Yet over the years of doing whatever it is I do here -- cook, clean, and churn out an endless parade of nonsensical reviews -- I've spent more than a little time looking at the world of cinema from both sides of the fence, and I've come up with some rather disturbing conclusions. Maybe I'm asking for it, actually thinking about a messy subject that most people just take for granted as a very, very, very small part of their lives, but I can't help it. I'm a little cat. And I'm curious. And I got eight lives to go, baby.

So let's begin with movie fans. I'm one, and I'm guessing you are as well, unless you're very lost (and if you are here's your escape hatch). In fact, I think that practically anyone you approach on the street would consider themselves a movie fan. You like movies? You watch them? Good. You're a fan. Welcome to the biggest club on the planet.

But let's divide movie fans into two sub-species (just like in biology class!). You've got your dedicated fanboys and fangirls who eat films up like popcorn, know all the actors and their current celebrity lives, watch E! News Live religiously, surf at minimum three movie-related web sites a day, and own a large private library because owning is so much better than renting. This is, maybe, 8% of society. The rest fall into sub-species two, which is your basic carbon-based air-breather who watches movies, sure, but rarely remembers them a week later. They consider seeing a film something to do when all other options are depleted. They are often spotted in the rental stores saying, "I've never heard of that one" over and over. They are, unfortunately, the target audience of Hollywood filmmakers.

These two species do not mix very well. Where I might be slipping a perfect Clerks quote into a relevant situation, your casual movie fan has a very difficult time remembering other movies that Tom Hanks has been in. It's frustrating. I really don't like seeing movies in untrusted herds of people, because chances are they're going to stampede right in to the worst film in the theater, just because "we heard of it." The casual movie-goer does not hold a strong opinion on what he or she likes (but they almost universally detest horror, sci-fi, and fantasy), instead opting to go for name-brand recognition every time. This is why marketing works so well.

Have you spent time hitting your forehead with a blunt object because some joke of a movie hit number one at the box office last week? It's not your fault. Sure, fanboys/girls get suckered into seeing bad movies too, but at least they try not to, and have selective tastes. But casual ticket-purchasers are just going to go see whatever movie has had the most promotion on TV, internet, papers, and other films. Here's a test: have you ever been to a movie theater and heard, during a preview trailer, someone in the theater saying, "Man, I gotta see that!"? They're victims. Sure, it might be a good movie, and it might not. But chances are, the people who say that will never attempt to figure out whether a movie is good in advance, instead selecting their choice at free-association impulse, much like a rat with their food pellet buttons.

I'm not saying that fanboys/girls are without blame. We're a bit too geeky, too obscure, and too elitist at times, yes. We may very well be sacrificing valuable time slots in our life to soaking up information that will be useless in a year or less. But at least I can respect people that do their homework on films, occasionally experimenting outside of blockbusters to sate their thirst, and know enough about movies to think for themselves when it comes to plot and story. Listen, we're not children. Sooner or later, the fancy gaudy light show stops fooling us all, and we begin to look behind the curtain. When that happens, Hollywood's gotta either start making films with substance and depth, or looking elsewhere for mass approval.

Now hopping over to the other side of the fence, let's examine the film critics. Sure, in this age of free website space, anyone and seemingly everyone can slap up a few reviews and call themselves movie critics. Hey, we did that, and I don't think we're so haughty to think that we're somehow better than the fifteen thousand other film review sites out... wait a minute, YES we're haughty! I forgot! Hey, we rule. That is a fact.

So I'm not going to bother making credible distinctions between paid and unpaid movie journalists (or legal and underaged ones, for that matter). But I've become closely interested in the motivations of other critics. Why do they enter an already-saturated market, and why do some stick with it? What is their [William Shatner pause] motivation?

I think for most critics, it's hubris, plain and simple. They like voicing their opinions. They like thinking that others will worship the ground they type upon. They figure it's some sort of easy shortcut to fame and glory, even if on a limited scale. They're completely wack-o, of course, but this doesn't stop them from trying.

Movie critics who stick with this job/hobby for a serious length of time (here I'm talking about a couple years, at least) have successfully moved past doing this as an idle whim. It becomes serious. The more you write, the more you put yourself on the line. Here's a theory of mine, tested true a number of times in real life. If you endorse a film and a person listens to that recommendation and ends up hating the movie (or even vice-versa), you forever lose authority in their eyes as a credible source for movie opinions. Just one movie, and this can and probably will happen. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten e-mails that have said, "I liked your site and reviews until I read your review of XXXX, and it was SO wrong! You suck! I'm not going to listen to you any more!" That's not levelheaded or rational -- no person can write reviews that appease everyone all the time -- but that's the way things seem to work. And the catch-22 of it is, the more movie reviews one writes, the greater the odds for someone to become disillusioned in your opinion.

This is where we divide our serious movie critics up into their two sub-species: the critics who attempt to please their readers, and the critics who don't give a crap and write to please themselves. The first is cowardly, but face it, it's an easier road to take. If you like what a majority of other critics and audiences like, then chances are you're going to be well-received. Sure, you can go against the flow once in a while, but you don't dare risk anything more than that. Yet, the second way is undeniably selfish, egotistical, and worse of all, cynical. Yes, it's great to not bow under external pressure when it comes to making up your own mind -- in fact, we at MRFH pride ourselves so much on doing this, we've given each other shiny medals as encouragement. But the real danger is that when you become a little island to yourself, you grow increasingly distant from the pulse of the people you're trying to educate and opinionate.

I like the pace and set-up of how we do things at MRFH. We can each choose whatever movies we want to review, and we're not constantly racing against a deadline to get them done (although there's a practical deadline). I feel deeply sorry for any critic who gorges themselves on every single movie that's released each year, because they need to get their reviews out the second the movie hits. I've read a lot of commentaries by long-term critics who all seem to hit a point where they stop caring as much. A majority of films that come out each year are complete turds, and they have to watch them all. It's like constantly wading through a cesspool just to find a handful of shiny new quarters; sooner or later, they can't remember why it's worth it. It's a wonder they don't hang themselves by a film reel more often. This is why I don't trust most critics that force-review all the major releases each week. They have to hack them out quick, they don't allow themselves the luxury of time and a second viewing to impact their attitude toward a film, they essentially make a career out of knee-jerk opinions.

One of the things I think about often is why people read movie reviews. Sure, the obvious answer is because they want to avoid seeing a bad flick, but there's a lot more to it than that. I'm kinda tired and I don't have the energy to make up more fake statistics, but I'm even betting that more people read reviews after seeing a film than before. Let me break it down for you, the motivations of people for reading reviews.

1. You've got your casual movie-goer who wants a quick blurb on whether a movie's good or not before they go that weekend. They don't want to read a lot, they just want their stupid five-star rating system as some sort of defiled parental permission.

2. You've got your deeper movie fan who is sifting through current releases to see what is genuinely worth their time. They're more likely to fully read an article, and maybe even from more than one source on the same film.

Intermission. Seeing as how #1 and #2 become obsolete when a film has been in theaters more than a week or so, there has to be more reasons why people sift through the net to read reviews of past released films.

3. They're looking for confirmation on whether a movie is good enough, usually as a second opinion to what they've seen on TV (in ads) or heard from friends.

4. They're looking for worthy rentals -- popular or rare -- and want to save themselves the time and effort of striking out themselves. I'd say that #4 people are the ones that we focus on the most.

5. People who have already seen a movie and formulated an opinion, and want confirmation that they're right. Hey, I do this all the time. Usually after writing a review, I'll read three or four other reviews of that title, curious if I'm the cheese (I stand alone) or the Chex Party Mix. Sometimes people reading reviews for this reason are doing so because they've suffered greatly, and look for shared souls that will comfort them and extract verbal revenge. Sometimes people in this category just read reviews because they like to feel superior to the critics.

And to be honest, at different times, I fall into all of those categories. But I think that there's a special category, a number 6, that serves to unite all species of critics and fans:

6. People that want to be entertained by the reviews.

This is true, and this is the heart of this article. Over the years I've been a critic, this fact has made itself apparent to me in many, many ways: no matter why someone is writing or reading a movie review, the ultimate purpose above informing and ranting should be to entertain. Yes, in a way it's pandering. And in a way, it's offensive to those who would rather see film criticism in a puritanical, pristine light. But honestly, when I'm reading other reviews, they'd better be at least mildly entertaining -- whether through humor or sharp insight or even obnoxious inflammatory remarks -- or I'm going to BACK the heck out of there like there's no tomorrow. Writers should write for themselves, yes, but when they do that, they should be writing to entertain themselves as well. And in doing so, hopefully they'll be sparking the interest in others.

Film reviews as entertainment may or may not be a revolutionary idea, particularly when you think about it and wonder why you've been reading this article this long. But I feel that too many critics have failed to be entertaining in the least; after all, there's only so many standard "I liked this, hated this, this was good, I thought the film would be like this, it ended up being like this, you should see this, you should not see this" reviews before they all become one blurry mess. And I feel that too many movie fans have not been selective enough in their choices for critics; you SHOULD be reading the writers who make you laugh, make you think, make you look at a movie in a new light.

All I know is that as a fan, I'm constantly on the prowl for a critic who I can trust and who entertains me -- and the findings out there have been extremely slim. All I know is that as a critic, I have to constantly remind myself that I'm free to entertain myself and my readers -- I'm not writing stupefying book reports here. Maybe someday we can change the world. Or at least give our opinions how it should be changed.