Worst Film Critic

Sizzler

My vote goes to Gavin Burke on entertainment.ie.

This guy seems to have an MO of 3/5 stars or worse for every film he reviews.

Is he trying to make a name for himself, I've stopped reading entertainment.ie's reviews now as this guy seems to be their only critic and is totally unreliable, for any type of film. CLOWN.

SoupyNorman

I watch a film before I read a review. I do like the reviews in the Indo on Fridays (*dont heckle*). Too many diviations in the standards for reviewing a movie nowadays, its like a personal opinion. John Meagher I think is the guys name who reviews for the Indo (*dont heckle*), more often then not what he says I agree with having seen the film however sometimes I dont but thats the problem with being human.

Worst of the worst are the 'sheep' who rely on the tags on the front of DVD covers to choose a movie, provided by the likes of 'HOTDOG' magazine: "rip roaring rollercoaster relenting regurgetating........etc".

Dont be at yourself

Yeah, I've noticed that the reviews on entertainment.ie are usually bad, both in terms of rating and content. I actually tend to base my decision to see a movie on the opposite of their ratings!

ixoy

I rarely agree with Cosmo Laden in the Sunday Time's Culture supplement. He often seems to knock a few ratings from the movie based on very personal opinions, along the lines of well I don't like this sort of subject material, therefore it's not a great movie.

I don't find Gavin Burke that bad tbh, although he's more useful for getting a vague idea of what's out next week than anything else.

The Ticket's Donald Clarke kicks all other reviewers' asses. He's not only far and away the most humorous, he also most closely aligns to my own tastes. His Top 20 movies of the last two years closely mirror my own.

DaBreno

Yer man Paul Ross from the News of the world. He seems to hand out the title "Film of the year" or "Best Film ever!!" every week. You see his quotes on the covers of Dvds, usually the crap ones.
Its quite good coz I know to avoid a film if he reckons its the "Best Comedy you'll ever see!!!11!"

Peter Collins

I really don't get this "I'll see the film and then make an opinion..." - what's the point of that??

You'll end up putting money in the pockets of every crappy director because you won't read a decent review beforehand

Idiotic

Karl Hungus

Peter Collins wrote:

I really don't get this "I'll see the film and then make an opinion..." - what's the point of that??

You'll end up putting money in the pockets of every crappy director because you won't read a decent review beforehand

Idiotic

I'd say it would be far more idiotic to pass on a film that you might actually love because of a review.

Reviews are far too flimsy and inconsistant to be your sole crutch when deciding on a film, not even accounting personal taste. Besides, most people who are into films are smart enough to take into account certain directors, or trends when deciding on a film to see, as such a Michael Bay film is something I'd probably avoid, likewise another remake is top on the list to avoid based on past experience.

To rely on reviews, rather than your personal intuition or experience is ridiculous.

manti452

Mr Burke can be fairly one sided in his views and hard to please but I think the point of it is.. if you are interested in a film and the topic, you've been looking forward to it.. then don't let one review spoil your desire. I didn't rate Miami Vice as a film but wanted to see it as i am a fan of Mr Mann I got something out of it.. not sure what tho.

joseph brand

There is a tv mag with the People paper (i think). All films are rated with either 3, 4 or 5 stars. There is no 1 or 2 stars?
*** Good
**** Very Good
***** Excellent

This, I believe, is the only fair way of not offending any directors out there.



Just to clarify, I don't read that tabloid muck, seen it in a friends house. :eek:

Goodshape

ixoy wrote:

Cosmo Laden

Agree with that. He seems to have a dreadful taste in films.

I'd be in the "see the film and then make an opinion..." camp anyway. I might check a few star-ratings out of interest, but I'd usually have a fair idea of the films I want to see based on the people involved in making it or from word of mouth.

Reading a full review often just gives away too much. I don't want the story or best bits explained to me before hand, I want to see that for myself when I'm in the cinema.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Peter Collins wrote:

I really don't get this "I'll see the film and then make an opinion..." - what's the point of that??

You'll end up putting money in the pockets of every crappy director because you won't read a decent review beforehand

Idiotic

As opposed to the "let someone else make up your mind for you because you can't judge yourself?" - what't the point in THAT?

Yes, you may see a crap film and you may put money in some dodgy director's hand, but your going to do that anyway if the reveiw says it;s great when it turns out to be ****. Since when did a decent review automatically mean a decent film??

Crucifix

ixoy wrote:

I rarely agree with Cosmo Laden in the Sunday Time's Culture supplement. He often seems to knock a few ratings from the movie based on very personal opinions, along the lines of well I don't like this sort of subject material, therefore it's not a great movie

I saw the thread title and thought of him.

Earthhorse

ixoy wrote:

I rarely agree with Cosmo Laden in the Sunday Time's Culture supplement.

Cosmo Landesman, but you're right, his reviews are fairly awful and come with a lot more plot summary than actual criticism of the film.

Pigman II

I deliberately don't listen to the reviewers anymore. I usually just see a trailer, work out who's written/directed it and then read some blurb to get a general idea of what it's about and make a decision on that basis.

This method has served me far better than just mindlessly checking out whatever piece of rubbish the Irish Times (or whatever) is giving 5 stars to this week.

film_gonzo

I rarely read reviews before a movie anymore either (although I do like to check out reviews online, after I've seen it to see what other people thought).

However I do remember when I read reviews a few years back, that the guy from the Herald (it was free where I worked) was the most miserable sh1te I've ever read a review from. He even looked miserable in his column picture. I don't know that I ever saw a review of over 3 stars and more often than not it was 1-2 star ratings. Jesus Christ I know films are art and should be seen as such but they're also entertainment. Some critics have just gotta lighten up a bit and crawl outta their own ar$e

By the way, I can't fully remember the guys name but I think it was Chris something and I don't he writes the Herald's film reviews anymore.

cashback

film_gonzo wrote:

However I do remember when I read reviews a few years back, that the guy from the Herald (it was free where I worked) was the most miserable sh1te I've ever read a review from. He even looked miserable in his column picture. I don't know that I ever saw a review of over 3 stars and more often than not it was 1-2 star ratings. Jesus Christ I know films are art and should be seen as such but they're also entertainment. Some critics have just gotta lighten up a bit and crawl outta their own ar$e

By the way, I can't fully remember the guys name but I think it was Chris something and I don't he writes the Herald's film reviews anymore.

Think that might be Chris Lowry. He does a column now called Lowry's lunches as far as I know.

I have one of those Leonard Maltin A to Z of film reviews (2005).
The guy gives some very erratic reviews.
eg Taxi Driver - 2/4
Jack Frost - 2.5/4 (!)
The Santa Clause 1 and 2 - 3/4

Sizzler

bravestarr082 wrote:

Worst of the worst are the 'sheep' who rely on the tags on the front of DVD covers to choose a movie, provided by the likes of 'HOTDOG' magazine: "rip roaring rollercoaster relenting regurgetating........etc".

If you rely on those comments to rent out a movie or go see one then thats a tad shortsighted (without stating the obvious!). One line from an entire review "the best film you will see this year..." means fcuk all ! The rest of the sentance prob says "if you dont consider acting, direction or storylines as being important"

The Burke lad is just a fussy cnt and destroys films for no apparent reason, I go with the other poster that said I do the opposite of what he says, if he says its sh1te its probably OK

faceman

i rarely go on what a film critic says. Its all matter of opinion at the end of the day. Some critics slated Jaws, The Godfather and Star Wars when they were released!

Carcharodon

ixoy wrote:

I rarely agree with Cosmo Laden in the Sunday Time's Culture supplement.

Thank God, i thought it was just me, find lots of he's reviews very strange and and disagree with loads of them. He often gives low ratings to films that even if you haven't seen, you just know they are better than what he says, for a film critc he seems very narrow minded with a bit of a chip on his shoulder.

Rabies

The film critic on Ireland AM. Can't think of his name. Terrible interviewing and don't trust his reviews.

J.R.HARTLEY

anyone in Empire, they gave the new pink panther 3/5 and then gave DaVinci Code 5/5 but reduced it next issue because of complaints (i didn't think it merited 5/5 anyway but thats not the point), if you review a movie , do it right the first time, and if people don't like it then don't change it just to suit them, the Mass public are no geniuses, how else do you expalin titanic being one of the highest grossing movies ever.

Sizzler

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

anyone in Empire, they gave the new pink panther 3/5 and then gave DaVinci Code 5/5 but reduced it next issue because of complaints (i didn't think it merited 5/5 anyway but thats not the point), if you review a movie , do it right the first time, and if people don't like it then don't change it just to suit them, the Mass public are no geniuses, how else do you expalin titanic being one of the highest grossing movies ever.

How the fook can they expect to be taken seriously after that

Bodhidharma

I got Empire for over ten years, never missed an issue. Then it started to get really up Hollywood's ass. By Hollywood i mean people like Spielberg and Tom Cruise. Every time a big film came out it automatically got 4 stars. I think they were afraid they'd lose their twenty exclusive lines with the big names. I have never seen them slate a big movie that was awful. They will though when its on DVD.
They have totally lost their objectivity in my eyes.

Paul Ross is the worst reviewer. Everyting he's seen is great. The guys on Newsnight review are a tad overly critical too, but i guess thats the whole point of the show.

faceman

Thats true about empire. They gave independence day 5 stars along with ALL the star wars flicks (as far as i can remember)

Goodshape

faceman wrote:

5 stars along with ALL the star wars flicks (as far as i can remember)

In fairness, they didn't. None of the prequels got five stars, they got 3, 3 and 4 respectively. And Return of the Jedi got 4 too.

You can search through there past reviews online - http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/


Though I do agree, Empire hasn't been much good in years.


(edit : just glanced through the Phantom Menace review they've got online, and it isn't the original cinema release one. Although I do remember that it didn't get 5/5)

johnny_ultimate

Cosmo Lansaden is god awful. His reviews are often really bizarrely inconsistent, and much of the time he will slate smaller acclaimed films just because they are small and acclaimed. Gives pretentious nonsense high scores completely unjustly. Boils my blood, he does.

And on the Empire front, they did give Episode 2 five stars originally - although this is down to three in their retrospective reviews. Read it every month but don't always agree with them these days. Many ridiculous scores have been given - still have some respect for Kim Newman though.

J.R.HARTLEY

Goodshape wrote:

In fairness, they didn't. None of the prequels got five stars, they got 3, 3 and 4 respectively. And Return of the Jedi got 4 too.

You can search through there past reviews online - http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/


Though I do agree, Empire hasn't been much good in years.


(edit : just glanced through the Phantom Menace review they've got online, and it isn't the original cinema release one. Although I do remember that it didn't get 5/5)

yeah but to be fair we've been complaining abou them giving out 5 stars and the retrospectively reducing the stars as complaints came in, so you can't trust what they have there now isn't what they originally gave the first review.I'd agree with previous staements that they are whoring themselves to the big names now a lot worse than they used to.

ObeyGiant

ixoy wrote:

The Ticket's Donald Clarke kicks all other reviewers' asses. He's not only far and away the most humorous, he also most closely aligns to my own tastes. His Top 20 movies of the last two years closely mirror my own.

I haven't read much of his stuff, but I did catch his review of Apocalypto and I was honestly shocked at just how awful it was. Reading it, I thought it was more of an editorial on Mel Gibson's fixation with cruelty - giving equal page-space to Passion and Braveheart as it did to Apocalypto. Suddenly, three stars appeared out of nowhere! There was virtually no qualitative analysis of this movie in the review, nothing to back up the three stars, apart from the talk of how brutal and gory it was.

But like I said, not a regular reader. Maybe he was just having an 'off' day.

paddycorry

I may be displaying pinko lefty colours here, but I think Philip French in the Observer is an excellent film reviewer.

I would never rely on Michael Dwyer in the Irish Times, but not so much because of the quality of his reviewing style, just because I seem to disagree with him so much.. plus he consistently and without fail gives Irish productions top marks (Anyone remember 'Dead Bodies'!?), which is counter-productive to the Irish film industry and really rankles with me.

I've tried to write movie reviews (here), and it ain't easy. As this thread proves, a lot of people won't read a review before seeing a movie.. so the reviews I've tried tend to cover the context of a film, and then a bit of non-specific, qualitative analysis.. but there's a fine line between analysing a film and giving away the plot! It's not an easy job!

ixoy

paddycorry wrote:

I would never rely on Michael Dwyer in the Irish Times, but not so much because of the quality of his reviewing style, just because I seem to disagree with him so much.. plus he consistently and without fail gives Irish productions top marks (Anyone remember 'Dead Bodies'!?), which is counter-productive to the Irish film industry and really rankles with me.

Very good point there. Whenever I see a Ticket review of an Irish movie, I'm always tempted to deduct two stars from their score because they've got a track record for awarding inflated marks to home-grown cinema, deserved or not. I know O'Dwyer is quite involved with the world of Irish film but he doesn't always seem impartial enough in these reviews.

It is, as you say, also counter-productive. According to the Sunday Times, only two Irish movies were successful last year and the rest were box-office failures. Hyping up a movie for readers only for them to discover it's poor quality, can lead them to sense an agenda at work and not bother. Meanwhile the film makers read these flattering reviews and are confused as to why noone seems interested in their work and spawn out more of the same.

Raiser

He has had 99 mentions on this thread already but if ever a nomination needed to be overstated and hammered home its for this moron........:rolleyes: Asking Cosmo to comment on and critque a Film is like asking a donkey to play the Viola - Ill-advised and with guaranteed poor results.

His poor judgement was proven beyond doubt when he married Julie Burchill - voted 85th in a poll of worst Britons of all time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Burchill]- she left him to see a girl from work and then Julie subsequently left her for her little brother......Classy Lassy.


- Also does anyone remember when Dave Fanning used to review Films on RTE ? He used to really irritate me [and possibly others] by totally sitting on the fence for every review - he would name two or three bad things about the flick and then finish by describing two or three positive things and then run off and hide before anyone cornered him into making any type of concrete statement that could possibly be held against him :rolleyes:

Petey2006

Most film critics aren't really worth listening to. I used to watch Film on the BBC out of sheer boredom, but then I found Jonathan Ross' opinions to be... well... bollocks. The only critic I actually give credence to is Mark Kermode, of Sight & Sound, Newsnight Review and BBC 5 Live on a Friday afternoon. I don't always agree with him, but he was spot on about Pan's Labyrinth and Pirates of the Caribbean, and his reviews are always entertaining if nothing else.

So ignore critics, to be honest. Which is shooting myself in the foot a bit, as I review films for a mag myself!

Crucifix

Petey2006 wrote:

The only critic I actually give credence to is Mark Kermode, of Sight & Sound, Newsnight Review and BBC 5 Live on a Friday afternoon. I don't always agree with him, but he was spot on about Pan's Labyrinth and Pirates of the Caribbean, and his reviews are always entertaining if nothing else.

I feel the same about Kermode. Whether I agree with him or not I like listening to him.

Carcharodon

Raiser wrote:

- Also does anyone remember when Dave Fanning used to review Films on RTE ? He used to really irritate me [and possibly others] by totally sitting on the fence for every review - he would name two or three bad things about the flick and then finish by describing two or three positive things and then run off and hide before anyone cornered him into making any type of concrete statement that could possibly be held against him :rolleyes:

Fannings reviews dont really stand out in my mind as being bad, i really enjoy him though when he interviews people, doesn't seem to ask the usual "did you have fun on this film" questions but seemed to have a good knowledge of the person and the topic. Always seemed to ask intelligent questions, thats what i enjoyed about his interviews the most

paddycorry

Petey2006 wrote:

I found Jonathan Ross' opinions to be... well... bollocks. The only critic I actually give credence to is Mark Kermode

So ignore critics, to be honest. Which is shooting myself in the foot a bit, as I review films for a mag myself!

Jonathan Ross suffers a bit from the U.K. version of Michael Dwyer's syndrome, too institutionalised to be impartial about their home-grown produce. That and he's really inconsistent.

Mark Kermode is always good though, you're right. He had a great interview with Steven Spielberg on BBC Three a few weeks back, and it was nice to see a reviewer not fawn completely over such a proper bigshot, but give a very balanced interview.. they spent a lot of time talking about '1941', very interesting and unusual to hear Spielberg talk fairly candidly about his biggest flop!

But then again i'm a critic too, so you should probably ignore me and all! (meh, everyone's a critic!!)

RuggieBear

I think kemode is great. Hilarious to listen to him go off on a rant

Miguel_Sanchez

Three words:

Taragh Loughrey Grant.


Most entertaining critic: Anthony Lane of the NY Times.

Pretorius

ObeyGiant wrote:

I haven't read much of his stuff, but I did catch his review of Apocalypto and I was honestly shocked at just how awful it was.

That wasn't Donald Clarke, Obey, that was Michael Dwyer. They are very different animals indeed. Aside from anything else, Clarke is prepared to give Irish films the odd kicking.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

constitutionus

learned along time ago to just go to what i fancy. i find most critics pretentious and cant help thinking if they actually had to fork out the cash to see the films it might get em to be more honest. the number of times ive read " well there was no press screening so it must be crap" is unbelievable. ok its not a good sign but get your head out of your arse. your not that important, if you were adam sandler woulnt make a penny. in fact ive got burned going to see "must see's" that turned out to be fertaliser, while being surprised by "non events" like the usual suspects and shawshank redemption.

my biggest complaint of late is critics that dont seem to have gone to see the film their doing a write up of at all . DEJA VU for instance. now i havent seen the film but from what ive gleened from the trailers the guy doesnt actually go back in time but rather uses a machines that allows him to see what happens up to four days ago.
one critic in the herald says otherwise, being convinced he actually travels to the past. and says so in his review :rolleyes:

ok thats only one example but you get the point. for the life of me im going nuts trying to remember a film where the critic passed a view about a film and all i could think of was " thats the point of the whole film you ****ing idiot! your not meant to know. did you see it at all?" ( think the film in question was "V for Vendetta " and your man was saying how much better the film would be if he took off the mask :rolleyes: )

i swear sometimes i think these guys are just down the pub listening into drunk patrons talking about the films theyre meant to be at

sad as it is to say ive got more value out of the film reviews section here on boards than i have in a newspaper or magazine in years. least i know people forked out cash to see the film theyre raving/bemoaning and as such have a little more credibility

Pretorius

constitutionus wrote:

my biggest complaint of late is critics that dont seem to have gone to see the film their doing a write up of at all . DEJA VU for instance. now i havent seen the film but from what ive gleened from the trailers the guy doesnt actually go back in time but rather uses a machines that allows him to see what happens up to four days ago.
one critic in the herald says otherwise, being convinced he actually travels to the past. and says so in his review :rolleyes:

Duh! The reason the guy from the Herald said that Washington goes back in time is because he DOES go back in time. Yes they begin by just observing the past, but in the last half hour he actually does travel to the past.

You should probably avoid slagging off critics for errors in their descriptions of films you -- rather than they -- haven't seen.

:Really rolls eyes:

Mr E

I think reviewers like Paul Ross are terrible - if its a blockbuster, they'll give it 4 or 5 out of 5, no matter how crap it is.

I'm always amused by reviews in The Limerick Leader where its obvious the guy hasn't actually seen the movie, but reviews it like he has.

I like James Berardinelli (http://www.reelviews.net). His reviews are well written, and usually a fairly reliable guideline on the merits of a movie (or lack there-of).

constitutionus

Pretorius wrote:

Duh! The reason the guy from the Herald said that Washington goes back in time is because he DOES go back in time. Yes they begin by just observing the past, but in the last half hour he actually does travel to the past.

You should probably avoid slagging off critics for errors in their descriptions of films you -- rather than they -- haven't seen.

:Really rolls eyes:

you mean in other words he gave away the end of the film? wow, very professional. bet when he reviewed the usual suspects he just said spacey did it :eek:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

...which is exactly the reason I tedn to avoid reviews of movies...

J.R.HARTLEY

oh the heralds reviewers are a joke, they gave Apocolypto 5 stars after saying that its a decent chase movie but not the insightful exploration into the decline of mayan civisilisation that it says it is, so in other words it doesn't do what it says but it gets 5 stars also it states Rocky Balboa is over weight and past its prime and still gets 3 stars out of 5, the description makes it sound more like a 2/5 its pretty damning.
:rolleyes: