Movie critics
 

Wow this dynamic has changed in 15 years, as much as it did 10 years ago. Even more 5 years ago.

Growing up I wanted to make movies...but I was realistic. I wasn't going to be Spielberg. I should have kept with it, maybe I could have been a Gareth Edwards or something. Let's be honest, I'd probably be a fucking dolly-cam operator and not get any higher than that.

I shifted over to wanting to be a critic. I wanted to watch movies and make my recommendations. I wanted to be Ebert. I hated English class and writing essays. Although in high school we had to write a 10 page essay of the biggest event 1900-1999 in American History. It was 30% JFK, 25% MLK, and 3% the release of Night of the Living Dead. I went to a newspaper and spoke to my local movie critic (early 2000s) and fuck he was miserable. Turned me off from the whole thing.

I wish I stuck with something. But let's talk critics. What do you guys use? These days I just make up my mind with a trailer. If I'm iffy on it, I use a reddit poll lol. Every time a movie comes out, hundreds of people will vote on the poll and usually it's a good garage to me.

Ever since Ebert died, I stopped trusting one source. Fuck these YouTube/social media reviewers. What Ebert had, was a love for movies. We didn't agree on everything, but his passion was there. I don't get that with these people anymore. Now it's all about views and scoops.

I miss it.

Also I'm drunk and this showed up on my Facebook memories today:

"At this point in my life, in addition to writing about movies, I may write about what it's like to cope with health challenges and the limitations they can force upon you. It really stinks that the cancer has returned and that I have spent too many days in the hospital. So on bad days I may write about the vulnerability that accompanies illness. On good days, I may wax ecstatic about a movie so good it transports me beyond illness.

I'll see you at the movies." Roger ebert. April 2, 2013

Re: Movie critics
 

I think many have stopped trusting people regarded as professional movie critics because they just have it in their mindset that if they like or give too many positive reviews, they are paid off studio shill out to get red carpet premiere invitations or freebies. If it’s someone who is more critical and gives a lot of negative reviews, they’re some uptight out of touch hater. So I don’t think many care for critics reviews anymore. I think a lot of critics get annoyed by this.

I read a few here and there, but I personally don’t regard anyone is my trusted critics.

Re: Movie critics
 

Yep. I gave up on critics after Ebert died. I tried to follow a couple (Richard Roeper and Christy Lemire) but neither really stuck. I visit Rogerebert.com occasionally but most of those reviews don’t really follow my personal taste in movies.

Nowadays, I make up my mind based on the trailer and maybe a quick hop over to see the rotten tomatoes score (if I’m feeling wild I’ll scan through some of the quick blurbs).

Thanks to free* streaming, I’m far more willing to take risks on movies Now than I was in the past.



* Not free but you know what I mean.

Re: Movie critics
 

I never thought I'd miss S&E as much as I do. They just had a special rapport that's so hard to replicate. Roeper was a serviceable replacement for Siskel, but then Ebert had to go and get cancer too.:(

When I'm deciding whether or not to watch a movie, I no longer rely on any particular critic, as I did when S&E were still alive and on the tube. I gauge whether the subject matter interests me and then take a look at the overall critical reception. It's an imperfect science.

Re: Movie critics
 

I will always internally aggregate a handful of reviews. I look for ways to understand where the individual critics are coming from and relate those viewpoints to my own. It's quite often that negative reviews will be translated into a recommendation for me, based on this. That said, I still find Owen Gleiberman to be reliable.

Re: Movie critics
 

I watch whatever I want but I do read some reviews after I watch a movie to see how it was perceived by the critics.

Re: Movie critics
 

At some point in every avid moviegoer's life they stop paying attention to critics. No one knows your tastes like you do and the gatekeeping critics tend to provide gets less and less relevant as you grow older.

Outside a few small niches a critic may pick up the average moviegoer may overlook, their role has been diminished by the Internet's pervasive blanket coverage of all things film and press.

Re: Movie critics
 

I subscribe to a movie magazine, but more for inspiration so I don't overlook something that could be of interest, but even if critics slam a movie I want to see, I go in open minded.

Re: Movie critics
 

There are no current critics/reviewers I have any use for. I spend a lot of time reading reviews from long ago in books collecting others' film reviews. I have three Pauline Kael collections (1960s), one by James Agee (1940s), one by Otis Ferguson (1930s), one by Graham Greene (1930s), and a few other anthologies of film reviews across the decades. I love Kael. I appreciate her now more than I ever did (and I always did). Especially when she reviews bad movies. She clearly takes them just as seriously as she did the Altman movies she praised to high heaven and she's so spot on about what makes them bad. I chiefly re-read these reviews because they're so well-written. The only critic in recent decades who I consider on their level--as both a writer and commentator--is J. Hoberman. He wrote a trilogy of books on political currents in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s-80s and the films that came out amidst major events (the Korean War, A-bomb tests, Vietnam, Watergate, Reagan's election, etc.) and I re-read portions of those a lot.

Re: Movie critics
 

i have always found that if i read mediocre to bad reviews beforehand, it jades my interest a little and sometimes the reviews just reverberate while i'm watching that particular movie and I go, you know they are right and it just sticks. it is a hard habit to break, reading reviews and then seeing a movie you really wanted to.

Re: Movie critics
 

I have a handful of critics whose tastes seem to align with mine (including one who no longer reviews for DVDTalk...), but the vast majority of these folks, whether they're doing writing, videos, or *sigh* Twitter threads, essentially just summarize the plot, and throw in a few comments about SFX or cinematography, then lop on some arbitrary rating for RT to aggregate.

So I may peek at some reviews to get a feel for what to expect from some flicks, but generally, I like to go into a movie based on my own feelings after seeing a trailer or reading an official plot summary (at festivals, the latter is critical, because the hype machine is out in full force, and can be tough to ignore. There's always a few 'festival favorites' that are fine films, but not quite worth the unbalanced praise. I've been caught up in the hype myself... But I try to correct myself after some reflection.)

I also have whittled down which critics I follow on Twitter in particular. Most of these 'film Twitter' folks are so phony, and after seeing one of them start a dogpile on a totally random guy with like 20 followers, I stopped taking most of them seriously.

Re: Movie critics
 

The quantification of film criticism/movie reviews via RT Scores has been unfortunate. A film that got an 80% score (but most of the positives are "passable entertainment") is viewed as a better film than one that got a 65% score (but most of the positives are "absolute raves"). It drives a lot of marketing, hype, and interest in a lot of circles.

There is still plenty of great film talk and criticism out there, but it's not being driven by a small handful of critics. Hate "YouTube reviewers who just want Likes and Subscribes" all you want -- and there are plenty to scoff at -- but there is an incredible amount of insightful discussion and debate to be found.

Re: Movie critics
 

I was in my late teens/early 20s when I started following S&E regularly. I learned early on, however, that they weren't the barometer I should use for determining whether or not I would like a movie. They would give thumbs up to films like The Stunt Man or Drugstore Cowboy, which told me that their idea of 'good movies' didn't always intersect with my own.

My reason for watching them for years, though, was their banter. I loved their chemistry as well as their very obvious passion for movies. Even if I didn't agree with a single thing they said, I could still appreciate their discussions about film.

It's too bad they pre-dated the internet as we now know it because I would've liked to have heard them on a podcast where they could dedicate more time to specific films. I never had a chance to hear them go in depth and would be curious to hear how their debates would sound if they weren't constrained by the format of their TV show. I know Ebert has written books and has essays that are still on Rogerebert.com, but the back-and-forth he had with Siskel is missing.

What I discovered early on is that film criticism, in itself, can be a form of entertainment. That aspect of film discussion became really magnified after Siskel died and Ebert had a revolving door of guest reviewers. Some were better than others but none had the same magic that Ebert had with Siskel. Even permanent replacement Richard Roeper couldn't recreate the chemistry between the original two. Still, I tuned in weekly because I had really gotten to like discussions about film.

What I look for in today's critics is insight and engagement. If reviewers can capably articulate why they think a film or aspects of one work or do not work, I'll listen. I may not agree with what they're saying, but I appreciate the time and effort they spend to break down a movie and present their arguments in a coherent and, hopefully, somewhat entertaining fashion. Online shows that poke fun at movies are good for a chuckle on occasion, but I primarily stick with straight reviews like the ones from Breakfast All Day and Critically Acclaimed.

But getting back to S&E, it's a shame that whoever now owns the rights to their show hasn't done anything with their archive. If they ever came out with a box set, I'd definitely buy it.

Re: Movie critics
 

I have never cared about or given much consideration to critics. I mean most of them like Christopher Nolan films. They clearly don't know what they are talking about most of the time.

Re: Movie critics
 

Critics are a factor, but just one. If I really want to see a movie, and it looks good to me (based on previews, subject, whatever) I'll see it regardless of what critics say (although, other than horror movies, it's not that often that a movie is totally panned and it's actually good). It's more likely that something I wasn't really considering gets a second look from me after lots of critics like it.

Audience opinion isn't a great barometer either, and most of my friends have crappy taste in movies, so they're no use.

Re: Movie critics
 

I pick movies by watching trailers and seeing who's involved in making them. 99% of the time this works for me. I'll read a few critic reviews after but never before. I want to make up my own mind. Most of the time I disagree with what they say anyway.

Re: Movie critics
 

I agree with you to a point, however I need some way to separate the wheat from the chaff. I find that if a film has, let's say only 40% approval at RT or Metacritic, or less than 5/10 at IMDb with >1000 votes, chances are very high I won't like it. In terms of predicting whether or not I will like a film, I actually find the aggregate IMDb rating (assuming at least a few hundred votes) much more reliable than RT or Metacritic. I'm not sure there's a single film I like that has a score of less than 5/10 at IMDb.
Unofficial, but a commendable guy has collected most of their shows here. Be prepared to spend hours down the rabbit hole of nostalgia.

Re: Movie critics
 

I looked this up

Venom has a 30% score on RT
Hot Rod has a 39%
The Greatest Showman has a 56%
Empire Records has a 29% (INSANITY. One of the most quotable movies of all time)
Drop Dead Gorgeous has a 46%
Wet Hot American Summer has a 36%

All of those movies are good to great to all-time in my book. That's why I don't care what critics say.

Re: Movie critics
 

I use the IMDB app as my one-stop-shop for casual reading during or after watching something. It's quite handy. I use the Metacritic tab for checking out reviews on higher-profile films by (generally) professional journalists who review films but have also written/reported in other arenas. Being J-schooled myself, I prefer to read reviews wherein my mind isn't continually stumbling over grammatical or punctuation slips, misspellings, misstated colloquialisms, etc. I use the 'Critic Reviews' tab mainly for reviews of DVDs and Blu-rays by hobbyists who can sort of write but clearly have day jobs they should stick to. They at least cover stuff the majors often don't. I can't read many IMDb user reviews anymore, though, because 80% of them are sloppily written, incomprehensible, or just plain spite reviews slagging all the 'other' reviewers because they didn't love/hate a particular movie to the same degree. It's a cesspool. I like the app itself for the 'six degrees' ability to see what else a cast or crew member has worked on, rate titles (pushing 11,000 these days) or add them to a watch list that I'll easily never finish in this lifetime, skim the trivia, tech specs, global release dates, etc. But at the end of the day, whether I agree with them or not, a number of the professional critics – who invariably work for seasoned publications (print or web) with actual editors and pockets deep enough to employ both in a full-time capacity – will always be my first picks to read, primarily because I know the writing will be structurally sound. If they've been doing the gig for a long time, and their work spans films from all genres, countries and age groups, and they're able to provide additional historical or business context in the review, they rate even higher in my book. I appreciate some context mixed in with the opinion.

Re: Movie critics
 

It feels like all of the elements that made the movies special and gave them importance in the cultural landscape are all gone now;

Siskel & Ebert (hell, even Jeffrey Lyons/Michael Medved or Rex Reed/Bill Harris)

-Premiere Magazine

-8 pages of movie ads and reviews in the local Friday night newspaper.

-Entertainment Tonight - when they actually focused on movies and TV shows instead of celebrity gossip.

-Video stores

Much like what happened to the music industry is quickly happening to the film industry. Too much product available on too many platforms for too cheap.

Re: Movie critics
 

Back in the day, I looked at siskel/ebert. Though for my purposes, films they rated high was stuff I avoided like a plague. ;)

Good reviews by siskel/ebert and other known film reviewers I was aware of, was an easy weed out mechanism to filter out films not to watch.

I figured out early on that my tastes were highly negatively correlated or uncorrelated to what prominent critics liked and gave good reviews.

:toast:

Re: Movie critics
 

(With all that being said).

Nowadays for films not in theaters, I'll read the 1-star / 2-star reviews on amazon which go into some details. (ie. Easy to skip the dumb reviews like "This sucks!", etc ...).

5-star and 4-star reviews are generally useless.

Re: Movie critics
 

(On a similar tangent).

Back in the day, I knew someone who wrote record reviews in a then-local magazine, where just about every review was positive. I noticed this and pointed it out, where they mentioned that almost everybody will do that to keep on getting free review "promotional vinyl/cd copies" of new music albums. The bad reviews were almost never published.


Another acquaintance back in the day, was in the radio business in management but wasn't an on air host. Without being too specific, they alluded to that there were "incentives" to play certain songs over and over again. At the time, I didn't know what this meant (ie. under the table cash, etc ...).

They mentioned they ended up giving away the vinyl/cd "promotional copies" which were never played, and/or dumping them at nearby used record stores. (ie. Copies which had a "property of record company" stamp on the cover, with a hole punched into upc code (or scratched over).

Re: Movie critics
 

I'm amazed at the number of people who really believe film reviews/critics are trying to "change their minds" or "tell them what to see", and how it's some open act of rebellion to ignore them.

It's just someone's perspective. I disagreed with major critics often (*cough* Magnolia *cough*) but I appreciate the perspective of someone who watches and critiques movies for a reason. More often than not, they can at least steer you towards material that is unique, daring, creative, pushing limits, building new film language, etc.

Example: Pulp Fiction was a landmark film that changed the 90s indie scene overnight, but Tarantino didn't just pop out of nowhere. Critics were championing him since Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, and (to some extent) Natural Born Killers. The first two films were soundly ignored by mainstream audiences, and the latter was viewed as an Oliver Stone vehicle (he butchered QT's script anyhow). By the time PF cleaned up at Cannes, the critical buzz was in overdrive. They saw a new voice in 91, watched it develop, and by October 1994 it was now poised to thrive. And it exploded.

Re: Movie critics
 

I find Letterboxd pretty great for user reviews. I don't always read them, but many are quite insightful or even just funny.