The old war between films of "high moral character" and so called cheep entertainment has raged ever since the first movie ran through a projector. The dividing line between what is a good film and a great film hinges not necessarily on the film itself but the eye of the beholder looking at the screen. A film like the "X-Men" was never in danger of darkening Oscars' door, but it was beloved by fans of the comic book and many who had never heard of it before. Why should a film like "You Can Count On Me" be considered more Oscar worthy even though it was seen by far less people. Although popularity is no guarantee of quality it shouldn't be seen as making a film of lesser quality either.
Perhaps the problem lies in the fact the most people go to the movies for escapist entertainment, they want to be taken out of themselves and their problems. If a film does this they deem it to be a good film. Most critics however go to the movies with an eye to critiquing the lighting, every nuance of dialog, and the film score. The critic in the movie theater, we must remember, is at work, while the general moviegoer is trying to forget about work. The critic also has access to films, many of them foreign that middle America will never hear of, and have no chance to see. The People's Choice awards, the winners of which rarely match the winner of the Oscars', show the dichotomy between what critics and the audience at large feel are good movies. And here I'm lumping together all the awards into one general catagory that seems often shut away from popular opinion.
Go To Page: 1 2
