Favorite movie critics and styles of reviews

[Wynton]

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?

[El Ishmael]

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

[Aloysius]

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

[Peter666]

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.

[pryor15]

[ 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.

[mrbaseball]

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.

[sightless]

www.mrcranky.com

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

[Dominic]

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

[troymclur]

[ 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.

[DrewDevil]

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.