Let's talk film critics and criticism

[Gary]

I though this would be a good starting off point

"Norbit" (at least you know who loved it)

Oh God, I missed that somehow. Can we just go ahead and give this guy his own thread? Not only is he a plain shitty writer who can't follow simple grammar rules, but he also has the most awful opinions ever.

Let's talk about movie critics and movie criticism. You know, ones we like, hate, how good or bad they are, etc. Also, let's not turn this thread into "Let's bitch about Armond White." We can bitch about him some, but don't let the whole thread become that, OK?

 

[Smues]

*bitches about Armond White*

 

[Twisted Intestine]

I don't see the point of critics. Even if you agree with some of their reviews, you won't agree with all of them, so can't really judge weather or not you want to see a movie based on them. I don't like how much thought people put into analyzing movies. I'll watch a movie and if I enjoy it, it's a good movie. If I don't, it's not.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

You're a dumbass, TI...

 

[Smues]

I used to use Ebert to help me decide if I should see a movie. Not based on his star rating, but I was familiar enough with his writing style and his taste in movies to figure out if the movie was for me. Regardless of if he hated it or liked it. But those days are gone, and Ebert is a shell of his former self. I could reference giving 4 stars to Knowing, but instead I'll note that he gave 3 stars and a thumbs up to The Happening, because he liked the idea of the planet fighting back.

Oh and what Kamala said. You don't have to agree with a critic's opinion to use it to figure out if you might like a movie.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

A good critic will try and provoke further discussion about the film rather than merely trying to tell you whether or not, you'll like it. A lot of people have the misconception of critics touting themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what's good and bad which just isn't true nine times out of ten (well hopefully).

 

[alkeiper]

I can't hate Roger Ebert, he wrote my single favorite movie review paragraph ever.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050811/REVIEWS/50725001/1023

But Schneider is correct, and Patrick Goldstein has not yet won a Pulitzer Prize. Therefore, Goldstein is not qualified to complain that Columbia financed "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" while passing on the opportunity to participate in "Million Dollar Baby," "Ray," "The Aviator," "Sideways" and "Finding Neverland." As chance would have it, I have won the Pulitzer Prize, and so I am qualified. Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.

 

[Jingus]

There's a few different critics whose judgement I value. Roger Ebert is the only famous one; really, how many great well-known critics are there? Gene Siskel's dead, Leonard Maltin's reviews are way too short, Richard Roeper is just average, Harry Knowles is a shill, Gene Shalit is a fucking pathetic joke. My favorites are guys much well less known, writers like Ed Gonzalez or Jim Ridley, whose work in various publications can sometimes be unfortunately hard to track down. The only other reviewer I check regularly is a blogger named Tim Brayton, who is actually much better than most professional critics; whether that speaks highly for him or poorly for the industry, who knows.

I don't see the point of critics. Even if you agree with some of their reviews, you won't agree with all of them, so can't really judge weather or not you want to see a movie based on them.

Smues covered some of it. If a critic is good at their job, you can get the feeling of what a movie is like and if you might want to see it, regardless of whether the critic liked it or not. It especially helps if you've read a lot of their stuff and get to know their style and tastes.

Ebert is a shell of his former self. I could reference giving 4 stars to Knowing, but instead I'll note that he gave 3 stars and a thumbs up to The Happening, because he liked the idea of the planet fighting back.

Ebert also gave 3.5 stars to Godfather III, Anaconda, and Phantom Menace. It's not like there haven't always been questionable movies that he falls in love with for whatever reason. Sometimes he's just intrigued by some concept that the movie brings up.

A lot of people have the misconception of critics touting themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what's good and bad which just isn't true nine times out of ten (well hopefully).

And the tenth is Armond White! Hey, neat, it all comes back around.

 

[bps21]

I like Roeper...because he seems to be the only person who either realized or had the nuts to say that LOTR was a boring, shitty movie.

 

[alkeiper]

IMDB.com is great as they have a link for external reviews. Let's you get a quick list from a number of critics without searching.

 

[Jingus]

Just use Rottentomatoes.com if you want that sort of thing, it's a handy-dandy tool for measuring critical consensus.

 

[Byron The Bulb]

Anthony Lane at the New Yorker is my favorite critic working today and the only one I'll read regardless of the movie he's writing about. I also like A.O. Scott, Manohla Dargis and Scott Foundas. I've pretty much stopped paying attention to Ebert.

 

[Gary]

Lane is pretty good, though I always felt Maltin is overrated. Peter Travers (from Rolling Stone) is atrocious though.

 

[strummer]

Ebert lost some credibility when he gave Cop and a Half a thumbs up

Siskel was still breaking his balls about that till the day he died

 

[DARRYLXWF]

Only on the internets could the following argument be taken seriously: "Critic X gave a film that I don't like 3 stars. Therefore, he is a bad film critic."

 

[EHME]

Roger Eberts review of "Diay of a Mad Black Woman" pisses me off.

 

[DrVenkman PhD]

I like the Nostalgia Critic. He remembers movies like "Sidekicks" so I don't have to.

 

[Agent of Oblivion]

Not really a "Critic" in the sense of this thread, but I love Stephen Prince's commentary on many of the Criterion releases of Akira Kurosawa's major classics. Genuinely informative material that really enhances my enjoyment of the movies.

 

[Obi Chris Kenobi]

How do people rate Bob Barron's critiques?

 

[Black Lushus]

I go to Jingus for my movie veiwing decisions!

 

[Incandenza]

Armond White is bad, bad, bad. Ebert keeps a mostly interesting, usually non-film related journal on his Web site, but I can't take his reviews seriously anymore and that has nothing to do with arbitrary star ratings. Manohla Dargis is good. So is Mike D'Angelo. I like Jonathan Rosenbaum, too. Anthony Lane is usually solid, but he's at a loss sometimes when dealing with certain types of films where he'll never let on that he doesn't "get it." (His review of Watchmen, a film I don't blame him for disliking, is a perfect example of this.)

Since I rarely keep up with contemporary movies, I can't think of too many active critics I can say much about. Scott Tobias is one of the very few writers at the AV Club who actually knows his stuff, though his tendency to praise torture porn (both of the American and European variety) is a bit off-putting. Agent mentioned Stephen Prince; true, he isn't a critic in the sense meant for this thread, but his critical analyses of the films of Akira Kurosawa are good stuff. His book-length study on Kurosawa's work, The Warrior's Camera, has been in my to-buy pile for awhile.

 

[Byron The Bulb]

Anthony Lane is usually solid, but he's at a loss sometimes when dealing with certain types of films where he'll never let on that he doesn't "get it." (His review of Watchmen, a film I don't blame him for disliking, is a perfect example of this.)

I read Lane more for the pleasure of reading him than for his cinematic insight. Even when it's obvious that he doesn't "get" something, or when he's just being needlessly mean (cf. his review of the Sex and the City movie), he's still a joy to read. For actual intelligent film criticism, Dargis is probably the best currently working. Her review of Inland Empire is fantastic.

 

[Incandenza]

That Inland Empire piece was so good it made me wish I had seen the same film she had. It's a perfect example of how you don't have to agree with what a person is saying for it be good writing.

 

[Gary]

Scott Tobias is one of the very few writers at the AV Club who actually knows his stuff, though his tendency to praise torture porn (both of the American and European variety) is a bit off-putting.

Nathan Rabin from the AV Club can be hit and miss to me, though I love "My Year Of Flops" most of the time.

A lot of people have the misconception of critics touting themselves as the ultimate arbiters of what's good and bad which just isn't true nine times out of ten (well hopefully).

And the tenth is Armond White! Hey, neat, it all comes back around.

One of the things that amazes/amuses me about White is the sheer contempt he seems to hold. 95% of his reviews contain him not only bitching about film brands and holding grudges against directors, but not so subtle swipes at the movie going public and other movie critics for not loving the same movies he does.

 

[Incandenza]

Armond White credits the Barack Obama presidency to the 1986 C. Thomas Howell movie, Soul Man.

 

[Gary]

Heh, I actually pointed that out in another thread. Gets me every time.

 

[Czech]

Sidebar link: http://www.nypress.com/article-12509-a-white-woman-explains-why-she-prefers-black-men.html

 

[909]

Having seen her picture makes that article incredibly gross.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

Sidebar link: http://www.nypress.com/article-12509-a-white-woman-explains-why-she-prefers-black-men.html

I've got jungle fever, she's got jungle. We've got jungle fever, we're in love. She's gone black boy hazy, I've gone white girl hazy, ain't no thinking maybe we're in love!

 

[Jingus]

One of the things that amazes/amuses me about White is the sheer contempt he seems to hold. 95% of his reviews contain him not only bitching about film brands and holding grudges against directors, but not so subtle swipes at the movie going public and other movie critics for not loving the same movies he does.

I know that being arrogant and mean-spirited is not exactly a new fad in criticism. I dare anyone to sit down and read a whole bunch of Pauline Kael and not wanna go piss on her grave after about twenty pages. But White just takes it to a whole new level with his "if you disagree with me then you're not only objectively wrong, you're also a moron" attitude. Not to mention that he rarely provides actual reasoning or motivation for his opinions; he tends to leave it at "this was excellent" or "this was awful" without ever bothering to explain why he felt that way. And as Gary mentioned, his tendency to go out of his way to take cheapshots at multiple unrelated targets in every single review gets old incredibly fast.