> Part of this is because I can almost understand.
>It was only within the past few years that I
>started looking seriously at movies with
>distinguished looking box covers that boast, in
>Elizabethan script, about awards won at Cannes and
>how these eighteen reputable critics consider it
>the best film of the year. Because, doncha know
>it, those movies are almost always these
>slow-paced character pieces. Well, not all of
>them, but enough of them are for the reputation to
>be somewhat deserved. Recently I've begun to
>appreciate many of these movies that others would
>call "art films." Many of them simply appeal on
>an intellectual level instead of on a visceral
>level.

This is most of the answer to your question, right here.

You've got to remember that most people, I'd wager on the order of 80% to 90% of people who go to see movies, see them to be "entertained". And for most of these people, Entertainment != thinking. For many, if not most people, entertainment is something that is done for you, not something you do for yourself. Also, most people probably don't read Ebert's reviews every week. So their only exposure to the opinions of the major critics *IS* from the advertising of the movies. And you said yourself it's usually the slow, plodding character studies (what most people woud call "boring" and "not entertaining") that show off the fact that the critics loved them.

Personally, here's how I choose what movie to see on the rare occaision I go to see movies. First, I ask Stephen what is out now that is worth seeing. Because I don't keep track of what movies come out when, or what is currently playing, or what critics think of them. Stephen will usually recommend a couple, then I'll look them up to see if any of them sound good to *me*. If any of them do, maybe I'll go see one of them. Or maybe I'll just sit here and watch TV, because it's easier.

Last weekend, I decided I wanted to see Spider-Man. When I got to the theater, I found that everyone in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE had also decided to go see Spider-Man. So I bought a ticket to "A Beautiful Mind" instead. I did that because I had a vague recollection that it had won some award (I actually had to ASK Stephen later WHICH award it had won. I mean, hey, the Academy Award for "Best Picture" just isn't that high on my priority list of "things to remember") And hey, it was a pretty good movie. But I still wished afterwards that I'd gotten to see Spider-Man instead.

My point in relating this story is that I feel that, despite the fact that I don't even really like movies, I'm more of a typical movie goer than you are. I think that most of the people who go to see movies don't really like the art-form of the movie. What they like is the *entertainment*. And if people define "good entertainment" as "Spider-Man (or something like it)" (and it's a fair bet that this is the case, since Spider-Man just had the biggest opening weekend EVER) then having a movie critic, a self-professed lover of the art form of the movie, say "I think 'A Beautiful Mind' is the best movie of this year." will most likely trigger the kind of response that the couple gave to Ebert. I know I would.

-- Dave