"Critics" destroying the fun of movies?

I would say no, any sort of published criticism of media has always had a side that is biting and overly critical. 100 years ago it was critics of theatre and opera that would be handing out the smackdowns of bad acting or bad plays across the country, published in newspapers and magazines. Then with the advent of TV and movies, people like Roger Ebert have been the ones to write angry reviews more often than not. With the internet, I guess now everyone has a say, and thus we all have very different tastes, and most things are inevitably not going to line up with what we like. So the seems amplified when it's just hundreds of people finally given somewhere to put their opinion.

I write movie reviews for a site, and I try not to be influenced by what 'the internet' thinks of a movie and instead review by how I felt. Sometimes I line up with the consensus, other times I don't. But I'm not thinking "I must shit on this movie because Reddit hates it and I must conform". Instead, I try to be fair and nail down my personal response to the movie. Where did I think the movie go wrong? What did the movie get right? Why did I feel so attached in such a scene and repulsed by another?

I and I'm sure most critics would not give a shit what people online think of a movie. If someone reads my reviews, they're reading for my opinion, not Reddit's. The 'consensus' whether negative or positive, informs some of the movie's wider cultural discussion in a review, but 9 times out of 10, it shouldn't factor into the review itself. You're a shit reviewer if so.

Look at Roger Ebert. You can buy whole volumes of his angry reviews, of which most would've been written prior to the internet.

/r/movies Thread