Perhaps you have heard about or read Armond White’s scathing review on the beloved Toy Story 3. 

http://www.nypress.com/article-21357-bored-game.html?anonymousId=-3062657814293038038

The trouble with critics is that their primary motivation is not necessarily to judge a movie fairly but to entertain their readers.   The more colourful or opinionated the review, the more entertaining it is, but simply saying “I hated it” doesn’t make for much of a critic.  What separates the professional from the amateur critic is his ability to support opinion with fact.

Audiences don’t necessarily care whether or not the critics liked the movie, but want to know if it’s a movie they would want to see.  A film can be a critical disaster, yet turn out to be a massive money-maker.  The majority of films reviewed on Rotten Tomatoes receive a much higher rating from audiences than critics because audiences are generally not aware of what constitutes a ‘quality’ film; they simply want to be entertained.  Moviemakers aren’t in the business of appealing to critics, they’re in the business of selling tickets.

Some people are calling for White to be fired.  Perhaps that’s a bit harsh.  But, after reading this article, perhaps not.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010/07/hating-the-player-losing-the-game-the-armond-white-meta-review/

Paul Brunick, the author of this article doesn’t wish for White to be banished from Rotten Tomatoes because his contrary opinions open up a forum for public discourse, however, should White retain his credentials as a critic when his professional review is so slipshod?  If White’s review had been a screenplay, he’d be booted out of Hollywood.  I reiterate: the primary goal of a reviewer is to entertain readers.  Job done…sort of. 

Armond’s review as noted by Brunick was:

“…a seething tissue of factual errors, self-negating examples, glaring elisions, logical inconsistencies, specious industrial analysis, mystifying rhetorical constructions and basic grammatical errors.”

It’s great that the Internet allows audiences to express their opinions on movies and hold critics accountable for theirs, but as Brunick said, it’s one thing to hold someone professionally accountable, it’s another to send out the lynch mob because you disagree with his opinion.  There are countless idiotic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be there, but it also doesn’t mean we have to give them any significance.