As for traditional print critics being abe to “go digital,” there’s David Bianculli’s “TV Worth Watching” site(http://tvworthwatching.com/), where he took up his trade after having been at the NY DAILY NEWS as former chief TV critic. So yes, there’s a few efforts being made to make the switch, but admittedly few at the moment.

I’m very particular about my reviews, and it takes a lot for me to pick up a new writer. For me it takes at least 10 reviews on various types of movies so that I can “feel out” what the reviewers tastes are, because I don’t care what a person is reviewing (or how objective they claim to be) personal preference always plays a part in any review.

The trick is finding someone who can tell you how the movie feels without being too spoilery, whether they liked it or not. Basically saying, “if you like this type of movie, then this is probably a good movie for you.” I like James Berardinelli for that very reason. He and I only agree on how good or bad a film is about half the time, but I always get a good idea about whether or not I’ll like a film from his review, be it good or bad.

Print reviewers have been vetted by the process of selection and saleability by their publishers. The people who sign their pay-checks want the person who can drive the greatest readership. The internet has no such vetting process. Anyone with a computer connection, an opinion, and a web building kit can now become a movie reviewer.

On the other hand. Online movie reviewers who lack an informative or entertaining review can expect little return traffic to their site. The internet creates a forum where everyone has a voice, but only the most talented and desirable reviewers develop a following. Additionally, the internet is not limited to a word count, as print is. A review can be as in depth as it need to be, without restriction.

I have often found myself reading a print review of a movie and though.” That didn’t tell me anything about the movie.” I then found myself online at aintitcool.com reading Harry Knowles or rottentomatoes.com. Just to get a more complete understanding of the movie reviewed.

It seems even the print movie reviews have admitted the superiority of online reviewing. My local paper gives very brief reviews of the movies. Often less than a paragraph each. At the end of the review is a sentence that reads something like,” For the full review read us online at http://www.yourlocalnewspaper.com/film_review .”

I would be very excited to read your paper on this subject, and see what your polling uncovered. Please upload it soon.

But at the same time, to be able communicate an idea in the written word charismatically, to cultivate an audience based on those skills… it could be considered an art form.

I wouldn’t think so, and I can understand calling reviewing film an art in itself. I’d think that in order to be respected as a reviewer, you’d have to have good points to bring up about a film, and in the same stroke be creative in how your review is presented. Would you consistently read a reviewer who simply wrote, “It was good. The acting was nice. The effects were good, too. 5/5″? More often than not, readers (and publishers) are looking for critics with the talent to consistently fill a page with entertaining writing, even if the target of the criticism itself isn’t very entertaining. Sounds like an art to me!

I have a PDF report of the complete survey that I can include along with the research paper.

The paper includes snippets of the report – the high hits and results that surprised me – but the report itself has all 30 questions.

I think I’ll post the report later tonight. Check the site later.