Movie Critics


Beware the Moon
The best thing to do is find a critic who has similar taste to yourself.
Look at their reviews of some of your favourite films to gauge what they are in to and then you will have an idea as to their taste in movies.

Some of the "mainstream" reviewers are sanctimonious cretins paid by the movie studios to say the "right things". The less said about Ebert I think the better.
Mostly Harmless! - Logan & Glitz's Movie & Cult Pages.

Now With Moveable Parts
That's good advice.

Ebert hands down. Schallit seems to likes everything, maybe NBC says, "we want them all to buy air time on NBC, so be nice!"
I used to like Siskel more because he criticised a movie on whether it was able to establish and carry an emotional state to the viewer, and Ebert was more critical on the technical aspects of the film developement. Since Siskel died though, Ebert has changed and taken on the further understanding of why we go to movies in the first place. We(I) want to feel something. I don't really care much for Roeper, he seems smug. I don't believe there is a more intelligent critic than Ebert either. I agree with him more often than not. I'll go see a movie, think about it, and then read his review. At first I was unhappy with his LotR review, but then I reread the trilogy and understood what he meant. It was always a Hobbits tale, and the movie really didn't have that feel, and where is Tom Bombadill? Plus they added the Liv Tyler character which didn't need to be in there, except her absolutely beautiful face is quite a draw in a trailer. Just remember, Roeper hated it!

Pfft. Tom Bombadil. A disgusting stain on the tapestry that is LOTR. I know of Tolkien's reasoning behind the character and all that, but I never, ever, ever liked all. I'm very, VERY glad that he didn't make an appearance in the film.

As for Tyler: I'm glad the role of Arwen was expanded. I'd never fully understood why Tolkien's was so light on that romantic angle. He bothered to make the two of them lovers, but skimped on all details of their romance. I suppose he didn't think it prudent for what he was hoping would become some sort of modern-day mythology.

And the Hobbits? Call me crazy, but I think the focus of the movie WAS on them. They dominate the first hour or so of the film, and they play a significant role in basically every scene, with very few exceptions. Just my opinion.

And yeah, Roeper IS smug. It's not just you. I don't like him.

Originally posted by bigvalbowski
Anyone else notice how Ebert is very much breast-fixated. The man wrote scripts for Russ Meyer for heaven's sake, and he hasn't lost it. He hated everything that Lynch ever made until Mulholland Dr. (Anything to do with the big busted leading ladies, Roger?). And the man gave Tomb Raider 3 stars. I wonder why?
Yeah, I heard that movie got TWO BOOBS UP!

The Mad Prophet of the Movie Forums
Originally Posted by Yoda
And yeah, Roeper IS smug. It's not just you. I don't like him.
Forgive me for bringing back a REALLY old topic. I like Roeper. Not his reviews or his opinions, but he's a very (unintentionally) funny guy. I declare a holiday each time he gets into a fight with Ebert (who, for me as well, is the only critic I really read on a general basis.)

I read Peter Travers occasionally, though I find him to be WAY too hard on movies in general. It takes a lot in a very specific area to please the guy, and, while I respect that to a degree, I all but completely disagree with his often snobbish perception of film.

As tough as Travers is, however, by far the most pretentious snob I can think of is A. O. Scott of The New York Times. I cannot stand him!!! Such a jerk when it comes to movies...I mean, you'd think you'd want someone that completely loves film to review for you, not some punk with an incredibly narrow scope on the pleasures of film. I almost feel sorry for him...but he's not worth pity.

The reviews on this site are pretty darn good (and you get a wide variety of views), and I can just about always find something cool on Ain't it Cool News.
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

my top critic is ebert,however i can't always trust him so i usually hit and it gives averages from all critics there and really tells you if the movie is good or not.mixed reviews there give really bad averages so 40 or above is alright 70 is a hit.But i absolutely never disagree with the reviews at but those are just for DVD's.Except for ign's review of Kill Bill that just pissed me off.

I am half agony, half hope.
I like Roger Ebert. You can tell he really digs movies, and his feelings mirror mine pretty closely.

My friend swears by EW, but I would have missed some films I really enjoyed if I'd listened to her telling me that it was, 'only given a C', and hadn't gone to see it.
If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise.

Johann von Goethe

Will your system be alright, when you dream of home tonight?

I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.
Originally Posted by Yoda
If I were buying a laser gun I'd definitely take the XF-3800 before I took the "Pew Pew Pew Fun Gun."

.....doesn't know what to put here!
I don't think i share any movie tastes with critics, i have awful taste lol

Pauline Kael was always my favourite reviewer of movies. She never, ever stuck to the middle ground. She either uncontrollably adored a film, or violently hated it. And that's what a good reviewer should be, passionate. Try to check out some of her earlier reviews. Absolutely biting.
I agree--Pauline Kael was in a class by herself. A really good writer and she knew a lot about film.

I think most critics are too easy on films, actors, and directors in their reviews. Some of them have never seen a movie they didn't like. However, I enjoy it when they really chop a film or a performance in a witty review that totally leaves the victims speechless. I remember reading one once that just gutted a movie in only one sentence--don't remember the film or what the review said now, but it was hilarious at the time.

My best rule of thumb for picking films, however, is how many under-30-somethings I hear praising the movie. The more people in early age groups that like it, the less I want to see it--unless it's something I'm wanting to take my pre-teen grandkids to.

This has proved wrong only one time--everybody was raving about Midnight Cowboy, so I figured it would be gawd-awful. Turned out I liked it, too.

You're a Genius all the time
Generally, I try not to read too many reviews before seeing a movie. But if it's something I'm on the fence about, I might check the Onion AV Club first. Their writers are intelligent, articulate and funny as all hell. And, unlike most professional critics, they have tremendous taste in film.

There's a solid reason why Roger Ebert has become synonymous with film reviews, even TV spots, etc. He's been on the front page of this form of media for many, many years, and it's likely due to the nature (presentation) of his arguments. Not only does passion participate highly within his points of view, but there's always been a sense of American dad about him, don't you think? He's never privileged himself to the fancies of film-making stardom (although one could certainly insist, just by noticing his vast opportunities in Hollywood, that this sort of thing happened for him accidentally). He was certainly awarded celebrity, but not through the sacrifice of literal or informative charisma.

I think we're sort of losing a large part of what film has stood for in the last 30 years, at least. Roger Ebert brought a trademark to this game. He was entitled to speak on behalf of what most movie-goers considered a fun time, cinematically, and still today, no one's as nearly famous as what he's finally represented as bringing to the fan's attention. He is the genuine, American film critic who has stood the test of numerous, periodical opinions.
"Pork the pain past the point of pleasure; pen piss on a pink paw, for peace pours plain."

Sir Sean Connery's love-child
We used to have the legend that was Barry Norman over here, but sadly these days we are left with sicophant Jonathon Ross, a complete tosser who wouldn't know a good film if it hit him in the mouth.
Mark Kermode on Radio One can be ok, but I generally feel that you have to make your own mind up, by all means read the reviews, but remember one man's art is another man's trash!!!
Hey Pepe, would you say I have a plethora of presents?

Toga, toga, toga......

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?

.....doesn't know what to put here!
A film critic is one of the jobs i want to do when i leave school.
I'd also like to make a film (most likely comedy) and see how it goes, using the least amount of money possible

I read a bunch of Pauline Kael reviews. She was often very funny but I would read her reviews more for the funny/mean things she would say than what she actually had to say about movies. In a similar vein I often find Anthony Lane's reviews funny but don't read him too much because he can also be completely off sometimes, more focused on playing-out a generalized clever film critic attitude than engaging the actual movie. That's okay too (perhaps even inevitable) but if these guys are getting paid to write their reviews I expect them to take movies seriously to some extent. That's why I like Stanley Kauffmann. He often seems completely off to me too, but never as lazy as most other (even highly respected) reviewers at their worst, such as Anthony Lane's review of Sin City (a movie I don't even like that much either, but his review actually made me skeptical that he even watched it). Kauffmann's review of Branagh's Hamlet was a high point of film criticism and he sometimes would slip some strange whimsy in at the end of his reviews, like this bit from the end of his review of Jaws 2:

The only question that, for me, interfered with the crude chills of the film may bother others as well: Wouldn't all these people on the screen have seen the first Jaws? Wouldn't they know that they were living through a -- to them -- real-life remake of a smash-hit picture? Wouldn't these island visitors recognize Scheider and Hamilton?

If there's going to be a Jaws 3, why not let Fellini do it? First, he loves the sea: it's a presence in many of his films. But, more important, he could interweave the new "facts" with another dimension: the characters could be living in-and-out of a sense of destiny and dream, a sense that they were fulfilling fates that they had seen in films. Even the third shark might remember the sounds of the first two films and have the added motive of vengeance.
Funny because it's kind of prescient about Jaws 4: The Revenge (which wasn't very good).