At a recent advanced screening of a film, I was able to have a discussion with a professional film critic from Chicagoland.

One thing he mentioned struck my mind: He hated the movies. Hated them. The last thing he would do in his spare time, he said, was go see a movie. Years and years of uninspired Hollywood dreck had been slowly eating away at this man’s soul, leading to the point where a self-described movie buff had realized he no longer enjoyed taking a trip to the movies.

This got me thinking about criticism – what are the duties and responsibilities of critics? What do they owe filmmakers? What do they owe audiences? Readers? Themselves?

It seemed unfair to me that a director’s work was being critiqued by a man who honestly dreads going to the movies. That’s not to say he hates every film he sees, but he’s become so jaded that he feels walking into a theater is going to be a bad experience.

On the other hand, many other critics seem to lighten up with age.

Perhaps most notable is Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert, a Pulitzer Prize winner who seems to like a lot of films these days.

A popular topic of conversation around the Northern Star newsroom is how Ebert has “gone soft.” Ebert circa 1969 would never give “Garfield: The Movie” three stars, the argument goes. This is a never-ending discussion Ebert himself could perhaps never settle.

Whether you have a predetermined thought about a film before you see it or not, it’s virtually impossible for a critic to remain objective walking into a film. These individuals are bombarded daily by press agents arranging interviews with filmmakers and stars. Putting a human face on Hollywood waste can make even the toughest critic a little more sensitive when writing a review.

I have been a victim of this.

After an in-person interview with actress Mandy Moore, I found myself wanting to like “Chasing Liberty” a lot more than I really did.

It’s a strategy Hollywood uses to develop pre-release buzz. A handful of critics screaming that a movie reeks can be devastating to a movie’s opening weekend, and sending pampered stars on national trips is a common precaution most studios take to ensure sensitive discussion about their films in the press.

Another precaution happens with movies such as the recent romantic comedy “Hitch.”

Instead of being held in the private critic’s screening room in downtown Chicago, the screening other professional critics and I attended was at a public cineplex in the city.

Two rows in the center of the theater were reserved for critics while the other seats were filled with the demographic the movie was targeted toward – 18- to 35-year-old young couples.

The movie’s flashy trailer is aimed at these individuals and receives a groan from most critics. Not one critic I spoke with before the film was looking forward to it, and each and every regular audience member I spoke with was.

This is what I refer to as Hollywood’s “Sandwich Strategy.” If you bombard a group of cynical critics with audience members in front and in back, they will be forced to hear the roaring laughter coming from the audience. They will cock their heads in disbelief as the audience laughs at the film’s cliché misunderstandings, and the audience will shrug back when the critics laugh at Will Smith’s heartfelt speech in the film’s conclusion.

The exposure to the laughing audience is supposed to sway critics into liking a film, a trick that studios use to develop buzz. Excluding the real, thought-provoking musings by critics such as Ebert, many movie reviews are molded by Hollywood suits.

The thoughts of the critic used to be so respected that they were invited into editing suites to comment on movies currently in production. Today it seems Hollywood is trying to figure out a way to bypass the critic altogether.

Much has changed in the marketing and publicity surrounding Hollywood.

For that, I don’t blame my fellow critic for despising the movies – I just cross my fingers that it never happens to me.

I can only hope I grow into a jolly old man who can enjoy even the most critically-panned movies.

And being able to watch “Garfield” without throwing something wouldn’t be so bad, either.