Ebert is truly the best. Other than I him I just use Rotten Tomatoes and go from there.
the only critics that get it right most of the time (for me at least) are Roger Ebert and A.O. Scott
I have found most of the other modern critics to be a little inconsistent, though Peter Travers isn’t bad he’s a bit of an optimist I would say though :)
I am mostly into horror films, and for that John Fallon is pretty good. I mostly watch movies instead of reading the reviews. I think you need a reviewer that is into the same kind of movies you are into.
Ebert.
I’m going to the theater and I make my own idea of of the movie.
Coming to this forum and making any remark is the first step in becoming a critic. Let’s not forget that before the internet reading a review was the only way to hear someone else talk about a film. Also some people can write better or have a more informed opinion. Quite often a reviewer will bring a fresh look to the film making you want to give it a second try.
Myself I’m currently reading David Thomson’s “Have You Seen”. I like to hear everyone’s thought on film,thats why I’m hear.
I also mainly read Ebert.
In the current media, which are often film reviews rather than critique, I enjoy Peter Bradshaw, Mark Kermode, Jonathon Rosenbaum, Roger Ebert, Adam Mars-Jones and Anthony Lane. I particularly love Bradshaw’s absurdist exaggerations when dealing with a very bad film (see: Sex & The City, Hulk etc.). Kermode is always entertaining because of his passion and sense of humour. In print my favourites are: Richard Dyer, Victor Perkins, Richard Tailleur, Francois Truffaut and Pauline Kael. I think the most important thing about a film critique is not whether you agree with it, but whether it stimulates you into a new way of thinking.
Ever notice how Peter Travers’ quotes are pretty much always on the advertisements?
Ebert is a good writer, but I find his taste questionable. Michael Sragow is the reviewer who I find myself most strongly agreeing with, at times in complex ways. Anthony Lane is probably the most fun to read, but he tends to let his preciousness get in the way of writing a good review.
David Denby is a hack, and it’s shameful the New Yorker cannot find someone better to replace him.
I read Wells everyday. He’s just got a nice, easy format on his blog and I tend to agree with his taste more often than not it seems.
I like and respect Ebert and was reminded of how much when I read this exchange in The Sun-Times back in September:
Q. Yo dude, u missed out on “Disaster Movie,” a hardcore laugh-ur-@zz-off movie! Y U not review this movie!? It was funny as #ell! Prolly the funniest movie of the summer! U never review these, wat up wit dat?
S.J. Stanczak, Chicago
(Ebert) A. Hey, bro, I wuz buzier than $#i+, d they never shoed it b4 hand. I peeped in the IMDb and saw it zoomed to #1 as the low$ie$t flic of all time, wit @ lame-zz UZer Rating of 1.3. U liked it? Wat up wit dat?
I think he kind of went insane when he called Juno the best movie of 2007, though, so I’m pretty leery when it comes to trusting him.
I only recently discovered Bordwell who, yeah, isn’t really a critic, but his blog is awesome.
I enjoy the classic Cahier du cinema stuff, but have never even came across a modern issue.
Rosenbaum kind of bugs me. I’m not sure why.
I’ve always wanted to read a lot of Kael but have never known where to start. Could someone recommend her best book? I’ve perused for Kael books in the past and none of them look that great. I need a recommendation.
Edit: I have not figured out how to edit posts yet. That explains the previous post and this one. Whoops.
Roger Ebert is still one of the most literate and enjoyable critics to read, especially this year since he started a full time online journal. Otherwise, because I subscribe to Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone, I like Lisa Schwartzbaum, Owen Glieberman, and Peter Travers. As for essential film theory, anything by Bazin, Eisenstein, Godard, and the collections of Stam, Kracauer, and Braudy and Cohen are your best bets.
The only critic I’ve noticed as always being interesting, unbiased, and educated is Roger Ebert. He really does a wonderful job.
Pre-movie I just check Rotten Tomatoes and word of mouth.
Post movie, usually Ebert and the dissenting opinions from my view.
Moriarty and Harry over at aintitcoolnews.com are by far my favorite. Very seldom do I disagree with them on a film. I just wish they would post more actual reviews. I think the best thing to do is find a critic that shares your taste in movies.
When it comes to contemporary critics there is only one!
ELVIS MITCHELL
I don’t even bother with the rest.
Manohla Dargis is a cool critic. I’m pretty keen on the NY Times movie staff being the most in touch with what contemporary film fans like even if they’re not crazy about the film they’re talking about.
Dana Stevens is along the same lines over at Slate.com. I’d recommend it over Salon’s critics, they seem to be hell bent on having the most non-film obsessed staff full of film theory MA recipients destined to teach at a University.
As far as the shining lights—- it’s all about Ebert. He has the people’s touch and from time to time his reviews achieve a level of literary majesty. I’m talking about his Great Movies entries. The man comes from the right place a lot of the time. Of course there’s no such thing as a perfect or correct critic yet no one other than Andrew Sarris has been as influential to audiences and the industry and (yes) even filmmakers.
Do any of you have film review blogs? One of you could be better than all the professional film watching fellas and women-folk we’ve mentioned for all we know.
(Hey Aram, where can I find the Argento reviews? Sounds interesting at least)
David — Any of Kael’s books will do, but she was really on fire in the 1960s and 1970s; Going Steady and Reeling are books I never tire of turning to.
Day to day, I mostly read Roger Ebert, Dana Stevens, A.O. Scott and David Edelstein. I try to avoid the Tomatometer but it’s often irresistible. Majority opinion is not always trustworthy.
Other thoughts on some great critics:
David Thomson’s Biographical Dictionary of Film, full of brilliantly prickly and insightful encapsulations of careers both high and low. The book is my favorite black hole: once you step in, you may never get out.
Also, his book The Whole Equation explains Hollywood better than any other book I’ve read. Destined to be a classic.
James Agee is fascinating to read, mainly because he rarely has one single thought about a movie. He finds virtues in bad films, demerits in good ones, has a restless appreciation for Chaplin, doesn’t get Welles at all, understands Huston — whom he later wrote for — intuitively, and understood Val Lewton better than Kael. He wrote at length for The Nation and at short for Time and excelled in both. A dream of a writer, and a tragic individual.
Thanks, Rodney.
I’ve always liked Matt Zoller Seitz. He has a whole film community/blog called The House Next Door (http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/) which is a pretty invaluable resource for informed and intelligent film and tv commentary/discussion online. He doesn’t write too much anymore, which is too bad because his insights are sharp enough to cut diamonds. The weekly Sopranos/The Wire/Mad Men recaps over there are really something special.
Other than that, I dig Edelstein, Ebert, AO Scott and Rick Groen for their analysis and critiques, a rave from any one of them is usually enough to get me into the theater. Writers like Manohla Dargis and Anthony Lane are equally invaluable, but not specifically as reviewers. I see them more as prose stylists having fun riffing on whatever film comes their way, but their opinions are not as valuable to me, say, if I were to reconsider my stance on a particular film I disagreed with them on. If that makes any sense.
Ebert, Rosenbaum, Hoberman; I have an online subscription to Village Voice for their reviews. Internationally I have Tadao Sato’s 1980s book on Japanese film, and Satyajit Ray’s Their Films Our Films (his essays on everything from Bollywood to Italian neorealism to Japanese postwar cinema), and those are invaluable for non-western perspectives, though I need to dig to find more of that.
Peter Bradshaw is probably the most informed and entertaining critic in the UK. Turan has his moments.
Living/Working: Jonathan Rosenbaum, J. Hoberman, A.O. Scott, Dave Kehr, Tim Lucas, Chris Fujiwara.
Dead/Inactive: Manny Farber, Serge Daney, The 50s Cashiers writers.
Also: Alain Silver/James Ursini Commentary Tracks
A.O. Scott, Dave Kehr, Anthony Lane. Also Lopate’s “American Movie Critics” is a great place for historical dips in film crit.
Jonathon Rosenbaum
Only really read Ebert on a few select films, although I listen to Filmspotting religiously every week.
@ Ben Croll. Yeah man! NY critics in general have the air of frustrated poets and satirists. Manohla in particular feels like she’s a lot more fascinated with the way she talks about a movie than the actual movie itself. From the way she writes, y’know? As far as movies really go I’m sure she loves em all.
I go to Ebert’s site 3 or 4 times a week.
I have read most of Pauline Kael’s stuff. I wish it was online though. I read EW so Owen and Lisa, but they frustrate me ALOT.
Oh, and I watch that old couple on youtube. They are great.
R Parker
Roger Ebert is probably my favorite reviewer, but I’ll read the reviews of pretty much anyone except Peter Travers. His and my opinions are polar opposites most of the time.