Of course, I may be biased -- I
am one of those "people out there with jobs reviewing movies." But I take offense at that "lazy-donothing" comment. Do you know how difficult it is to write a review in 30 minutes less than an hour after you've seen it? I can guarantee it's more difficult than you think.
I also know for a fact "lazy" is not a word to associate with a film critic... besides requiring yourself to NOT turn your brain off during movies like "XXX" and "Sahara," we have to stay focused, critically analyzing the film when everybody else gets to check their brains at the door and hang on for the ride. Believe me, it's not an easy job. Now, again, perhaps I'm a little biased about the lazy comment since I for one hold three jobs and work a minimum of 70 hours a week. Do you do that? I work full-time as a critic and a graphic artist
EDIT: And now a sports editor... YAY!), and part time as a musical director for a church... besides that time, which is all during the day, I work OVERNIGHT on weekends at a television station.
As far as your "regular folks" review... well, I can't really argue with you. Most critics seem to be self-indulgent and movie snobs. While I can't argue that I'm not a movie snob, I am without a doubt one of the most forgiving critics writing today, simply because I review a film based on what I believe its goal to be. For instance, "Sahara" was supposed to be a summer-type Indian Jones wannabe, check your brain at the door and watch shit explode film... mindless entertainment. Did it succeed in my mind? Yes -- it was entertaining. Was it a good
film? No.