Although I don’t agree with all of AO Scott’s positions, I do agree with his primary argument, that everybody’s potentially a critic. Some would argue that in order to be a critic, you have to be intellectual. Sure being intelligent and having facts gives you more ground when you critique. But just because someone may be less intelligent and lack the facts does not take away her right to critique. To critique is to have an opinion and everyone is entitled to this right. There are some companies (film production in particular) do not like to be critiqued, because they fear it will mess with their profits. I think critical reviews are essential to society, as it keeps different aspects in check. Film productions would not make a cheap movie because they fear critics. Restaurants try to maintain clean sanitation so critics won’t expose them. Politicians abstain from spreading propaganda in fear of journalists writing stories. Critique serves not to just inform consumers but to keep aspects of society in check.

I realize that the public can be swayed through reviews, but this is not always the case. Reviews are simply the opinions of others and everyone has varying ideas. The bottom line is that movie reviews are not always the same as your reviews. It’s the mission of art to free our minds, and the task of criticism to figure out what to do with that freedom. I absolutely agree with when AO Scott said “That everyone is a critic means that we are each capable of thinking against our own prejudices, …We need to put our remarkable minds to use and to pay our own experience the honor of taking it seriously.” Critiquing others does not only support other bi giving feedback, it also supports ourselves. It allows us to think critically and create further intellectual thoughts. Critique is a great way to stimulate and challenge our minds.