Went to a preview of Honeydripper, a new film directed by John Sayles set in southern USA (Georgia) in the 1950s and based loosely on the transition of blues music to the electric era. Rather enjoyed it, so was surprised that it got a very indifferent review from Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian. Gist: shallow, whimsical, sentimental. Was my judgment that bad? Well, I was greatly relieved to open the Observer on Sunday and find an altogether different reaction from Philip French, doyen of film crits, who very much echoed my view that it was in fact quite a deep and allegorical work. Question: how come two national critics – on sister papers, as it happens, though that’s by the way – can come to two such different conclusions? I suppose it’s possible that two restaurant reviewers might go to the same place, eat the same meal and get the same service, and then write utterly contrasting pieces. But I think it very unlikely. Equally, you wouldn’t find two soccer writers attending the same game and subsequently coming to poles-apart judgments about the entertainment, quality of the football and standard of refereeing. So, assuming Bradshaw did actually see Honeydripper (in full), I’m left to puzzle over the common criteria of reviewers and what kind of training/skillset they have. Can anybody enlighten me?