

The guy who doesn’t exist is a lot less likely to disappoint you than the guy who does.

I have a theory (that I touched on in the review) on Edward’s appeal to women. Because he’s a “good” vamp who has taken a virtual vow of sanguine celebacy, he has to constantly hold back to avoid the horrific and perverse things he wants to do with her. In that way, he will be ontinually pining for her.

Plus, being a vampire, he’ll never get old and fat either.