Never happened. Never.

Yet with some new film releases, that's an oft-seen proclamation . True in some film publicity department's dreams, maybe. But in no way is it in the range of the real.

Back on earth, first let's look at a stark realization:

Think now of all the well-known, ongoing contests in the world which are judged subjectively, that is, by a judge's decision, not by points directly scored by the players. Amazingly, there exists one in which decisions of "the best" are made in which each and every judge (critic) uses his and her own rules. To make matters even more absurd, very few had a background in their subject before getting their reviewing job.

Step back for a moment and look at contest fields in general: cat shows, dog shows, cattle shows at fairs, the judged events at the Olympics -- in every case the judges, usually having rigorous backgrounds for the job, have in front of them a systematic list of long-established checkpoints, clear and concise criteria which the contestants must pass in order to be adjudged Best.

But in film? If you look at ten different film critics' 10-Best lists at the end of each year, you'll see strikingly different choices (sometimes two lists contain not a single title in common), often offering titles you've never even heard of. Why?

OK, let's back off again and get a perspective here:

Hollywood and independent filmmakers put out about 400 movies a year. About half of those are in very limited release. Syndicated film critics get a chance to see only 150 or so broad releases plus about 75 randomly chosen low-budget independents from the entire field. Some films get seen, some don't. So what we've got here are vastly different playing fields from which the "Best" is chosen.

And yet another field: the Academy Award for Best Picture, a choice, you've correctly gathered over the years, which is the result of film studio multi-million-dollar vote-getting campaigns. The 5300 Academy voters, most of whom don't see any more movies in a year than you do, must nominate and vote only upon what's shoved in front of them. No promo, no nomination. And the backgrounds of the voters? Actors sure know acting. Cameramen sure know cinematography. Editors sure know editing. Sound engineers sure know sound. Music directors sure know music. At least we can safely say that the film directors group knows the total art and craft of the motion picture..
Now back to film critics. As with Academy voters with no rules. None.

I used to go on a lot of national press junkets. Got to see the critics' advanced previews, meet the stars, the production personnel. And other film critics. With my own background -- a lifetime photographer, maker of a nature film and several TV commercials, worker at an Augusta, Maine movie studio at all levels of production, ardent student and analyzer of the visual arts -- I felt pretty adequate. Over many years of junkets I got to talk to maybe 100 critics from all over the country. My upfront question to them. Hey, how'd ya get into film reviewing? What had you been doing?
Replies: 30 percent from sportswriting. 30 per cent from live theater. 30 per cent from regular street reporting. 10 per cent: unrelated to writing or film. From film studies or direct filmmaking experience? None.

So how do you judge a movie? From 100 different critics: 100 different answers.

Yet any and all, one must admit, are good writers. That background they have. Solid and totally competent, very schooled in professional journalism. But how they're judging a movie is something else.

Consider "W.," Oliver Stone's film about you-know-who. On a scale of 0 - 100, leading critic Roger Ebert gave it 100. TIME MAGAZINE, on that same scale. gave it a 40, as did the WASHINGTON POST and the NEW YORKER. "Fascinating. No other word for it," pronounced Ebert. But, from TIME, "W." isn't tragedy or farce; it's illustrated journalism." And from the POST, "a rushed, wildly uneven, tonally jumbled caricature." And the NEW YORKER. "Why did Stone make the movie? He doesn't discover anything new."

Now here's an eye-popper: The new film, "State of Play." On that scale of 1 - 100?

THE BALTIMORE SUN and PREMIERE gave it 100. ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY gave it a 91. THE NEW YORK POST? O. Yep, that's zero.

Hey, all of these critics are writers of sharp intellect. There's a lot valid and even admirable in their points. But, see now, this is what bothers me about this kind of criticism as it bears on Mr. & Mrs. Moviegoer's quest for simple entertainment in a movie. Do most filmgoers even care about whether a movie is analyzed as "tragedy or farce?" Or if it's "illustrated journalism"? Or whether it's "jumbled caricature"? Or about discovering anything new?

Or, at the subliminal levels of fascination with a movie, that is, the gut level -- which is ultimately all that matters -- isn't the filmgoer, without describing it in words, more taken up this film's ongoing close-ups of intense faces, gripping you, hauling you, hammering you, into a chilling realization of where this man W., always on the edge of the disabling energy of alcoholism, was taking the country.

In a word, are audiences interested more in substance or delivery? In another word, forget not the ancient adage of show biz, "It ain't the joke; it's the way you tell it."

All the critics agree? Impossible. A movie is a personality too complex in all its appeals for that to happen. So are critics. So are you.