bringing up the topic of film criticism got me thinking (uh oh).

Though everyone has the right to an opinion regarding films what grants someone more, for lack of a better term, power of opinion than others?

Is it experience in the field in question? For instant, does someone within the movie industry have a better understanding of the qualities of film and therefor are better suited to judge films? Tarantino exhibits a well-nigh inexhaustible knowledge on cult cinema and can certainly be trusted to give a valid opinion in that field. But then experienced film makers, Uwe Boll and Tommy Wisseau, also would be more apt to speak on a film's merits than your average Joe.

Is it simply respect for the person giving the opinion? If so how is that respect earned? How come some film critics are more trusted than others? Is it because they agree with us more often? I listen to a number of film podcasts and only a few have hosts that either went to film school or actually work in the industry. How is it people with no more qualifications than the next guy can be trusted to give opinions on a movie?

I ask these questions as a podcaster and blogger who often gives opinions on films. Is it presumptuous to think my opinion holds any more or less water than the next guy? Why should I care that people know what I think of a film?

I do feel I have some qualifications. I took one film appreciation class. Whatever.

In my study of English Literature I focused on literary criticism and creative writing, learning how to tell a proper story.

I studied Philosophy which bolstered my critical thinking skill as well as providing lessons in logic and aesthetics.

Moreover, as an intuitive thinking type I'm prone to objectively criticizing a product, locating and determining its flaws.

Even so, does that make my opinion at all important?

Who expected a deep discussion from Tangential Deviation? Whatever happened to following the exploits of Steve Gutenberg?