Which Film Critics Do You Follow/Respect/Dislike?

[Al Padrino]

Title says it all. I thought it could be interesting since there's such a love/hate contrast that often goes on when more than a couple personalities discuss something like film critics.

[Dudikoff]

I'll be the first to admit that I like Ebert. I like him because he's a fan of movies more than a critic, so he likes almost anything. I'm not sure if this is good because he's supposed to be critical. Even so, I can relate to him more because of this.

[jaeufraser]

I enjoy Ebert, because he's a great writer and I enjoy reading his stuff. Otherwise, I don't really follow any critics, though having read a few Harry Knowles reviews, I can say he is a terrible writer.

[Sessa17]

Years ago when I was first really getting into film, it was Ebert. He really had the purest love of film & unlike any other of his peers he was never afraid to throw his support on an off-beat or revolutionary film, that most of the critic majority was against. Now however he is nothing more than a typical bias pawn as are all film critics so I don't pay any attention to them as I really wish the general public would do the same.

[Third Baseman]

I don't really care that much for critic opinions. Meaning, I don't let it stop me from watching a movie, though, alot of times, it helps me find new movies I haven't heard of. But, I do follow James Berardinelli, mainly because his site is easy to keep track of, and he updates it constantly.

[Cygnet74]

i don't read any critics in particular. although, if I hear that Ebert gave a good review to something i'm interested in, I'll read his column. he usually offers an intelligent insight on the film. usually.

[Eplicon]

When they were a team, any time Siskel & Ebert gave it the proverbial "two thumbs up" was usually the only recommendation I needed to a see film. Ebert has lost some of his touch in recent years, however. A few years ago when Harry Knowles was a guest critic on the show, it was sorta fun. The only problem was there wasn't any contrast. They agreed and disagreed on exactly the same points.

My least favorite was Pauline Kael. She was very literate in her film vocabulary, but damn -- she had to nitpick everything to death as for why she didn't like the movie.

[Terrell]

But, I do follow James Berardinelli, mainly because his site is easy to keep track of, and he updates it constantly.

Ditto! Plus I find myself agreeing with him quite consistently.

[Libby]

I like Ebert. Hes the only critic I feel I can really relate to. If He gives it the thumbs up approval Im likely to go and see the movie. I'm not really a fan of Leonard Maltin.

[Cameron]

I think Maltin has done some great research. Ebert has done some good stuff, and I pick up most of his books.

also check out this thread about What film critic has done the most for the preservation of the cinema (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=407477)

I was looking for some other reccomendations

[Shannon Nutt]

I enjoy Ebert, because he's a great writer and I enjoy reading his stuff. Otherwise, I don't really follow any critics, though having read a few Harry Knowles reviews, I can say he is a terrible writer.

I agree with you 100% on both counts. Never could understand why Ebert gets so much blacklash - you may not always agree with him, but he's far and away the best film critic out there.

[Chew]

Another vote for Ebert. I think it's actually his commentaries that sold me on his skills more than anything.

But, there are many things I don't like about him. His consistency for one thing. The very ideas he loves about one movie seems to be what hates about another.

[jfoobar]

I read Ebert and Berardinelli, but I only take Berardinelli's opinion seriously. Gene Siskel and I saw pretty eye-to-eye on most films when he was alive.

[troystiffler]

I like Ebert. He knows good movies. He's a film buff, not some art-house coffee drinking critic. He always writes his stuff with clearly stated points of like and dislike. He can clearly articulate, where-as most reviewers can only say "this movie is really really really ... good".

Jeeze,I hate those guys. You know, the guys that enjoy putting down good entertainment, and only seem to respond to the to the new indie international film that played at some festival that nobody gives a shit about. I'm glad I got over that stage of my life when I turned 20 or so. Because I wasted my time on A LOT of moviese that clearly deserved their limited 100-screen releases. As a daydream filmmaker, it's really inspirational to know that *good* movies and *good* scripts *do* get made and widely distributed.

And he's really funny on Conan O'Brien. And the fact that he is on Conan O'Brien takes him up a few steps.

Thanks for listening.

[Giles]

I can easily tell you who I don't like - locally, Arch Campbell from NBC's Channel 4 has got the most bland unimaginative taste in films - my complete loss of faith was when he gave three stars to Van Helsing and gave one star to the internationally acclaimed Russian film The Return - the man is a complete sucker for Hollywood dreck.

I generally like Variety's Eddie Cockrell - who incidently lives here in the DC area.

[Groucho]

I like reading Ebert's reviews, and watch his show religiously, even though I don't always agree with their opinions. The mark of a good critic is one where you can tell if you'll like a movie or not from their reviews REGARDLESS of whether they are panning it or praising it.

The only critic I truly disrespect is Owen Gleiberman. O Brother Where Art Thou the worst movie of the year? COME ON!

[joeydaninja]

I read David Edelstein, Desson Thomson and Joe Morgenstern

[wendersfan]

I can honestly answer Jonathan Rosenbaum to all three - I follow him, respect him, <i> and</i> dislike him...

He's a very good writer that reviews films I might not otherwise hear about, but he can be a real asshole and has an unfortunate tendency to badmouth other critics.

[Dr. DVD]

I used to follow and trust Mike Clark, Roger Ebert, and Peter Travers.

However, Clark seldom does reviews anymore, Ebert is getting less dependable, and Travers comes off like a shill half the time nowadays.
I gotten to the point where I just go to rottentomatoes.com and see if most people ratie it fresh or rotten and then make up my mind if I'm on the fence about the movie.

[scott shelton]

There are great online critics out there too. Those guys get shit on quite a bit - most for good reason - but for AAA ball, some of those people have the skills.

[scott shelton]

and Travers comes off like a shill half the time nowadays.

I'm shocked that anyone would take Travers seriously.

[tommyp007]

I read and respect Ebert and Maltin. I can't stand Michael Medved.

[wendersfan]

I'm shocked that anyone would take Travers seriously.Me too.

[William Fuld]

Title says it all. I thought it could be interesting since there's such a love/hate contrast that often goes on when more than a couple personalities discuss something like film critics.

There won't be much of a discussion because most people here don't read anyone other than Ebert.

[Dr. DVD]

I'm shocked that anyone would take Travers seriously.



That's why I stated I used to trust him. Nowadays I just have to take his reviews with a grain of salt.

In all honesty, I think that both he and USA Today's Mike Clark are guilty of shilling for the ones by filmmakers they like as opposed to an open mind for everything. Clark seems to have a major hard-on for Martin Scorsese as he has consistently given they man four stars on every movie he makes. Travers seems to suffer the same problem as well, though he didn't shill Aviator like GONY, which really tells you something. ;)

[AGuyNamedMike]

Another Ebert fan here. He's a talented writer (so much so that frequently his review is the most entertaining aspect of a film) and you can see his love of the artform and it's heritage in most reviews. A small part of my cinema library is Ebert-penned. I don't base my viewing choices on his recommendations (I have some odd tastes and watch pretty much whatever comes down the pike), but I do go back to him again and again for insights into films I've already seen.

[Shannon Nutt]

I read and respect Ebert and Maltin. I can't stand Michael Medved.

Medved used to be a decent enough critic when he and Jeffrey Lyons did "Sneak Previews" on PBS (they replaced Siskel & Ebert when they went syndicated), but now he seems like a shill for the right wing Christian groups...somewhere along the way he lost his objectivity in reviewing film.

[Rogue588]

I enjoyed Siskel [RIP] & Ebert since I first saw them reviewing Flash Gordon on PBS. However, I really didn't care what they said about the movie, I just loved watching 'em bicker.

That said, I could care less what critics have to say. I do enjoy the snarky, humourous reviews, though. But, unless it's regarding PQ or audio quality, i'm not too interested.

[tasha99]

The thing I like about Ebert is the way he is willing to accept films for what they are. Many critics will only openly praise arty farty independant films, but Ebert is willing watch horror and comic book movies and say, "Hey, I like this cheese." Also, his reviews are entertaining--often more so than the movies he's evaluating.

[Groucho]

I've actually met Michael Medved. He's a smart guy, very friendly as well. Years and years ago he wrote a book with his brother about the world's worst movies. They were the first to declare Plan 9 From Outer Space as the worst movie of all time, and brought attention to it.

When I talked to him, Medved had two theories about "adult material" in films:

1. That Hollywood would make more money if they made more PG rated movies instead of R rated movies. This was when filmmakers would throw in an obligatory boobie shot or swear just to bump a film to an R.

I agreed with him on this. So does Hollywood, and the trend is now to edit movies down for a lower rating (something that infuriates this forum).

2. That Hollywood had an "agenda" in including this material, that they want to expose our children to it, and that there was rarely any good reason to have it in a film. This is where he stops making sense and his theories sound more like rants.

[Terrell]

The thing I like about Ebert is the way he is willing to accept films for what they are.

but Ebert is willing watch horror and comic book movies and say, "Hey, I like this cheese."

If he's going to do that though, he needs a little more consistency. Case in point. He gave great reviews to both Tomb Raider movies. The general consensus was both films were stupid and awful. Well, Roeper challenged him on the show one day and said the only reason he gave those films great reviews was because he was smitten with Angelina Jolie prancing around in skimpy outfits, to which Ebert replied, "what's wrong with that." He then went on to say that you can't take these films seriously. You have to turn your brain off and enjoy the ride.

I notice Ebert doesn't use that logic with all of the other brainless action films, many of which are better than Tomb Raider. All I ask is for a little consistency. Besides, I can't take Ebert too seriously anymore when he admits to giving a film a great review because he's smitten with the actress. The old Ebert would have never done that.

Ebert is a great writer, no doubt. He also knows film history and film in general. He used to be a critic I held in high regard. But when Siskel died, who was the better critic;), he dropped a few notches on the critic meter. Just my thoughts.

[Perkinsun Dzees]

I think Gene Shalit and Joel Siegel are probably the two most trustworthy film critics with Larry King a close third.

Printwise I would have to go with Armond White. He's usually a very fair and insightful critic.

[alessandro]

J. Hoberman / Village Voice

[Movies-2-Go]

Overall their are two critics I enjoy reading: Ebert and Maltin. More so, Maltin only for the fact, I have listened to him for years. Not that I agree with everything either have said. But I know from both of them where we agree and where our opinions differ so based on thier reviews I can determine if I'll like it or not or whether I might "Waiver on the fence a bit."

[starseed1981]

Another vote for Ebert. I also respect Elvis Mitchell (former NY times, now consultant), Jack Matthews (former newsday), Kenneth Turan (LA Times) and Jeffery Wells (hollywood-elsewhere.com).

I can't stand Manhola (or whatever the hell her name is) from the LA times and Shaun Edwards(fox tv....loves everything).

[Giantrobo]

I judge my own movies. Only "I" can tell when "my" money and time was well spent or wasted on a movie. However, I will listen to what Roger Ebert has to say about stuff. I've got respect for him because he seems to actually know about movie making and he seems to love the artform. Some other "film critics" seem to just do it for the cash. Sam Rubin comes to mind. :lol: After Ebert Leonard Maltin comes in next mostly because Gene Siskel "gave up the ghost".

[Dr. DVD]

Ebert is not too consistent IMO. He didn't seem to care for the first Spider-Man, but loved the second one, even placing it on his year end top ten list. On the other hand, he gave a good review to SW:TPM, but didn't like SW:AOTC, and bashed AOTC for the same things which he praised TPM.

[scott shelton]

I also respect Elvis Mitchell (former NY times, now consultant),


Elvis moderated a Q&A with Spike Lee that I attended years back. He spent most of the evening talking. I've loathed him ever since.

But he did like POOTIE TANG, one of two critics I believe. That's a good way to redeem himself in my eyes.

[cfloyd3]

I do like Roger Ebert in some aspects he does write well I think (and praises Herzog as a great director, that is a plus to me)

Also, I agree with the guy about Jonathan Rosenbaum, I like him and hate him at the same time. He says alot and I disagree some with the things he says that are over the top. That said he loves Jim Jarmusch (my favorite director) so it makes me compelled to read him.

[dhmac]

If he's going to do that though, he needs a little more consistency. Case in point. He gave great reviews to both Tomb Raider movies. The general consensus was both films were stupid and awful.

Ebert has never been very reliable for action-based Summer Movies because he usually likes them when they are as cheesy as hell, but usually doesn't like them when they are more serious in nature. So over-the-top cheese-fests, like the Tomb Raider movies and Van Helsing, usually get positive reviews from Ebert, while Summer Movies that take themselves seriously, like the first X-Men and the first Spider-Man, usually get negative reviews from him.

[Original Desmond]

I respect the only critic who counts, ME !!!!!!

[Terrell]

On the other hand, he gave a good review to SW:TPM, but didn't like SW:AOTC, and bashed AOTC for the same things which he praised TPM.

I don't mind that. His opinion is inconsistent. But the bigger problem for me comes in his logic, or lack thereof. He praises aspects of TPM that AOTC also has in spades. But AOTC has the same problems, yet he basically ignored them with TPM and concentrated on them in AOTC.

Personally, his review for AOTC sounded more like a rant against digital filmmaking.

It's not his opinions, it's his logic from film to film that is even more inconsistent and out of whack. His Spider-Man review is another review where his lack of logic defies belief.