I alway's liked Peter Travers for the Rolling Stone, James Berardanelli, and Rogert Ebert. I prefer Travers the most because his reviews are short and easy to read, and he speaks in common, everyday terms.
06-25-06, 07:33 AM
David Edelstein , Joe Morgenstern (WSJ) and Desson Thomson (Washington Post)
06-25-06, 02:27 PM
Dennis Lim (Village Voice), Scott Foundas (Variety/LA Weekly) and Tony Rayns (Sight and Sound)
06-25-06, 02:29 PM
Three? I guess probably Rosenbaum, Hoberman, and either Dave Kehr or AO Scott.
06-25-06, 03:13 PM
I generally read Roger Ebert, A.O. Scott, and Jonathan Rosenbaum.
06-25-06, 03:56 PM
I read Peter Travers because if he liked a generally poorly reviewed movie, I will like it as well. Roger Ebert I read as well, but that's about it.
I really liked Alexandra DuPont but she doesn't write much anymore. :(
06-25-06, 04:33 PM
I typically decide on whether or not to see a movie based on the reviews of Peter Travers, Roger Ebert, and USA Today (Mike Clark used to be the main reviewer, but now others do it more than him, which is a shame because he was pretty dead on in telling a film's quality for me). If one of those three likes it, I'll give it a shot.
I used to hold Travers in the highest regard but lately he has become very shillish in his reviews, almost like he is just trying to make blurbs for TV spots out of them when he likes the movie. Ones he doesn't like he never really attempts to explain , just goes on and on about how much he loathed it, not why he loathed.
06-25-06, 04:52 PM
I generally like Ebert, but more and more I find that I side with Roeper when the two are at odds about a movie.
I also like to read Robert Wilonsky's reviews (Dallas Observer, Village Voice). He reviews all kinds of movies, including a lot of indie films and other films with very small releases. Overall I tend to agree with his reviews, but I sometimes think he is unfairly biased against big-budget movies.
06-25-06, 10:57 PM
I just go with rottentomatoes if I'm on the fence. If there's a movie I want to see I'll see it.
06-25-06, 11:07 PM
I usually just read Roger Ebert, I've been reading him since I was a kid, so I can tell based on his review whether I'd tend to like it or not (without regard to the actual star rating).
This is pretty much for movies I haven't heard much about or I'm on the fence about....if I made up my mind to see it, no review will keep me from seeing it.
06-25-06, 11:45 PM
I just read Roger ebert, but dont really listen to the reviews though, cause I like alot of movies they dont
06-26-06, 12:43 AM
I never base my movie decisions on critic reviews. I see what I think I might like, or what interests me. But I read James Berardinelli and Elvis Mitchell the most.
06-26-06, 01:12 AM
Anyone ever listen to film review podcasts? Filmspotting (formerly Cinecast) is excellent.
06-26-06, 07:10 AM
I generally only read Ebert and Burr (Boston Globe), then I check Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB to see dissenting opinions.
06-26-06, 04:21 PM
Berardinelli (ReelViews), Burr (Boston Globe), Tobias/Robinson (The Onion) for movies I might want to see.
Ebert for movies I've already seen or want to have spoiled.
06-26-06, 06:26 PM
Jonathan Rosenbaum (Chicago Reader)
David Edelstein (Slate)
Stephanie Zacharek (Salon)
I also like Hoberman and Lim of the Voice), and Charles Taylor (formerly-Salon, now NY Observer).
06-27-06, 12:03 AM
Usually read Ebert. And the critics in the NY Post and NY Daily News, although I don't remember their names.