I trust your opinion. Tell me what you thought about "Marie Antoinette," the much-hyped film about the cake-chomping French queen. Or "Flags of our Fathers," Clint Eastwood's new movie about Iwo Jima.

Based on a friend's opinion, I may go see a film. Based on Craig D. Lindsey's opinions, 200,000 of you may decide whether to spend $50 or so for tickets, popcorn and babysitter for a Saturday night out. That's juice.

Lindsey, The News & Observer's film critic, says he doesn't think about his influence over movie-goers when he writes about the latest box office offerings. "I'm trying to give them another perspective," he says. "I just want people to be entertained by what I write more than anything else."

If that's the goal, Lindsey succeeds. This line, from his Oct. 20 review of "Antoinette," is nothing if not fun: "[Sofia] Coppola's biopic is nothing more than a free-form girlie show, a materialistic, hoity-toity gust of flagrant -- and fragrant -- girl power."

But not everyone appreciates the Lindsey cinemascape. Reader Don Greene writes: "I go to movies with my wife on a regular basis and look to you for help in choosing a movie. The selection process should be similar to a hunt with a pedigreed pointer instead of lurching about with a rabid junkyard dog on a chain. He is an angry young man and lets that get in the way of being objective."

That's vivid writing in its own right -- Lindsey seems to inspire such visceral reaction. He is young, 30, and he confessses to being angered sometimes by the quality of the movies he sees.

Greene's comment does raise the question, what should N&O readers expect from the paper's reviews? Not just of movies, but music, theater, television and other arts.

Yes, The N&O's entertainment critics say, you should be informed and entertained by the review. You also should be challenged, provoked, even angered by strong opinion laid before you. The idea is to get readers thinking, and engaged.

"They can help you think about things in a different way," said Amber Nimocks, editor of the Friday What's Up Section, where many reviews appear. "They can spawn new lines of thought in the reader that a basic recitation of facts won't necessarily do."

Opinion is key. The reviewer is expected not just to describe the show but to offer his opinion -- informed hopefully by knowledge, experience and a more refined ear or eye than you or I might bring to the event. If the reviewer trashes the show and you hate the reviewer, then you might want to go see it.

David Menconi, The N&O's music critic, says he's more than once gotten the comment, "Why can't you just review the concert and keep your own opinion out of it."

"Criticism is supposed to put an opinion out there, and you can do with it what you will," he said. "It doesn't necessarily tell you if you should spend your $7 on the show."

OK, opinion. But why are the opinions so often negative? I looked back at nine Lindsey reviews over several issues, and only three liked the movies. Some, like "Marie Antoinette," seared the show and almost everything about it (as did many other critics' reviews). The most furious reader reaction to a Lindsey review this year was to his pan of fan fave "A Prairie Home Companion," where he wrote: "The whole movie is like some Dennis Potter-esque fever dream some old fogy is having in a nursing home somewhere in Iowa."

Menconi invited reader invective with his less-than-admiring review of Clay Aiken's latest album. Said one reader: "People like you obviously have a hidden animosity, and you were the people who picked on him when he was a little kid." That's what happens when you take on artists with devoted fan bases who are looking not for criticism so much as affirmation.

Next page >