One of the things I've noticed about being a self-proclaimed "film critic" is how other people immediately assume you have different tastes than they have. This isn't inherently true, but it's also not entirely false. For me, there are two main differences between a movie critic and a regular filmgoer. First, a critic, by demand of the word's definition, sees a wider variety of movies than the average Jane or Joe. This is going to automatically shape any person's taste -- it's the difference between hearing a jazz tune for the first time and falling in love with it and hearing that same tune and realizing it's a shameless knockoff of a much better tune. So, in that sense, while that statement about tastes isn't true at the basic level, there's some truth to it at a practical level.

That first difference, though, is indirect and subjective.  Nobody can watch every movie out there, and even the most hardened critics can still retain a soft spot for that first-time film they fell in love with, no matter how much of a knockoff it is. Thus, we come to the second main difference: the critic is able to articulate how he or she feels about a movie in specific terms. More specifically, the film critic enjoys writing and having something to say about movies.

Not everyone enjoys this process, but for those who do, it is what makes the biggest difference. For, in order to inform your own writing, you'll have to do more than make general statements of liking or disliking a movie; you'll need to develop your background and intuition on the subject. In this way, becoming a critic is very much a self-driven activity. The more you want to write, the more you'll want to watch. The more you watch, the more knowledgeable you become.

And since this is an ongoing process, it can be enough -- there's no goal, because the journey is the fun part. From this point on, one just continues to develop a perspective, gradually shaped by the movies one watches. Here, I can talk about what directions my own perspective has been heading towards. What I've noticed is that the more movies I watch, the less relative significance I place on story. One critic once uttered, "Plot is overrated," and at the time I read that I was in the mood to disagree. But then I thought about it some more, and realized this was a valid way of looking at the movies. I see that most stories are recycled, and "what happens" in a film is usually less interesting than the various other things the film is doing besides telling its story.

The way I've come to see it is this: there are multiple media available for telling stories, from books to television to the father who reads to his children at bedtime. A good story is a good story, no matter how it's told, really, so it shouldn't be the most important aspect of a movie. When I ask the people around me why they liked or disliked a movie, they often give story as a reason -- "I like the way it ended," or, "I don't think what happened here made sense."  These viewers aren't really passing judgment on a movie, they're giving or deducting points for how well a movie has conformed to their ideas of a satisfying story. 

Story is one aspect of a movie, but a movie has so much more to offer. A movie is a presentation of edited visuals and synchronized sound. A filmmaker can present a scene in a multitude of ways, and it's how he or she composes the elements of a scene that makes a movie unique and potentially effective. Many elements contribute -- set, acting, camera placement, editing, sound, and more. When a filmmaker can use this combination to create a unique, memorable, or powerful effect, then I admire the scene. If the filmmaker can string many such scenes together to create an overall work of flow -- and of a flow that is also unique, memorable, or powerful -- then I admire the movie.

For me, the magic of a movie is the way it can communicate character and emotion. When images and sound can evoke feelings of empathy, sympathy, conflict, or disturbance, it's an amazing thing. A critic shouldn't even have to be thinking about this as he or she watches a movie; the critic doesn't have to be actively analyzing, because when it works, it works. The best movies, to me, are the ones where I don't find myself questioning it as it goes.

The danger of stating my perspective here is in giving the false notion that I approach movies only from one direction.  Everything is a matter of subjectivity and relativity. For some movies, the story will be its most important aspect, and I will give it its due weight. Sometimes a movie's focus is on the acting; sometimes a movie is very style-conscious. What a critic does is react to a movie first, then use everything he or she has learned up to that point to analyze that reaction and inform the writing about it. A critic will shape a perspective while allowing room for flexibility; but, most of all, a critic is honest. 

You'll find there are two types of people. There are the people who like to have their fun and not question it -- they enjoy the moment and seek more of those moments. Then there are those who have fun, but who have even more fun analyzing why they had fun. The latter have the makings of a critic. If you see yourself as that kind of person, you only need to start exploring to be on the path.