best and worst film crtic

lostexpectation

this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8xD6eUKAVU

see him interview kristen stewart eugh

makes a terrible remark at the start and he always says

rock and roll when he's finished eugh...

BenjAii

Roger Ebert who writes for the Chicago Sun Tims is a favourite of mine, someone at IMDB likes him, as if he has reviewed a film it always heads the list in their 'external review' section.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

Altar_Ego_Boy

Worst critic: Mark Kermode or Leonard Malten

Lamper.sffc

anyone from empire magazine.

Basq

Worst Critic... 2 words, 1 brain-cell...

Paul Ross.

boredatwork82

Jay Sherman

That_Guy

Worst "critic" for me is Jonathan Ross..... He can't be called a critic if he likes every film.

One of the more memorable reviews of his was when he reviewed Jeepers Creepers saying it was, "the best horror to come out of America in 10 years".


What a joke.

I also don't like critics from any newspaper seriously either.

Galvasean

Most 'TV personality' reviewers are awful. They generall havent a clue about films and give positive/negative reviews based on what kind of a mood they were in on that particular day.
Radio reviewers are generally even worse. Often playing sound clips from the trailer and saying it's great. Or if they havent been paid off by a particular film, they state they didn't like it and give reasons that don't relate to said film, ie: they havent actually seen it and are talking out of their *BEEP*

Then there's newspaper reviewers, who often just give positive reviews to the more arty films in an attempt to look more 'mature', very rarely offering a personal insight into a film, but rather telling readers what they think they should.
Gotta love 'lads mags' reviews though: explosions and cleavage = 5 stars.

jdscrubs

Jonathon Ross has to be the worse film reviewer on the planet. He was a woeful replacemnt for the great Barry Norman. Anytime I watch Film 200() with Ross, if he interviews a star from a film, he will not give a review of a film, just a general outline, for fear of upsetting anyone who might want to appear on his crap chat show.

The best are;
Peter Travers-Rollins Stone,
Michael Dwyer in Irish Times,
Roger Ebert,
Ian Nathan, Angie Errio & Kim Newman in Empire.

Pigman II

Roger Ebert is the best as he stays completely contemporary and doesn't have bias towards genre. Compare him to someone like Kermode who is (clearly) as far as taste is concerned anyway stuck in the mid 1970's and completley baised toward particular directors and genres.

ZondaChai

Christopher Tookey from the daily mail, he gives almost everything 1 out of 5. Why be a film critic if you hate films

Pigman II

ZondaChai wrote: »

Christopher Tookey from the daily mail, he gives almost everything 1 out of 5. Why be a film critic if you hate films

So they'll take you off film critcism and post you to the Gaza-Israel border where you can do the work you became a journalist for in the first place.

At the end of the day it's important to remember for most of them it's still just a job.

faceman

I love listening to Mark Kermode's podcasts on BBC5 Live. Very entertaining even if you dont always agree with his reviews.

His latest review of Bride Wars is hilarious.

Handsome Bob

Worst critic is the guy from Heat magazine. He gave the Sex and the City film four stars, need I say more.

I like Ebert, for the most part anyway.

S.M.B.

faceman wrote: »

I love listening to Mark Kermode's podcasts on BBC5 Live. Very entertaining even if you dont always agree with his reviews.

His latest review of Bride Wars is hilarious.

His review of 7 Pounds this week has made me want to look at it after all the abuse he gave it.

It's hard for reviewers to be completely objective so I just really listen to critics who's taste is as closely matched to mine as possible.

Pigman II

That_Guy wrote: »

Worst "critic" for me is Jonathan Ross..... He can't be called a critic if he likes every film.

In fairness that is blatently untrue! You should have said he likes every film .... where the star/director agrees to an exclusive interview with him.

Ah how I miss his predecessor Barry Norman. Even at a young age I could tell he had contempt for 90% of everything coming out at the time, even if he toned it down. Best part was when he'd do a pleasant interview with someone and then cut to the review where he would pan the movie

That_Guy

+1

Barry Norman is an absolute legend.

FreeOSCAR

George Byrne from the Herald. I very rarely agree with his reviews.

irish_bob

That_Guy wrote: »

+1

Barry Norman is an absolute legend.

he was untill he sold out for murdochs money and went to sky movies where almost no one watches his show , if it is indeed still even on

That_Guy

irish_bob wrote: »

he was untill he sold out for murdochs money and went to sky movies where almost no one watches his show , if it is indeed still even on

No it's not on anymore. Finished up a good few years ago now. I think Zane Lowe has a review show now.

D-Generate

No mention of Cosmo Landesman or does his ineptitude in rating films disqualify him from even being considered a critic?

grames_bond

basquille wrote: »

Worst Critic... 2 words, 1 brain-cell...

Paul Ross.

i would also through his bro into that category, jonathan ross



i kno he has already been mentioned but when it comes to films i really think he doesnt watch them before he reviews them! or he is biased from the get go so isnt willing to give certain movies a chance!

qualiserospero

Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian is usually spot on

pixelburp

Because we have to listen to the station in my office, I hate Phantom FM's commentators and critics of anything non-musical (mostly because they're clearly the interns who have no interest or knowledge on the subject beyond basic googling), but in particular I hate the movie critics.

My main gripe is that its often clear they haven't even watched the film in question (On a couple of occasions I have heard them repeat, word for word, the same comments another film critic had said elsewhere), show a shocking level of film knowledge & generally come across as total airheads.

PullMyFinger!

Best:

Barry Norman in his day and whoever looks after Entertainment.ie's movie reviews. I never got the whole Ebert thing.

Worst:


It would be easy to say Paul Ross but I dont think even his dog would respect him if he had one.

So I'll go with Ian Nathan. He was probably my favourite reviewer. And then he gave Superman Returns 5 focking stars.

"Superman doesnt fly. He soars"

No. He doesnt, Ian.

Snake Plisken

Best Mark Kamode

Worst

Harry Knowles, the up their own arse reviews on The View, the dopes they get to review movies on Newstalk on friday afternoon.

Sids Not

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Best Mark Kermode

+1.....knows his stuff and always sounds like he's watched the film ,not been told about it...

Worst

Everyone else basically.....;)

pixelburp

PullMyFinger! wrote: »

Best:

Barry Norman in his day and whoever looks after Entertainment.ie's movie reviews. I never got the whole Ebert thing.

Me neither, though I don't think Entertainment.ie are all that; sometimes they seem overly harsh on a movie just for the sake of it (particularly those that had any hype prior to release). They also seem unusually eager to throw 4/5 stars at foreign language movies by default.

robgordon

I like Peter Travers, have to say. What critics on Phantom are you talking about? Cinerama is quite good.

Aidric

The critics i rate are Roger Ebert from the Chicago Sun Times, Stephen Holden from The New York Times and Ciaran Carty from The Sunday Tribune.

I dismiss out of hand anything penned by the red top or cheap lads mags 'film critics'.

Jonathan Ross proving just how poor a reviewer is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmaRxb-W4rs

robgordon

I actually don't think Ross is that bad. He's fair, prone to hyperbolic statements on occassion, but far from the worst. Worst for me is George Byrne from The Herald. Complete moron and a terrible writer

irish_bob

michael doherty in the rte guide has to be the laziest critic around , pick up an rte guide from 15 yrs ago and if jaws happend to be on that weekend , dollars to doughnuts , the review will be identical to what it was when jaws was last on , ie , in the last month

i disagree with his reviews half the time aswell, he had mama mia in this top 5 movies of the year last year

fated2pretend

+1 for Cosmo Landesmann, can't stand him!

pixelburp

robgordon wrote: »

I like Peter Travers, have to say. What critics on Phantom are you talking about? Cinerama is quite good.

I don't know about cinerama, but they have some "reviewers" during the daytime show & they haven't a bloody clue. Though to be honest, all the daytime presenters on that stations are a bunch of 'tards (cept Michelle Doherty, but that's only cos she's hot )

bonerm

That_Guy wrote: »

+1

Barry Norman is an absolute legend.

Interesting find ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlJJ-hC38s0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIH8qiO3-ok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSnqloDjwtw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV-Ar_rXjq8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FvS7YERm5U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t8CTTlU9cw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqAZJ2hzRvc

Sir Gallagher

Best: Roger Ebert, i always look out for his reviews he's top notch.

Worst: Kim Newman, Seems to forget he's not writing for a horror movie magazine imo will never forgive him for buying the tragic Black Sheep off the back of his 4 star review in Empire, complete joker.

Manchegan

A shout-out for Donald Clarke, Irish Times.

"Get Rich or Die Tryin', in which 50 Cent is woefully miscast as himself..."

ziedth

Manchegan wrote: »

A shout-out for Donald Clarke, Irish Times.

"Get Rich or Die Tryin', in which 50 Cent is woefully miscast as himself..."

Ha ha, that's a great line.

norrie rugger

Galvasean wrote: »

Gotta love 'lads mags' reviews though: explosions and cleavage = 5 stars.

Gotta think that these are great critics TBH.

They know their market and they know what their readers want to see in a film and tailor their assessments accordingly

Sudden Valley

best- Ebert

worst- landseman (times) James Bowman (american spectator- every film judged on its political statements)

Andre80Johnson

Armond White - Useless.

Butch Cassidy

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Best: Roger Ebert, i always look out for his reviews he's top notch.

Worst: Kim Newman, Seems to forget he's not writing for a horror movie magazine imo will never forgive him for buying the tragic Black Sheep off the back of his 4 star review in Empire, complete joker.

Kim Newman's an interesting one and sometimes controversial - he gave Jason X a positive four star review. The thing with him is he's a bit of a personality, he will back up and explain why he reviews what he did in the way he did and you can understand him (I can at least*) and so you should know what to expect in general.

EMPIRE are guilty of putting new flash expensive blockbusters on their covers, giving an average/luke warm three star generic review and then the editorial line ripping into said film an issue or two later. The Pianist got a 2star theatrical review in a quarter page and a 4 star positive half page review after it won an oscar. Colin Farrell films Miami Vice and Alexander both got big 4star reviews only for them films to be subject to ridicule a short while later. Bias? Hmm... there's ad space that needs selling and those DVD quotes aren't going to write themselves!

I concur with the general consensus of this slightly old thread - **** like Paul Ross are dire and Ebert is excellent because he's not snobby. Roger Ebert is kinda like a cooler more contemporary modern Leslie Halliwell. It seems too many people that review (positively) modern film are useless with older ones - look for references to films made before Jaws or Star Wars in EMPIRE.


I mentioned Halliwell. Some think he was rubbish cause he hated contemporary cinema. I think he has a place and I occasionally refer to one of the guides. While he may be too hard on some films, his 3&4 star films are no doubt well worth seeking out.