Whether it be books, film, music, stage or food; someone somewhere is being employed to slag off or lick the arse of whoever is responsible. And I for one think that they are surplus to requirements.
Opinions are strange things. They vary from person to person. Which is why they shouldn't be used to say whether something is good or bad. Is it not purely subjective?
The worst of all critics are the theatre critics. They are the head honchos of bastardom. There's one very simple reason to why this is so - they go against hype just to appear "cool" (Jesus, I hate that word) to their pompous friends / readers. I can think of two recent examples.
I know for a fact that Swept Away and Revolver were both panned for the same reason. Guy Ritchie would never scale the dizzy heights of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels again and unfortunately for him, the critics preyed upon that. Not only that, but Swept Away had Madonna in it and critics NEVER want to be seen plaising Madonna. Perish the thought.
The other is the stage show Elton John did recently. You know as soon as you hear "STAGE SHOW BY ELTON JOHN", no-one is going to take it seriously. I know for a fact that theatre critics had made their mind up after ten minutes they were going to pan it to hell. Not because it was bad, but because Elton John wrote it and they would come under SERIOUS scrutiny in the yacht club for liking something mainstream.
Maybe the worst people of all are the ones who are actually swayed by the opinion of critics. Critics are more responsible for loss of royalties and revenue for such projects as piracy. All across the United Kingdom (and in particular, the South...) on a Saturday night husbands say to their wives (or mistresses) "let's go and see <insert film here>" to which she would replay "no, it got shit reviews, let's go and see <film with critical acclaim>". "OK" says husband.
They go and see it. They come home with a sense of disappointment and confusion. They rent the DVD of the film that got panned months later and actually realise it was rather good. Justice was done.
Book critics are bad as well. Working as a bookseller, these people are leeches and they are bleeding us. The only reason people buy books in this country is that they are either
a) by authors like Danielle Steel or Patricia Cornwell who have been writing books since the dawn of time and have a massive fan base,
b) by pointless reality TV stars whose books are read by morons who want to know where the loophole to be rich and famous is (cf. Jade Goody, Fran Cosgrove),
c) books that other people say are good, inevitably hyped then hated and returned for cash refund (cf. Dan Brown) or,
d) the author died recently (cf. George Best).
I admit, book critics do help the book trade, but only so far as sales. Most people (apart from the readers amongst us) will not read the synopsis and buy books based on that. No, they will wait for some muppet in the Sun to say "read this" and they will.
And what about that French Chef who had 3 Michelin Stars on his restaurant door for years (quite an amazing achievement), but killed himself on the eve of the Michelin Man's (snigger) arrival to give him a new rating. It's amazing to think that a company that makes tyres and maps would have such an effect on the food industry.
If we get rid of critics, people will have to start thinking for themselves. Which I think is a good thing for society. They will go and see what they want to see, read what they want to read and eat what they want to eat without the phrase "but <TWAT> says that that film/book/restaurant/band/play is rubbish".
It also gets rid of smug, arsehole toffery in circles. When people stop basing their opinions on what other people want them to think, the whole system will be fairer and will also not make me want to kill everyone who has ever slagged off Look Around You Series 2, Arctic Monkeys, Reservoir Dogs, Alain de Botton or Trainspotting for the sake of it.