> Most people go to the movies to escape, during which they don't want to have to think. That's not necessarily a comment on people's general intelligence levels; it's good for all of us to turn off our brains sometimes. This is why so many hit movies are formulaic; people appreciate the comfort of what they know. Action/adventure, romantic comedy -- these are genres that people can enjoy without having to put in much effort.

That's understandable if depressing when mindless escapism becomes the *only* reason to see a movie. I watch formula. I see a lot of heavily marketed blockbusters and often like them. Sometimes I'm too mentally drained to consume something weighty, so I watch some insubstantial fluff instead, but if I pass up something *good* for something easy, it doesn't mean I won't watch the good thing later, when I'm more capable of appreciating it.

The point I'm getting at, though, is that just because a critic really likes a movie doesn't mean it *is* all intellectual. A good critic directs his readers to the best that ALL genres have to offer. So, hey, if you want to see a slambang action movie that doesn't require you to think, well, "The Negotiator" is one of 1998's best, while "Armageddon" is one of 1998's worst.

But everybody went to see Armageddon and hated it, while The Negotiator, despite the presence of such people as Kevin Spacey and Samuel L. Jackson, was a hit with the few that saw it instead of Armageddon and then slipped into film history.

So why, given that (some) critics actually have a really good track record with evaluating big commercial movies as well as the obscure independent movies, doesn't anybody ever believe the critics until after the fact? And *then* why doesn't anybody learn from history when the *next* batch of blockbusters comes out?

It just doesn't make sense, even if all you want from the movies is "to laugh."