Let’s first start slow. Everyone that walks into a movie theater, video store, or watches a film on TV – is generally a moviegoer. Easy enough. What a person is seeing at the moment is for entertainment value and interest. If a person likes it enough, they will buy it and own it. Whether you are a moviegoer or buff, you should have a decent movie collection (either DVD or video) of favorites you can’t get enough. So where does the wall begin to build between the goer and the buff? Soon enough.

Moviegoers, I’ve notice, watches a film from a favorite genre. Chick flicks (i.e. romance), sci-fi, action/adventure, comedies, drama, and horror is the utmost favorites of a huge selection of genres. When a moviegoer goes to the movies, they basically watch a favorite film from their favorite genre. It is very much unlikely (unless they are forced) to see a film outside their favorite genre. I’ve seen it all the time with guys – guys like the action pack hero/villain type films but god forbid they can’t sit through a lovey-dovey film without being bored (which makes no sense since a lovey-dovey film is no different then an action pack film – minus the action!) And a lot of the favorite genres also deal with age groups as well. When one matures into an adult that likes Rated R movies, they are generally too good for kid films. And it’s hard to imagine for the most part, senior citizens sitting there watching a “F-this, F-that” R rated flick. It goes on and on.

Movie-buffs, on the other hand, can for the most part, sit through ANYTHING and find something good (OR BAD) about it. Let it be their favorite genre’s or their non-favorites, movie-buffs loves ANYTHING movies so they, of course, can and will appreciate everything for what they are. It is true what they say, everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is bias toward or against something one way or another. There is no exception to that concept when it comes to movie-buffs. But for the most part, again, movie-buffs can sit through any genre of film and find something good and even great to consume. Movie-buffs seek and desire storytelling on screen so no matter what it is, they will sit through anything at least once. What one can tolerate is another issue but saying you saw it once is a big step and proves all more that you do have a love for films as a whole.

I’ll take that to the next level. Say you are atheist that is against all religion belief (or Jewish who is full in their belief) yet is one huge movie-buff. I highly suggest seeing Passion of Christ AT LEAST ONCE. Why? Check your beliefs at the door, the way it was made and the way it was directed has more depth and greatness then the movie itself. And likewise, if you are a movie-buff yet is full for their faith in religion, I highly suggest seeing The Exorcist at least once. It’s sick, it’s disgusting, and it’s disgraceful. But…the way it was made was genius, brilliant, and full of art (example: the scene when Father Lankester Merrin stands there in front of the house as the light from the bedroom window spotlights on him – perfected just right.) Which then transitions to the art form of film.

Moviegoers WON’T recognize the art form of movies. I’ve seen some harsh reviews regarding the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. But has anyone who is so against the film, notice the greatness of the light and shadows during the whole film? I doubt anyone will even think your typical cliché box-office hit has some art to be realized. Jurassic Park. Lord of the Rings. Even the horrible-horrible attempt of T3 has some beautiful shots that weren’t noticed. Moviegoers are so caught up with either effects or performance yet they don’t notice the other layers beneath the film itself. I can go either or actually. I can say to you that T3 was a horrible attempt, a horrible sequel, and a disappointing product overall. And then I can turn around and say the effects, however, was perfected just right, the shots were brilliant, and the “direction” of the film proved that even without a decent script, there was enough material to play around with for a nothing more then a decent project. Moviegoers will not notice the art form in films cause they are watching the films just to be entertained (or moved by a performance.)

Like moviegoers, movie-buffs will argue and debate what is the best of the best. That is where the bias comes in at. Take the Oscars few months ago. Some people think Mystic River should have won. Some people are happy with Lord of the Rings winning. But in the long run – a movie-buff can see both sides of the debate, and both agree and disagree to both sides. Moviegoers can’t do that. They either like the one genre or the other genre. There is no “best of both worlds” to them.

Moviegoers like to see their favorite genres, and above all else – favorite stars. They know the A-list of movie stars from Tom Cruise to Julia Roberts. They should know at least the A-list of directors, but that’s it. They watch the movie as is (which are both a good thing and a bad thing.) Movie-buffs know actors from the A-list to the supporting roles. They know most directors. They know most producers. And they should know most composers. Hell – some even know editors, writers, and even gofers for that matter.

The final difference is real obvious. I recall watching The Grapes of Wrath in 9th grade, people complained that it was black and white. I recall watching To Kill a Mockingbird in 10th grade, people complained cause it was black and white. And I even recall watching Citizen Kane in 11th grade, once again, people complained cause it was black and white. I actually asked a girl in the class that was playing Citizen Kane, whether she even like movies. She said she loves movies. So then I asked what she was complaining about; Citizen Kane is an all time classic. She said she hates black and white movies cause it’s not in color and it’s boring. Hmm…

Moviegoers don’t realize that black and white movies are the true art form of films and it is what movies stands for and why they were created in the first place. When you watch something in color, it tends to knock off reality. But when you see things in black and white, it’s surreal and out of the realms of reality. But that’s boring to some. If you can’t appreciate black and white films, you aren’t a movie-buff. That is the way it is.

Now to tie in movie critics in this equation; movie critics are basically movie buffs. If they don’t love movies as a whole, they have no business writing about it. There is a journalism rule that if you don’t know a certain aspect you are reviewing, you don’t belong critiquing that filed. Movie critics generally have an education of past and present movies in their brain and know a hell of a lot. The cliché response while debating against a movie critic has always been “everyone is a critic.” True to some degree. And that will even go further and say, “what business do they have getting paid reviewing movies when I can do that.” That is also true. But if, again, you don’t know much the ART FORM of the film, the parallel of the film to other films PAST and PRESENT, the whole CAST and CREW, and the way it was made – you are SOL of thinking you are a movie critic.

“Well, movie critics are bias since everyone is bias.” True, very true. I am bias when it comes to Steven Spileberg. Every one film he directs is perfected just right, I am bias toward. But I can also add in the flaws of Stevie and say he is a mixed-bag producer. I made some bias remakes against Pulp Fiction. I just didn’t care for the film. But I also have stated before hand and will even acknowledge that the way it was made and certain pieces of dialogue has a small/fine gem to discover. Movie critics basically foil in that same pattern. The true critics (and it is a journalism rule that) will analyze both the greatness and the flaws of a film – from a favorite to a non-favorite. In fact, most reviews should run in an oxymoron fashion.

One more thing to note, movie critics aren’t meant to speak for the average movie-buff. Movie critics are for moviegoers. Moviegoers who aren’t educated much in the movie department and seeks an overall review just to see what a certain film is about.

I could be way off. That’s just a theory but after working at the movies and just analyzing everything in place, that’s my conclusion. I’ve use to hate movie critics but seeing as though I am a prospering one and hopefully, will become a fine one years to come – movie critics aren’t evil writers, destroying all the goodness of a film. They judge movies on behalf to other movies they’ve seen and keep the idealism of why movies were created in the first place, in mind. They aren’t right nor wrong in any review they give. They have favorites like anyone else but they (since they are movie buffs underneath the cold reviewist), their love for movies will apply to every film they watch and every review they write.

It’s hard to say which is better, being a moviegoer or a movie-buff. Movie-buffs can appreciate all films but the problem lies they analyze too much, without really giving thought that the movie is just a movie. The moviegoer can sit through their favorites and be entertained without giving much thought yet can’t appreciate the art form of a movie. They, however, don’t analyze – they enjoy.