Film Critics (?)

I recently had some form of an 'arguement' in concerning a movie called Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon. In it I mentioned the bad reviews the film is currently recieving and my hate for the director Micheal Bay. Some point in that arguement, I was noted that you shouldn't trust critics and their reviews, however I beg to differ.

Now I will try to keep this arcticle as unbiased as possible.

Now before I begin, I need to make a point about the statement; "check your brain at the door before you see it". Now I have several problems with that statement. Firstly, why should you check your brain at the door? If your watching a dumb film, you don't need to "check your brain at the door" to enjoy it. Just look at the people who enjoy B and Z grade movies; the Grindhouse movies. Those people accept and acknowledged what they are watching. You don't need to leave your brain behind.

Now onto the the topic of critics, whether they're right or wrong. First thing one person should note is that, who is reviewing the movie in question; then what movies do they review and how do they review it. One of the most praised critics around is Roger Ebert. When he reviews movies, he generally looks at the expirence the movie in question, vibes and intends to give out. He is very self aware of who made the film, who stars in it, and the fans the movie may gain. Now while I don't always agree with his reviews, Ebert is the essential critic to all movies reviews.

Ebert had a partner called Gene Siskel of who reviewed movies on their tv show up until Siskel's death in 1999. Siskel, unlike Ebert often nitpicked the pros and cons of a movie. Something many critics of today do. Following Siskel's passing, (my favorite) critic Richard Roeper was introduced and filled in Siskel's shoes until the shows cancellation. Roeper, unlike both Ebert and Siskel, nitpicked a movie, but also was aware of the experience intended for a film. I would suggest watching or reading Roeper's reviews as an alternative to Ebert.  

Now while I've just mentioned only a few names and their methods here, one medium is always needed for a review, and that is the film. On the topic at hand, how I view it is that; you cannot just have your own opinion on a film and that all. Yes its the most honest to oneself, however it is also very shallow at the same time. When I look at reviews, I always have a few names and sites in my mind when I look for a review. Mine are Ebert, Roeper, Spill.com, Amazon UK, YouTubers and MetaCritic. All of which differ from each other. The best part of having multiple reviews of varying backgrounds is that, if there was a bad review, it could be challenged and discussed.

On the subject if reviews should be trusted if one wanted to see a film, If the vast majority of a review tends to be negative, It would be an easy answer, however if one believed that all that negativity could be challenged, then one should see it in order to make that argument.