> That's understandable if depressing when mindless
>escapism becomes the *only* reason to see a movie.
>I watch formula. I see a lot of heavily marketed >blockbusters and often like them. Sometimes I'm
>too mentally drained to consume something weighty,
>so I watch some insubstantial fluff instead, but
>if I pass up something *good* for something easy,
>it doesn't mean I won't watch the good thing
>later, when I'm more capable of appreciating it.

See, again I think you're missing the point. To you, movies are an art form, and are something more than just pure visceral entertainment. But to many if not most people, movies are merely entertainment, and entertainment does not involve thinking.

> So why, given that (some) critics actually have a
>really good track record with evaluating big
>commercial movies as well as the obscure
>independent movies, doesn't anybody ever believe
>the critics until after the fact? And *then* why
>doesn't anybody learn from history when the *next*
>batch of blockbusters comes out?

Because honestly, I don't think most people even pay ATTENTION to what the critics say. Most people don't even CARE what critics say, I'd wager. More people rely on their friends (like I do) than on what critics say. So most people probably aren't even AWARE of what critics think about your typical movie. But they DO have the idea in their heads, right or wrong, that critics are general elitist arty snobs who want people to not see movies like Spider-Man. So it doesn't matter how many times the critics are "right" about a movie, that opinion will never change.

-- Dave