Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

I find that there are few different types of movie critics. Some will mechanically summarize the plot and provide kind of a cookie-cutter analysis. Some will use the movie as an excuse to pontificate about broader sociological themes.

Most of the time, I prefer a critic who will give me some sense of the genre (or, if no clear category exists, compare the style to another movie) and some details about the quality of the performance, writing and directing. But I try my best to avoid reviews that reveal too many details about the plot. If I've seen the movie already, I'm interested in very in-depth discussions, but usually that is not the situation.

Do you all have any favorite critics? And are there any critics that you trust particularly and find especially reliable?

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

He's amusing and not snobbish, which is cool. But not that reliable. Hasn't done a single review in 7 years.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4714/siskel6um.jpg

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

Wynton - I prefer in-depth criticism that dissects the movie and adds some insight / social commentary whatever. These tend to be more a polemic than a review, not necessarily comign with a strong "yay or nay" recommendation (though you obviously get a sense of whether or not the critic enjoyed the movie).

Writers who write this type of review, and I think are good, include Stanley Kauffman (New Republic), Anthony Lane (New Yorker), Joe Morgenstern (WSJ), and Janet Maslin when she was at the NY Times.

I usually don't pay attention to film critics, and go on recs from friends or my own level of interest in the movie, when deciding whether or not to go see it.

I've noticed though that my tastes are similar to Lisa Schwarzbaum (EWeekly), Kenneth Turran (LA Times) and both J. Hoberman and Dennis Lim (Village Voice).

And I try to avoid reading / can't stand movie reviews from David Denby (New Yorker) and A.O. Scott (NY Times, donno if he's still there or not).

-Al

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

I find the Leonard Maltin yearly movie guide to be the best. Once you get a feel for what the stars mean, it is the most consistent guide of them all, and contains the most movies by far.

Robert Ebert's reviews can be rather strange sometimes, but I like his sidekick.

Also, I hate long reviews until after I see the movie. They just give away to much information. The Leonard Maltin guide explains all you need to know in a couple sentences.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the time, I prefer a critic who will give me some sense of the genre (or, if no clear category exists, compare the style to another movie)

[/ QUOTE ]

The inherent problem with these critics (at least, according to me) is that unless done insanely well (which would be almost never) it tends toward a very lazy form of criticism that's little more than name-droping and plugging stuff into a formula. like,

Movie X, which opens this Friday, is a horror movie of the highest level, a cross between Rosemary's Baby and Hostel, a terrifying thrill ride featuring a splendid performance by Actor B.

If you as me, the difference between that and a review that mostly summarizes the plot is pretty small. Basically they do much of the same thing, just in different ways. It's fine for a sort of mass-consumption approach that lets people see at a glance if they want to see it, but it isn't really film criticism, just a slightly more elaborate version of asking your buddy if the movie he saw last night was any good.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

There used to be (may still be there?) a movie review show with Jeffery Lyons and Michael Medved. Anyway years ago they were reviewing a movie called "Little Dorrit" which was some sort of Victorian period piece (Dickens) and was 8 hours long. Medved gushed and gushed and gushed. When he was done Lyons said "the reason people hate movie critics is because they recommend films like Little Dorrit". He won me over right there [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] And no I never watched Little Dorrit.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

www.mrcranky.com

http://www.the-editing-room.com/

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

while i don't always agree with his reviews, I really like the way Roger Ebert writes.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

[ QUOTE ]
while i don't always agree with his reviews, I really like the way Roger Ebert writes.

[/ QUOTE ]

As do I. At the very least, when i think he's flat out wrong i can still say that i understand where he's comming from; which is something that can't be said about almost any other reviewer who one would disagree with. Plus he has a nice sense of humor and doesn't mind enjoying a movie for what it is.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

Another vote for Ebert; he is somewhat overexposed with the TV show, but I always read his reviews online.

He often says that he reviews movies based on how successfully the director/crew accomplished what they were trying to accomplish, not how he thinks they should have made the movie. I think that is an excellent standard.

He can also be very funny when he rips into a bad movie.

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).

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

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.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

[ 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

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

[ 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?

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

[ 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.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

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

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

[ 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.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

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.

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

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

Re: Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews
 

Ebert is great, except when it comes to commedy.