Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews

[benfranklin]

I like Ebert for his explanation of what he likes and dislikes, and for the fact that he is a true student of movies, and adds context and history to his review.

Another similar but less known reviewer (I believe his reviews are only online) that I like is James Berardinelli. Link.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Zeno, once again, you err. I have that very same book; moreover, I have used his reviews in my writing classes to demonstrate how criteria is first established and then the film is evaluated according to those criteria.



In addition, I did, at one time, subscribe to Sleazoid Express, back when it was a four page black and white newsletter. In grad school I had posted to my office door a headline from Sleazoid Express which read: "Inside! See How They Live! Poor White Trash!"

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm glad it's only once! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

But all that aside, I feel like doing handsprings at your banner headline news. Moreover, this just proves that you are much like me. I hope this make you do handsprings as well.

Your Friend Forever,

-Zeno

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of these writers are really reviewers rather than critics, especially since very few are afforded the space to write real criticism; therefore, of necessity, the reviews tend to follow the formula you have described.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what the distinction between reviewer and critic is. If some re-tells the plot of the movie is he a reviewer, whereas if he offers an opinion he's a critic? That can't be, because "It sucked!" is an opinion and doesn't take any space at all. So is criticism simply a review that is more fully developed?

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of these writers are really reviewers rather than critics, especially since very few are afforded the space to write real criticism; therefore, of necessity, the reviews tend to follow the formula you have described.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what the distinction between reviewer and critic is. If some re-tells the plot of the movie is he a reviewer, whereas if he offers an opinion he's a critic? That can't be, because "It sucked!" is an opinion and doesn't take any space at all. So is criticism simply a review that is more fully developed?

[/ QUOTE ]

a criticism tends to analyze the work, while a review tends to pass judgement. not a great answer, but it's an effective summary.

[GambleGamble]

...whatever movie they hate I go see, because it usally means its stupid and meaningless and that defines me

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of these writers are really reviewers rather than critics, especially since very few are afforded the space to write real criticism; therefore, of necessity, the reviews tend to follow the formula you have described.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what the distinction between reviewer and critic is. If some re-tells the plot of the movie is he a reviewer, whereas if he offers an opinion he's a critic? That can't be, because "It sucked!" is an opinion and doesn't take any space at all. So is criticism simply a review that is more fully developed?

[/ QUOTE ]

a criticism tends to analyze the work, while a review tends to pass judgement. not a great answer, but it's an effective summary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicely put. I'll defer to your analysis...er, judgement....uh...summary.

[MrMon]

Ebert is too generous with some of his reviews, but he has his reasons. That said, I can't but help like a guy who has directed me to more good obscure films than times he has sent me off in the wrong direction. For that, he has my eternal thanks.

[Skip Brutale]

I pretty much always agree with Ebert. We seem to have identital taste in movies.

[KaneKungFu123]

Ebert is great, except when it comes to commedy.