Reviews: isn't it odd...

[sophiamcl]

At the risk of sounding terribly simplistic, how is it that an 
actor's performance can come off so differently to different viewers? 
I have been reading quite a few reviews for PoA(as I mentioned in en 
earlier post)on the net and, as might be expected, some love it, some 
hate it, some are undecided. That's all fine and good, the perception 
of an individual is always a unique blend, so our tastes must differ. 
Yet it amazes me that one critic can call a performance deadly dull 
and another call the same performance brilliant. Are there no 
criteria for what makes a good performance? Does it mean the positive 
review "gets" the performance or that the negative review dispenses 
with the errors that spring from good will? Any takers? I'd love to 
hear what other listees think on this topic.

Also,where most positive reviews proclaim PoA far superior to PS and 
CoS, I was really surprised to find house-hold name movie critic 
Roger Ebert less enthusiastic about this one whereas he apparently 
raised the first two films to the skies...Go figure. I suppose 
ultimately we're all just judging for ourselves...

Sophia