Favorite Film Critics

[Hlao-roo 388]

I know that many at this forum don't have any particular regard for self-described critics, and that's perfectly fine. But for those of you who do read film criticism -- be it "professional" or "amateur" -- on a regular basis, which critics do you find yourself going back to time and time again? Is it the Pulitzer winners, Roger Ebert and Stephen Hunter? The Spielberg haters phenoms of the alternative press, Jonathan Rosenbaum and J. Hoberman? The NYT chiefs, A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis? The old stand-bys, Andrew Sarris and Stanley Kauffman? The Spielberg worshiper professional contrarian, Armond White? JWFAN member Ted Pigeon of The Cinematic Art (who can be fantastically insightful when he's not being a sanctimonious nag)?

[ChuckM 1]

Me.

I'm the only person I always agree with.

[GoldsmithFanatic2000+ 0]

Me.

I'm the only person I always agree with.

Exactly.

My favourite film critic is "-->ME!<--"

I think and make choices based on "my own judgement".

[tpigeon 3]

We're all we're own favorite critics aren't we? Well, I suppose I'm a bit critical of myself. But film criticism is great to read, not because I expect it to guide my own views and criticism. Instead, good criticism enables me to think about a film from another perspective and broaden my understanding of an individual film and the medium of cinema. We all prefer our own views, but for me, criticism is not about agreeing with a critic, but engaging her/his argument and thus engaging cinema (or the individual movie) in a greater way.

Some of my favorites include the already mentioned Roger Ebert, Jonathan Rosenbaum, A.O. Scott, and Manohla Dargis, as well as Michael Atkinson, Dave Kehr, Matt Zoller Seitz, Jim Emerson, Glenn Kenny, James Berardinelli, Leonard Maltin, Kim Morgan, David Bordwell, Noel Carroll, Steven Shaviro, Ty Burr, David Denby, Carina Chocano, Richard Corliss, and Scott Foundas, to name a few.

Other critics/bloggers to come later, when I am less tired and more willing to think about this more.

And thanks for the mention, Alan. Your kind words are appreciated. I promise not to nag you for pointing out my sanctimonious nagging. Well, I'll probably do it, but I'll try to restrain the sanctimony!

Ted

[Morlock 9]

I'm currently going through a change in my critical-reading habits, but at the moment, the list is Ebert, Scott, Dargis, Sarris, Corliss, Rosenbaum, Denby (writing-wise (As opposed to outlook-wise), probably my favorite), Turan. And, every now and then, Berardienelli or Glieberman. I'd love to read Kauffman....but he's not readily available online. I also often refer to the archives of inactive critics, such as Elvis Mitchell and Janet Maslin, as well as the extremely inactive Pauline Kael and, whenever I feel like getting all high and mighty, the entertainingly clueless Bosley Crowther.

[QMM 4]

Most of my critic reading comes after I've seen a particular movie and even then I don't really follow a certain critic. (Although I was reading TPigeons blog up there and he's quite good) I do selectively read reviews by some of our members here though.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I'm currently going through a chance in my critical-reading habits, but at the moment, the list is Ebert, Scott, Dargis, Sarris, Corliss, Rosenbaum, Denby (writing-wise (As opposed to outlook-wise), probably my favorite), Turan. And, every now and then, Berardienelli or Glieberman. I'd love to read Kauffman....but he's not readily available online. I also often refer to the archives of inactive critics, such as Elvis Mitchell and Janet Maslin, as well as the extremely inactive Pauline Kael and, whenever I feel like getting all high and mighty, the entertainingly clueless Bosley Crowther.

Ebert is always fun to read. Berardinelli i find to be rather dry as well as possessing a somewhat elitist air.

[Quintus 5,391]

The BBC's Barry Norman was usually a good solid opinion which could trusted more often than not and I miss him presenting his weekly late night film show. Mark Kermode is another British critic who's no nonsense attitude is at the least, very interesting.

[indy4 152]

Me.

I'm the only person I always agree with.

Indeed!

But I have seen a few Ebert and Roepers on YouTube, and some of the stuff they said was interesting, though I didn't agree with some of it.

[Richard Penna 2,083]

I occasionally read rottentomatoes.com if I want a reasonably balanced opinion of a movie. I like it because it has both a rating, and snippets of comments.

I'm sort of my own critic, although to be honest, there's only a few areas I really concentrate on: the score, the sfx and the script. I hate cheesy or 'obvious ' lines, bad SFX really annoy me because they take you out of the story and just look crap, and well the last one's obvious.

[Morlock 9]

Berardinelli i find to be rather dry as well as possessing a somewhat elitist air.

My problem with Berardinelli is that, I find, he rarely really offers much of an opinion. His review generally are kind of opinionated plot descriptions. Not enough character to his writing. Ebert gets on my nerves with how predictable his writing can be...but at least they have a real personality about them.

[John Crichton 4]

Morlock, Alex Cremers, or Stefan Cosman. It's a tough choice.

[ChuckM 1]

I occasionally read rottentomatoes.com if I want a reasonably balanced opinion of a movie.

Yes, I do generally like their rating system.

[QMM 4]

I'm generally in agreement with Morlock's reviews

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I occasionally read rottentomatoes.com if I want a reasonably balanced opinion of a movie. I like it because it has both a rating, and snippets of comments.

Indeed, though I usually just look at the Tomatometer. 50% usually means there's a 50-50 chance i'll like it, 70% a good chance i'll enjoy it and so on...

[fommes 126]

It's Roger Ebert for me, he's the one closest to my own views.

[Mr. Breathmask 480]

I don't follow any specific critics, really.

[Ollie 859]

I used to follow certain critics but not anymore. There are a few members here and at FSM I might use to judge a film by. My close friend I've known since high school, who lives in the same area as I do, and my sister are two people that I use and give reviews to.

[Morlock 9]

I thought this would be the best place to post this- my dad just got me a book title 'American Movie Critics', which is a fantastic (and long, at 750+ pages) anthology (edited by Phillip Lopate) of film criticism in America since the very begining. It is a fascinating read, particularly the early stuff. It's striking how cyclical the field is- in 1924, there's an article talking about the then old question of narrative, in very much the same way it is discussed today, and that is but a brief example....it's an eye opener of a book, featuring 149 different critics, both crticisms and thought pieces (and, of course, mostly mixtures of both). The book came out in 2006 in hardcover, and in paparback earlier this year (Zodiac is the most recent film talked about).

Highly recommended.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

I like Ebert, because he seems the only one that can really articulate how much he loves cinema. A lot of others just don't have that enthusiasm, and treat it as a job. I don't think anyone who doesn't love movies should be given a job reviewing them. Some of these guys come across like they'll love anything and everything, others hate everything that isn't immediately comparable to Bergman.

Ebert rocks. And his reviews are sometimes hilarious. His review for THE HOWLING is a classic.

[Hlao-roo 388]

I like Ebert, because he seems the only one that can really articulate how much he loves cinema. A lot of others just don't have that enthusiasm, and treat it as a job. I don't think anyone who doesn't love movies should be given a job reviewing them. Some of these guys come across like they'll love anything and everything, others hate everything that isn't immediately comparable to Bergman.

Ebert rocks. And his reviews are sometimes hilarious. His review for THE HOWLING is a classic.

A. O. Scott penned a nice little tribute to Ebert recently, although there's an almost half-hearted assertion he sort of throws out at the end that doesn't seem particularly well thought out or developed:

It seems to me that “Sneak Previews” and its descendants, far from advancing the vulgarization of film criticism, extended its reach and strengthened its essentially democratic character.

It seems to me that this sentence exists mostly to keep a toast from slipping into roast.

[Maglorfin 195]

Maltin is OK, I also buy his book every two years or so.

[Hlao-roo 388]

I thought this would be the best place to post this- my dad just got me a book title 'American Movie Critics', which is a fantastic (and long, at 750+ pages) anthology (edited by Phillip Lopate) of film criticism in America since the very begining. It is a fascinating read, particularly the early stuff. It's striking how cyclical the field is- in 1924, there's an article talking about the then old question of narrative, in very much the same way it is discussed today, and that is but a brief example....it's an eye opener of a book, featuring 149 different critics, both crticisms and thought pieces (and, of course, mostly mixtures of both). The book came out in 2006 in hardcover, and in paparback earlier this year (Zodiac is the most recent film talked about).

Highly recommended.

Is David Manning in there?

[Red 73]

I'm a fan of Ebert (and Roeper).

[AzOutcast 122]

I enjoy reading Ebert's reviews online. Like others have pointed out, he does have a true love for cinema and can articulate his thoughts and feelings very well. The only downside is that he has the tendency to go through a movie's plot for far too long.

Obviously I'm the only one I trust but the reviewer who's tastes are closer to my own is Berge Garabedian. He's the guy who started joblo.com. Due to health problems, he doesn't rate that many movies anymore, but he's fun to read and I usually end up agreeing with the scores he gives.

[franzridesagain 0]

I often don't agree with him, and he's got a real chip on his shoulder about some things, but I own more books by JONATHAN ROSENBAUM than any other critic. He is someone who sees through an impressive lightshow and dares to comment on the social consequences of a film. He's also a champion of the fine world cinema that's in existence today. He recently retired from the Chicago Reader, though many of his reviews can be read in the website's archive.

MICHEL CHION is similarly superb. A fine author and critic. His books AUDIO VISION and THE VOICE IN CINEMA are two treasured works. He doesn't regularly write reviews for anywhere, but occasionally does a book. (His books include works on Eyes Wide shut, Thin Red Line, Jacques tati, David Lynch, etc.)

I don't read a critic usually to find out if a film is worth watching. I'll usually have a pretty good instinct for that. I read them to find out what they thought of the film, because their perspective on a film tends to be interesting and thought-out. I don't get that from many major reviewers at the moment.

[Genius_Gone_Insane 5]

Mick Lasalle is great.

[Hlao-roo 388]

I often don't agree with him, and he's got a real chip on his shoulder about some things, but I own more books by JONATHAN ROSENBAUM than any other critic. He is someone who sees through an impressive lightshow and dares to comment on the social consequences of a film. He's also a champion of the fine world cinema that's in existence today. He recently retired from the Chicago Reader, though many of his reviews can be read in the website's archive.

All of his reviews dating back to August 1987 are available at JonathanRosenbaum.com.

I don't read a critic usually to find out if a film is worth watching. I'll usually have a pretty good instinct for that. I read them to find out what they thought of the film, because their perspective on a film tends to be interesting and thought-out. I don't get that from many major reviewers at the moment.

Same for me. Actually, because my opportunities to watch movies are relatively few and far between, I tend to read critics almost exclusively out of interest in their perspectives -- and the ways in which they express them.

[franzridesagain 0]

Thanks for that link, Alan. I look forward to delving into Rosenbaum.

[Bryant Burnette 451]

I've got the book Morlock mentioned earlier, American Movie Critics. It is indeed a treasure-trove.

The only critics I follow regularly are Roeper and his co-host, whose name escapes me. I'd say I agree with them about 75% of the time, but I enjoy the show even when I don't. I also find Ebert to be generally reliable, although on at least one occasion -- The Village, which he hated and I loved equally vehemently -- I've wanted to travel through the newspaper to choke him.

I used to read reviews avidly, but that's a habit that's slowly going away. I've got an English degree, and let's face it, about the only thing that's good for is learning to make up your own mind as to artistic merit. At this point, I just review movies for myself, although I do enjoy occasionally wading into the pool of reviews to see how out of step I am with the "real" critics.

[Hlao-roo 388]

The only critics I follow regularly are Roeper and his co-host, whose name escapes me.

That would be Michael Phillips, who took over Michael Wilmington's position on the Chicago Tribune staff. I liked Wilmington's reviews, even when he'd become a tad overenthusiastic (think the Star Wars prequels) -- he had a zestful way with words that at times would teeter close to buzzword overkill, but in my mind he rarely, if ever, crossed the line into quote whoring as some reviewers do. (Rolling Stones critic Peter Travers comes to mind.)

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton.

[AC1 3,565]

I rather listen to word of a bunch of film devotees who are interested in diversity than to a bunch of people that only care about the latest Hollywood blockbusters. So yeah, I value the opinion of the critics but I rarely read what they have to say. I just read the tomatometer and compare it to the IMDB score. Sometimes, after I've seen the movie and I really liked it, I check my opinion with that of a critic, sometimes that might be James Berardinelli or Peter Travers. For instance, the other day I watched Mr. Brooks and I loved it, so I checked what those two critics had to say about it.

Alex

[Hlao-roo 388]

Roger Ebert on why he grades higher than other critics.

[Hlao-roo 388]

Roger Ebert just released his 'best of 2008' list, which comprises 20 unranked films:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...TARY/812059997/

[Charlie Brigden 5]

Who is David Manning?

[Hitch 55]

The BBC's Barry Norman was usually a good solid opinion which could trusted more often than not and I miss him presenting his weekly late night film show. Mark Kermode is another British critic who's no nonsense attitude is at the least, very interesting.

I miss Barry Norman enormously. And why not?

Mark Kermode should replace Jonathan Ross on Film 2008 / Film 2009.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

It's a shame Gene Siskel is no longer with us. I would have laughed so hard at his reviews for Dude, Where's My Car?, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 and Son of the Mask.

[Hlao-roo 388]

Who is David Manning?

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/David_Manning/

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

No-one else impressed by Mr. Cranky?

[Hlao-roo 388]

Roger Ebert defends Armond White.

[Morlock 9]

Whoa...I'm sure White's gonna hate that!

[Naïve Old Fart 6,637]

Not sure who this David Manning is, but, like a lot of people, I miss Barry Norman, clearly the best of the "popular" critics. Marc Kermode is informative, but I get the impression that his knowledge of cinema is not too broad. Kim Newman is just a show-off; Jonathan Ross is the Baz Bambagoine of the B.B.C. When I lived in America, I valued Siskel and Ebert, and I thought that Leonard matlin got it right about "Gremlins". The gremlins, however, clearly did not(f.f.i., see "Gremlins 2")... I like reading the work of Pauline Kael, and I thought that Dilys Powell and Alexander Walker were both pretty good, too. Whenever I read The Sunday Times, I find myself aggreeing with Cosmo Landsman. Finally, top marks to David Ansen, for going on record and saying that he liked "Dune". He's a brave man...

[Hlao-roo 388]

Roger Ebert attacks Armond White.

[mahler3 353]

Barry Norman, Mark Kermode and Leonard Maltin are usually spot-on for me.

[crocodile 6,294]

I like reading different critics to compare their views. Don't have a favourite though. They all disappoint at one time or another. Not that it matters to me greatly.

Karol