Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

1.P.K.---(the best of the best)
2.G.S.--(RIP)
3.Ebert--(is way to forgiving...but understands film an writes well.)

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

I don't mind Ebert's writing, but I frequently disagree with him. Mostly, I think that he is far too generous with his praise.

On the other hand, I think that Leonard Maltin is very good and reliable at answering the most basic question: is the movie worth seeing?

Generally, I approve of the NYT writers, though they all have their own quirky biases.

I used to love reading Pauline Kael, but only after I saw the movie. I frequently disagreed with her too, but her writing was usually pretty interesting.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

Joe Bob Briggs, aka John Bloom, had a movie-review collumn in the Dallas paper 25 years ago. It was called Joe Bob Goes to the Drive-in. He was fired for being politically incorrect. Luckily, his stuff is on the internet. Here are samples:

Killer Sex Queen from Cyberspace

la femme nikita

A critic's job is to tell you whether or not you want to spend the time and money on a flick. Joe Bob does this admirably. Phat mack says check it out.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

Michael Medved with his Hollywood-against-the-Christians rants may be the worst movie reviewer in America. Lyons is a Red Sox fan, which is good enough for me.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

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. Anthony Lane is enjoyable because he has a bit more space--and he's also a very good writer. His book, Nobody's Perfect, has a collection of reviews and some longer pieces about various subjuects. I really liked his look at Jacques Tati. Pauline Kael was also given the room to write.

Picture expressing your personality in full in a personal ad. Most of us couldn't do it in an essay; now try it in two lines. (Actually, Joe Bob Briggs has a good one: "Like long walks on the beach? Well, then, take a hike.")

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

I have always really liked Roger Ebert because I think he's a good writer and more importantly, he understands his job as a critic. He avoids pretension by evaluating films for moviegoers, not by ripping them apart.

I think anyone who has seen a ton of movies eventually starts only liking one in ten, and I'm sure the same is true with Ebert, but who wants to read about that?

Too many critics are just way too hard to please, and with Ebert, I have actually agreed with several of his darkhorse "suck picks" like gladiator.

*I actually have an autrograph of Gene siskel and another of Ebert and Roeper hanging in my room.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

Here's what I look for in movie reviews:

<ul type="square">[*]Easy to find.[*]A somewhat clear distinction between opinion and actual detail. It's easy to use a word like "horrible" and [*]A sense for what the movie will be about.[*]A reviewer that would basically disagree with me about everything, and find importance in what I discount as utterly useless.[/list]
The last part seems stupid, but I find it easier to watch a movie, and then think back to contrary opinions to see things (themes, angle choices, lens filters) in the film that I might miss or disregard on my own. It's like having a "no man" instead of a "yes man" working for you.

I think pryor does a good job, since the reviews are long enough that he can't help but give me enough detail between his own opinions, and I disagree with him at least half the time. Oh, and his reviews are easy to find.

~D

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

[ QUOTE ]
Joe Bob Briggs, aka John Bloom, had a movie-review collumn in the Dallas paper 25 years ago. It was called Joe Bob Goes to the Drive-in. He was fired for being politically incorrect. Luckily, his stuff is on the internet. Here are samples:

Killer Sex Queen from Cyberspace

la femme nikita

A critic's job is to tell you whether or not you want to spend the time and money on a flick. Joe Bob does this admirably. Phat mack says check it out.

[/ QUOTE ]


I used to have a book that was a collection of that column with the same title I think. It was a paperback book and fell apart long ago. I agree with your comments and add my recommendation for Joe Bob Briggs. He rules in buckets of blood.

Warning: Not for the John Cole types. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

-Zeno

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

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!"

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

If I am really looking for serious film criticism, I always look first for Stanley Kauffmann's reviews (New Republic). He is not as accessible as most critics, and definitely does not write for a general audience, but for serious students of film, there is no one better....

For general takes, I usually go to IMDB's "external reviews", and often check out Roger Ebert, David Edelstein (Slate), Stephanie Zacharek (Salon), and a random sampling from the lists...

I also like a local alt.press critic, just because I regularly read him, and have a sense of his tastes (and can "read between the lines" to sense my own response): Devin O'Leary ( The Weekly Alibi, Albuquerque).