Roe McDermott-And other reviewers

What reviewer's your favourite?

For me it's Roe McDermott.

Though her reviews are too spoilerific for me to use as something to help me decide what film to watch. Who do you read/see/listen to? Are they close to what you'd think of a film, or is it a case of "If he/she hates it, I'll LOVE it!"

(Also really really really wish Roe had a twitter, but she doesn't. ah well.)

Revolution9

Lots of Roger Ebert fans out there.

The Wikipedia page of almost every big film will have a quote from Ebert on there.

Chad ghostal

I like Mark Kermode, not that I necessarily agree with his reviews, but his passion is infectious.

Although not really a reviewer, used to love Brian Reddin's introductions to the late films on RTE.

But to answer your question, Peter Bradshaw from the guardian is probably the one I'd most read..just because I usually agree with him.

Eirebear

Anyone who isnt Claudia Winkleman or that Douchbag who sits on the couch beside her.

Mark Kermode- when he goes on a rant it is amazing

delbertgrady

Cosmo Landesman is the most infuriating. This has been discussed here before, but most of the time he just says the polar opposite of what the majority of critics say, and you get the impression that he's not doing it out of journalistic integrity, but more just to be contrary for the sake of it.

Mark Kermode is the king. Some of the You Tube clips of him on the Simon Mayo show (the Mamma Mia! one in particular) are absolute gold, and his memoir, It's Only a Movie, is a crackin' read.

I like Donald Clarke, probably for the same reasons Chad likes Peter Bradshaw - he's the one I read the most and I usually agree with him. Even when I don't agree, a lot of his negative reviews of films I liked have been quite entertaining. And he's a Woody Allen fan.

Fysh

I like Donald Clarke's reviews quite a lot, because for the most part it seems we have similar tastes; his approach to reviewing is good - he'll be snarky about a film if it was really really bad, but he doesn't go out of his way to dislike films and will generally be positive about whatever decent aspects a film has.

That being said, I wish I'd seen his review of I Heart Huckabees - it seems to be one of not very many films that I enjoyed immensely which Clarke loathed.

delbertgrady

Fysh wrote: »

I wish I'd seen his review of I Heart Huckabees - it seems to be one of not very many films that I enjoyed immensely which Clarke loathed.

The original Irish Times review of I Heart Huckabees was by Michael Dwyer, who liked it, albeit with some reservations. Clarke conducted an interview with David O. Russell shortly after its release, wherein he said "what happens [in the course of the film] defies summary".

Andre80Johnson

I hate Film critics. I can't understand how people let critics decide films for them, because that is what they do basically. In class yesterday, my lecturer brought up a valid point that critics are writing these reviews personally as if they hated the film for little or large reasons, this in returns condemns the film.

Sticky_Fingers

Andre80Johnson wrote: »

I hate Film critics. I can't understand how people let critics decide films for them, because that is what they do basically. In class yesterday, my lecturer brought up a valid point that critics are writing these reviews personally as if they hated the film for little or large reasons, this in returns condemns the film.

Mark Kermode addressed this point in one of his videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjHON34HvOc

losthorizon

Fysh wrote: »

I like Donald Clarke's reviews quite a lot, because for the most part it seems we have similar tastes; his approach to reviewing is good - he'll be snarky about a film if it was really really bad, but he doesn't go out of his way to dislike films and will generally be positive about whatever decent aspects a film has.

That being said, I wish I'd seen his review of I Heart Huckabees - it seems to be one of not very many films that I enjoyed immensely which Clarke loathed.

I liked Michel Dwyer an awful lot until his early death and find I agree with Donald Clarke quite a lot (except for some of his choces in the indie/foreign movie genre). My favourite reviewer of all time ( now also sadly passed away but I still keep an old Film Guide for classic movies) is Leslie Halliwell
http://www.lesliehalliwell.com/

losthorizon

Andre80Johnson wrote: »

I hate Film critics. I can't understand how people let critics decide films for them, because that is what they do basically. In class yesterday, my lecturer brought up a valid point that critics are writing these reviews personally as if they hated the film for little or large reasons, this in returns condemns the film.

I disagree, If you get to know a critics style you can make your own judgement from that. I mean Im not in general a blockbuster type person. I would never in a million years have gone to see the film Star Trek just by ads or trailers. I think it was Donald Clarke who wrote a great piece in praise of Star Trek which got me excited about it. No amount of ads would have done that.

Fysh

Andre80Johnson wrote: »

I hate Film critics. I can't understand how people let critics decide films for them, because that is what they do basically. In class yesterday, my lecturer brought up a valid point that critics are writing these reviews personally as if they hated the film for little or large reasons, this in returns condemns the film.

I suspect that you (and people in the situation you've described) have misunderstood the role of a film critic, and it probably relates to the range of different things that different people look for when watching films.

The role of a film critic is to look at a film on its own merits, identify any themes or ideas explored in the narrative, evaluate how effectively those themes or ideas are presented, and attempt to summarise the overall merits of the films in some sort of laughably inadequate rating system.

That role has little or nothing to do with the role of film reviewers, which is more along the lines of summarising the plot/narrative, listing the core cast members and judging their performances, and possibly providing other similar films for context/contrast.

One role can be very useful if you're interested in the study of film as an artform and you enjoy spending time analysing and dissecting films after watching them. The other role can be very useful if you want to watch a film and are not sure what to watch, but have an idea of what sort of film you'd like to watch. They're not interchangeable though, and you have to spend a bit of time getting the measure of any given film critic or reviewer before you can trust their conclusions on a film blind.

As with many other things, the problems mostly arise when someone tries to use a non-specific qualifier like "good" or "bad" to describe a film, without going into detail about what they mean by "good" or "bad".

Greyjoy

Another vote for Kermode or rather Kermode & Mayo together. I don't always agree with Kermode but at least when I do disagree with him I know why he liked it rather than him just declaring "I thought it was really good".

A large part of that is down to Mayo's input I feel. He pokes and prods Kermode with questions every now and then which makes him justify his opinion or describe some statement he makes in better detail.

Andre80Johnson

Fysh wrote: »

I suspect that you (and people in the situation you've described) have misunderstood the role of a film critic, and it probably relates to the range of different things that different people look for when watching films.

The role of a film critic is to look at a film on its own merits, identify any themes or ideas explored in the narrative, evaluate how effectively those themes or ideas are presented, and attempt to summarise the overall merits of the films in some sort of laughably inadequate rating system.

That role has little or nothing to do with the role of film reviewers, which is more along the lines of summarising the plot/narrative, listing the core cast members and judging their performances, and possibly providing other similar films for context/contrast.

One role can be very useful if you're interested in the study of film as an artform and you enjoy spending time analysing and dissecting films after watching them. The other role can be very useful if you want to watch a film and are not sure what to watch, but have an idea of what sort of film you'd like to watch. They're not interchangeable though, and you have to spend a bit of time getting the measure of any given film critic or reviewer before you can trust their conclusions on a film blind.

As with many other things, the problems mostly arise when someone tries to use a non-specific qualifier like "good" or "bad" to describe a film, without going into detail about what they mean by "good" or "bad".

I'm not disputing the what the critics are there for. Originally. Yes I think it's great that they can get the word out on independent films and the likes, but I think there is too much influence on cinema goers that rely on critics who use their reviews for personal vendettas. I might come across like I'm a know it all or something but I'm not, I've read the reviews and watched the films, and it beggars belief because it's stupid to ruin a film over something personal.

As for the video above of Kermode talking about Kevin Smith near the end. Childish.

Fysh

Andre80Johnson wrote: »

I'm not disputing the what the critics are there for. Originally. Yes I think it's great that they can get the word out on independent films and the likes, but I think there is too much influence on cinema goers that rely on critics who use their reviews for personal vendettas. I might come across like I'm a know it all or something but I'm not, I've read the reviews and watched the films, and it beggars belief because it's stupid to ruin a film over something personal.

As for the video above of Kermode talking about Kevin Smith near the end. Childish.

It's hardly the fault of a film critic if some numpty decides to act like that critic's opinion is The Absolute Word Of God Handed Down From Above, rather than an opinion, is it?

Likewise, if you find a critic's approach to be childish or poorly-argued, why bother setting any stock in what they say? Look around for other critics whose approach is more in tune with what you're looking for. I really don't see what the problem is.

Andre80Johnson

Fysh wrote: »

It's hardly the fault of a film critic if some numpty decides to act like that critic's opinion is The Absolute Word Of God Handed Down From Above, rather than an opinion, is it?

Likewise, if you find a critic's approach to be childish or poorly-argued, why bother setting any stock in what they say? Look around for other critics whose approach is more in tune with what you're looking for. I really don't see what the problem is.

I wrote in this thread to say I hate movie critics and that they have control over peoples opinion on films. I do believe that is true. There are some lazy critics out there with a great job of working with a publication where people would value there opinions a lot and if the critic says, film was not that great, then they aren't gonna go, yes I know you said in the above about It's hardly the fault of a film critic if some numpty decides to act like that critic's opinion is The Absolute Word Of God Handed Down From Above, rather than an opinion, is it? but it does have an effect, a massive one. But that's all I'll say I guess.

I picked a helluva time to start following Roe's movie blog. Now it's about the lack of female critics....

Is there a Female Film Critic in the House??

Female Film Critic Seeks Similar: The Search Part 2

I suspect that you (and people in the situation you've described) have misunderstood the role of a film critic, and it probably relates to the range of different things that different people look for when watching films.

The role of a film critic is to look at a film on its own merits, identify any themes or ideas explored in the narrative, evaluate how effectively those themes or ideas are presented, and attempt to summarise the overall merits of the films in some sort of laughably inadequate rating system.

That role has little or nothing to do with the role of film reviewers, which is more along the lines of summarising the plot/narrative, listing the core cast members and judging their performances, and possibly providing other similar films for context/contrast.

One role can be very useful if you're interested in the study of film as an artform and you enjoy spending time analysing and dissecting films after watching them. The other role can be very useful if you want to watch a film and are not sure what to watch, but have an idea of what sort of film you'd like to watch. They're not interchangeable though, and you have to spend a bit of time getting the measure of any given film critic or reviewer before you can trust their conclusions on a film blind.

As with many other things, the problems mostly arise when someone tries to use a non-specific qualifier like "good" or "bad" to describe a film, without going into detail about what they mean by "good" or "bad".

RE: interchangable, I'm not so sure in theory, although I've yet to see it in practice. I think that if a critic can take a step back and ask the question "what kind of person would enjoy this?" and "does this film do a good job for them?" and then, after explaining their thoughts on that subject, moving into the nitty-gritty of their own thoughts on the film, then yes, a film writer can be both reviewer and critic.

Fysh

Deleted User wrote: »

RE: interchangable, I'm not so sure in theory, although I've yet to see it in practice. I think that if a critic can take a step back and ask the question "what kind of person would enjoy this?" and "does this film do a good job for them?" and then, after explaining their thoughts on that subject, moving into the nitty-gritty of their own thoughts on the film, then yes, a film writer can be both reviewer and critic.

I'm not the biggest fan of his reviews, but I find Roger Ebert is pretty good for at least trying to identify the target audience of a given film. Not enough reviewers seem to have grasped this aspect of the role, though, and some do just extrapolate from their own tastes to the entire film-watching population.

jmclee

Does anyone know what roe did in college or how she got her job at hotpress? She's young enough right?

SirDelboy18

Richard Roeper and I have similar tastes for the most part. He'd be my favourite