Empire, Sight and Sound or Total Film?

C14N

I'm looking to buy a subscription to a film magazine for a while. I usually get info from the web (Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB) but I don't get much in the way of articles or proper reviews. I was just wondering which magazine is generally considered the most reputable for film news and reviews?

I kind of feel like Sight and Sound has the best name but I would be worried that it might focus too much on art-house and European films (I've got nothing against either, my main interest just lies in mainstream cinema) compared to the other two. Can anyone offer any advice?

Theboinkmaster

C14N wrote: »

I'm looking to buy a subscription to a film magazine for a while. I usually get info from the web (Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB) but I don't get much in the way of articles or proper reviews. I was just wondering which magazine is generally considered the most reputable for film news and reviews?

I kind of feel like Sight and Sound has the best name but I would be worried that it might focus too much on art-house and European films (I've got nothing against either, my main interest just lies in mainstream cinema) compared to the other two. Can anyone offer any advice?

Definitely not Empire - their reviews are atrocious.

Sad Professor

Sight and Sound's focus is pretty broad. This month's issue even had a feature on Prometheus. The kind of coverage big mainstream films get in Empire and Total Film are usually fluff anyway and will be recycled by a million blogs within a week of publication if they contain anything noteworthy.

But if you aren't sure, buy a few issues for a few months before subscribing. In the case of S&S it might actually be cheaper to buy it this way. I haven't done the math, but they really don't do their international subscribers any favours.

johnny_ultimate

Sight & Sound by a country mile. Occasional academic tone aside, it focuses on a huge range of cinema - cover stars ranging from Robert Pattinson to Achipatpong Weerasethakul - and hits all the bases in terms of coverage. Much more a magazine for fans of the whole cinema spectrum rather than the blockbuster / mainstream American focus of the others.

C14N

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Definitely not Empire - their reviews are atrocious.

What's so bad about them? Are they just too free with good ratings?

Sad Professor wrote: »

Sight and Sound's focus is pretty broad. This month's issue even had a feature on Prometheus. The kind of coverage big mainstream films get in Empire and Total Film are usually fluff anyway and will be recycled by a million blogs within a week of publication if they contain anything noteworthy.

But if you aren't sure, buy a few issues for a few months before subscribing. In the case of S&S it might actually be cheaper to buy it this way. I haven't done the math, but they really don't do their international subscribers any favours.

Yeah might be a good idea, I'll pick one up next time I'm in Easons or wherever. What do you mean by the coverage being "fluff"?

Sight & Sound by a country mile. Occasional academic tone aside, it focuses on a huge range of cinema - cover stars ranging from Robert Pattinson to Achipatpong Weerasethakul - and hits all the bases in terms of coverage. Much more a magazine for fans of the whole cinema spectrum rather than the blockbuster / mainstream American focus of the others.

Well the thing is that I tend to be more of a fan of American cinema (which I feel a bit guilty about ), not blockbusters really, it's just that I watch a lot more stuff that was Made In The USA than any other place. But if S&S just has better journalism then I could still see myself getting it. Do they still give reviews on all the films I would find in my local cinema?

Sad Professor

By "fluff" I mean lacking in substance. Frequently they are covering films that aren't out for months, so there's not a lot to say about them. So they interview the stars and babble on about the previous films in the franchise or whatever. It just feels like they are filling up pages. They are also extremely untrustworthy since both magazines are careful not to bite the studio hand that gives them their freebies and on-set access.

And looking over my last few issues of S&S, all the covers relate to American cinema. Cronenberg, Wes Anderson, Woody Allen, Sean Penn, etc.

Bullseye1

I like TF and Empire but would be willing to give S&S a go. The thing Empire and TF are light on are technical aspects of cinema which I'm interested in. How is S&S in that regard?

krudler

Empires reviews suck but I do like their specials like the LOTR or Spielberg ones, havent bought it in years,it was excellent in the mid to late 90's and just got more corporate and worse as it went on, anything thats on the cover as an exclusive is nearly guaranteed at 4 star review at least. Total Film is meh, Sight and Sound is a bit academic like was already said.

FishBowel

Film Ireland.

Loughc

I do enjoy reading Total Film, but I find they are very generous on their reviews of the big Hollywood attraction movies and by the time it hits the stands alot of the information is very outdated thanks to mister internet.

Technocentral

Sight and Sound by a country mile, I'd compare it to an intelligent broadsheet like The Guardian or Irish Times, whereas the other two are like The Sun.

johnny_ultimate

C14N wrote: »

Well the thing is that I tend to be more of a fan of American cinema (which I feel a bit guilty about ), not blockbusters really, it's just that I watch a lot more stuff that was Made In The USA than any other place. But if S&S just has better journalism then I could still see myself getting it. Do they still give reviews on all the films I would find in my local cinema?

Yeah they review every film released in the UK every month - from the film that gets a release in one screen in London to the latest blockbuster. Their reviews can be quite in-depth and detailed, though, so there can sometimes be a danger of spoilers. But I like reading them once I've seen the film, or glancing at a final paragraph about a film I'd like to see! Their features are usually the best part of the magazine anyway.

Again, I think the only competition here is whether you'd use Total Film or Empire first if you ran out of toilet paper :P S&S is definitely far better at encouraging the reader to look beyond the big blockbusters, which to me is one of the key functions of film journalism.

Bullseye1

I enjoy world cinema and Indy movies but there is a serious snobbery when it comes to "blockbuster" movies. Without those movies making the money they do many of the Indy movies would never get made. The money trickles down to first time producer/directors. Personallyi prefer to watch many of the smaller movies at home as they don't really benefit from digital surround sound and large screens.

johnny_ultimate

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I enjoy world cinema and Indy movies but there is a serious snobbery when it comes to "blockbuster" movies. Without those movies making the money they do many of the Indy movies would never get made. The money trickles down to first time producer/directors. Personallyi prefer to watch many of the smaller movies at home as they don't really benefit from digital surround sound and large screens.

I'd personally say that almost every single film benefits from digital surround sound and large screens. Have appreciated countless numbers of smaller films in a theatrical environment, and wouldn't have it any other way. The romance of the cinema, I guess.

You could also argue that the obscene money spent on blockbusters could be spent funding hundreds of smaller, more interesting films. And the plethora of multiplex screens would be in a better position to show these films if they weren't clogged up by an endless cavalcade of superhero films. And audiences would have access to a wider range of films in a wider range of cinemas if Hollywood didn't dominate and distort the very nature of mainstream exhibition. But that's an argument for another thread, another time.

Bullseye1

I guess growing up reading comics in the 70's and 80's I have an appreciation for super hero movies and the positive message most of them have.

I just don't think we have enough people interested in seeing Indy movies on a countrywide basis. Personally I would prefer to see French and European cinema than American Indy. I'd also love if our local cinema dedicate one of the screens for vintage movies. It was a real treat to see Jaws last week.

johnny_ultimate

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I just don't think we have enough people interested in seeing Indy movies on a countrywide basis.

That is the complicated issue, and the cynic in me believes Hollywood have a big part to play in this by 'manufacturing consent' (in the timeless words of Noam Chomsky). I believe many mainstream audiences have been somewhat 'conditioned' in to believing that they do not enjoy indie and world cinema: not necessarily a fault of their own, but a general trend in society where most independent cinema is marginalised, even ghettoised. This isn't unique to cinema - similar arguments can be made for all mass media, from newspapers to books to music. But there is no market because the market itself has determined that is the way things should work.

Not to say there aren't a whole lot of people out there who genuinely do and always will prefer simple entertainment, and some who may have made an educated decision on this matter for their own personal reasons. I wouldn't want to offend anyone by suggesting otherwise. Dumb fun has its place, always will. But for a majority of those who are terrified of subtitles and the like, they have often not had the opportunity to explore these alternatives for all manner of easily observable sociological reasons. This is going into more social theory than I had intended

So, to bring this post ever so vaguely back on topic, Empire & Total Film do very little to challenge manufactured consensus, and therefore I shun them.

Tipsy McSwagger

Empire gave Star Wars AOTC 5 stars and Taken 1 star, ridiculous!!!!!

Sad Professor

There seems to be some kind of stigma associated with indie and "art house" films. I don't know why. At certain times of the year they account for most of the films released in cinemas, even the multiplexes. Even right now you've got films like Cosmopolis and Killer Joe playing in the multiplexes. Those are "indie" films, both of them. Hell, Kick-Ass was an independent film.

Drive was a very popular independent film from last year. And yet during the nomination stage of the Film Awards it only received one or two votes, not enough to be nominated. It seems people saw "indie/art-house" in the thread title and decided to steer clear not realising that a film which they really enjoyed fell under that heading. For next year I think we should probably call that category "best alternative film" or something as the term "alternative" seemingly has a greater cool factor associated with it.

C14N

Sad Professor wrote: »

There seems to be some kind of stigma associated with indie and "art house" films. I don't know why. At certain times of the year they account for most of the films released in cinemas, even the multiplexes. Even right now you've got films like Cosmopolis and Killer Joe playing in the multiplexes. Those are "indie" films, both of them. Hell, Kick-Ass was an independent film.

Drive was a very popular independent film from last year. And yet during the nomination stage of the Film Awards it only received one or two votes, not enough to be nominated. It seems people saw "indie/art-house" in the thread title and decided to steer clear not realising that a film which they really enjoyed fell under that heading. For next year I think we should probably call that category "best alternative film" or something as the term "alternative" seemingly has a greater cool factor associated with it.

Really the reason I would have this stigma would not be because of the content or quality (I have loved plenty of films that could be called "independent" and reading subtitles has never put me off). My personal stigma would largely be because of
1) the overwhelming amount of content
2) the lack of availability and
3) the social aspect.

For example, I was watching Film 2012 with Claudia Winkleman earlier in the year and in one episode they reviewed two new small-budget films, unfortunately I can't recall the names of either. One was an English drama about a petty criminal after he gets released from jail, the other was a foreign language film (from what I remember it was either Dutch or Belgian) about a boy who searches for his father only to have it revealed that his father doesn't care about him.

These both sound like fairly interesting films and the reviews on the show said they were both great but I wouldn't be surprised if I never see either in a cinema or shop or never hear about them ever again. Additionally, I will probably never run into another person who has also watched them so I won't really have anyone to discuss them with.

Every now and again you do get something that manages to get a lot of attention and success (like Drive or The Hurt Locker or The Artist) but for every one of these, there are plenty that the average film-goer hasn't even heard of. It's the same with Irish films, for a while I genuinely believed we only put out/contributed heavily to feature length films every few years (like Intermission, The Guard, The Wind That Shakes The Barley) but last year I somehow came upon an Irish film magazine that extensively listed the upcoming films for the year and I was blown away by how many there were, none of which I ever expected to actually get to see.

All of that doesn't affect which magazine I expect to buy, I still plan on getting a few copies of S&S

scico rocks

If Empire do an interview with a film's star or director, they give it a great review.
If they don't get an interview, they give it a bad review.
Rubbish magazine.

johnny_ultimate

C14N wrote: »

For example, I was watching Film 2012 with Claudia Winkleman earlier in the year and in one episode they reviewed two new small-budget films, unfortunately I can't recall the names of either. One was an English drama about a petty criminal after he gets released from jail, the other was a foreign language film (from what I remember it was either Dutch or Belgian) about a boy who searches for his father only to have it revealed that his father doesn't care about him.

The latter sounds very like Kid on the Bike, which is one of the best films released this year. Well worth tracking down.

Decuc500

Little White Lies is a great magazine. It's out every two months, has very well written articles and reviews and has lovely artwork.

Kinski

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Empire gave Star Wars AOTC 5 stars and Taken 1 star, ridiculous!!!!!

They also gave four stars to Episode One, twice, first in the cinema then on DVD - claiming the second time that you could appreciate the story better on a smaller screen or something (Christ, I have a long memory for this crap!) They also thought the Superman reboot - which was widely panned - good.

They just hype blockbusters, which causes a real problem when you actually have to review them. Whatever about not wanting to piss off studios, how can you go from prattling on and on about how much you're looking forward to a film, and producing special issues previewing it months in advance, to telling everyone that it's crap?

crybaby

krudler wrote: »

Empires reviews suck but I do like their specials like the LOTR or Spielberg ones, havent bought it in years,it was excellent in the mid to late 90's and just got more corporate and worse as it went on, anything thats on the cover as an exclusive is nearly guaranteed at 4 star review at least. Total Film is meh, Sight and Sound is a bit academic like was already said.

Prometheus & Spiderman received 3 stars and both films got a huge amount of coverage in the build up to their release. They did give Superman Returns 5 stars mind you so Empire is far from perfect but I usually find it a decent read they have some excellent interviews with directors.

I have always meant to give Sight & Sound a chance considering my taste in film and will get my hands on an issue asap

C14N

Kinski wrote: »

They also thought the Superman reboot - which was widely panned - good.

Is that the 2006 one with Kevin Spacey? If so, it has 76% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, which is hardly widely panned. Either way, every critic has a few reviews that go against the grain but I get what you're saying.

johnny_ultimate

Even the most respectable publications get it 'wrong', or emerge in proud opposition to the consensus. Heck, look at Roger Ebert who constantly seems to be against the grain (one out of four stars for The Raid, three (!) for The Happening) and is probably the most widely respected living critic. Subjectivity is a complex phenomenon.

The problem with Empire is that the reasons for their opinion are badly distorted - whether it's the unfortunate after-effect of an 'exclusive' set visit or trying to appeal to a 'fanboy' audience. I'm still particularly cynical about their five-star Scott Pilgrim review.

Kinski

C14N wrote: »

Is that the 2006 one with Kevin Spacey? If so, it has 76% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, which is hardly widely panned. Either way, every critic has a few reviews that go against the grain but I get what you're saying.

Checked Metacritic - it does have respectable scores. For some reason I thought it had been panned.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm still particularly cynical about their five-star Scott Pilgrim review.

That's one that did get plenty of great reviews - even Mark Kermode liked it. Baffling, I think it's terrible.

C14N

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Even the most respectable publications get it 'wrong', or emerge in proud opposition to the consensus. Heck, look at Roger Ebert who constantly seems to be against the grain (one out of four stars for The Raid, three (!) for The Happening) and is probably the most widely respected living critic. Subjectivity is a complex phenomenon.

The problem with Empire is that the reasons for their opinion are badly distorted - whether it's the unfortunate after-effect of an 'exclusive' set visit or trying to appeal to a 'fanboy' audience. I'm still particularly cynical about their five-star Scott Pilgrim review.

Yeah Ebert was exactly who I was thinking of, although I was more thinking of him giving positive reviews to films that weren't that critically successful (like J. Edgar or Shutter Island).

To be honest, I thought Empire might have a bit too much reverence for blockbusters over all else.

That's one that did get plenty of great reviews - even Mark Kermode liked it. Baffling, I think it's terrible.

It did get plenty of good reviews, it's just that a full five stars should be pretty hard to come by. It hardly belongs in the same basket as One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

OldeCinemaSoz

Despite the well known plagiarism debacle, i decided to give
the darkside a second chance yesterday on that rare visit to
The Forbidden Planet.

An interesting Hammer driven read.



Speaking of TFB, both starburst and fangoria were on the shelves
but both looked antiseptic and personality free in content.

Maybe that's why i still escape both and others and prefer to read up to date content online?

speedboatchase

I have a few problems with Empire (their love of Simon Pegg and mateyness with him means his movies always get good reviews, even that Crispian Mills one that got trashed everywhere else) but I have to say that it has certainly improved and the iPad edition is jaw dropping.

Sad Professor

I just got this month's issue and it seems Sight and Sound are introducing a digital edition - for Mac/PC and iPad. Print subscribers will get access to the digital edition as well the digital archive. You will also have the choice to subscribe only to the digital edition for about half the price of the print subscription.

Perfect timing too as my subscription is just up. I'm going to wait and see what their digital offering is like.

C14N

Sad Professor wrote: »

I just got this month's issue and it seems Sight and Sound are introducing a digital edition - for Mac/PC and iPad. Print subscribers will get access to the digital edition as well the digital archive. You will also have the choice to subscribe only to the digital edition for about half the price of the print subscription.

Perfect timing too as my subscription is just up. I'm going to wait and see what their digital offering is like.

Is it iPad only or will it work on Android tablets? Sounds interesting nonetheless.

Sad Professor

It will be available on "selected" Android devices as well.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/sight-sound-magazine-subscriptions-and-back-issues

Roquentin

what happened to the online version of total film. seems to have disappeared

Ageyev

Roquentin wrote: »

what happened to the online version of total film. seems to have disappeared

They merged/were taken over by some poxy gaming website or something. It happened last Oct/Nov. All their old pages were migrated to this new site. I found this out after loading a saved bookmark.

krudler wrote: »

Empires reviews suck but I do like their specials like the LOTR or Spielberg ones, havent bought it in years,it was excellent in the mid to late 90's and just got more corporate and worse as it went on, anything thats on the cover as an exclusive is nearly guaranteed at 4 star review at least. Total Film is meh, Sight and Sound is a bit academic like was already said.

Yep and then they rip the film apart two issues later. Always funny seeing the staff defend their position on their forum and Twitter by saying that they don't take bribes for reviews :rolleyes:

Roquentin

Ageyev wrote: »

They merged/were taken over by some poxy gaming website or something. It happened last Oct/Nov. All their old pages were migrated to this new site. I found this out after loading a saved bookmark.

yea everytime i typed it in some games radar nonsense came up. mustnt be selling well

Right Turn Clyde

Sight & Sound occasionally reveal crucial plot details within their reviews. That's very poor form. Ultimately it comes down to poor editorship. It's only happened to me a handful of times, but it was always with films that I was really looking forward to. So I've lost faith in their system. Nowadays I only read reviews of films that I'm unlikely to see anytime soon. I avoid stuff that's already on my radar, and that's very frustrating because that's the content that I'm most interested in. The odd thing is that in the home video section they regularly go into significant detail about older films without revealing the plot, and these are films that many Sight & Sound readers would have already seen. Yet they seem happy to spoil films that virtually none of their readers have seen? Very unusual. Other than that it's an outstanding publication.

Ageyev

Empire do that too Clyde, they usually give a spoiler warning however.

FunLover18

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Definitely not Empire - their reviews are atrocious.

Are they atrociusly written or do you just disagree with them?

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Empire gave Star Wars AOTC 5 stars and Taken 1 star, ridiculous!!!!!

This really annoys me. Personally, I hate that 'they' gave Avatar 5 stars but 'they' didn't ... one of their writers did. It's the opinion on one person who works for the magazine.

Empire are from perfect, I don't read their reviews until I've seen the film but I haven't stopped buying it because I didn't agree with one reviewer one time. They do do a lot of stuff on the blockbusters, they are obsessed with both Simon Pegg and Marvel but they do other pieces. They also do a very good podcast on which Chris Hewitt who wrote the ATOTC review is often slagged by his co-hosts and himself about it.

scico rocks wrote: »

If Empire do an interview with a film's star or director, they give it a great review.
If they don't get an interview, they give it a bad review.
Rubbish magazine.

As I mentioned I usually don't read their reviews until I've seen the films but can you give me any examples or even proof?

Roquentin

i usually use statistics as a gauge to see a film as in i use rotten tomatoes which takes the combined scored and averages it. used be mad into buying magazines (total film) but not as much now. must be getting old.

FunLover18

Roquentin wrote: »

i usually use statistics as a gauge to see a film as in i use rotten tomatoes which takes the combined scored and averages it. used be mad into buying magazines (total film) but not as much now. must be getting old.

Metacritic (I think it's been mentioned already) is also very good. I get Empire because I'm into the sort of movies that they cover and I, personally, like the most of the pieces they do. But like yourself I would use something like RT or imdb or if I know I usually agree with a certain reviewer.

Also, in general, can we not confuse indie films with Indy films

C14N

Roquentin wrote: »

i usually use statistics as a gauge to see a film as in i use rotten tomatoes which takes the combined scored and averages it. used be mad into buying magazines (total film) but not as much now. must be getting old.

That's not how Rotten Tomatoes works. RT just gives a percentage of how many critics "liked" the movie, (I'm fairly sure that if a review gives it over 60% it counts as positive), it doesn't take into account how much they liked it.

FunLover18 wrote: »

Metacritic (I think it's been mentioned already) is also very good. I get Empire because I'm into the sort of movies that they cover and I, personally, like the most of the pieces they do. But like yourself I would use something like RT or imdb or if I know I usually agree with a certain reviewer.

I actually don't like Metacritic very much for films. They often seem to have a relatively small sample size compared to RT and the way they average it out makes it seem more like they're trying to give a definitive score to a film instead of just giving an idea of whether it's worth seeing or not.

Ageyev

@FunLover18, haven't read Empire in years but two Colin Farrell films Miami Vice and Alexander got four star reviews and in subsequent issues there were barbs thrown at those films about how abysmal they were.

For big films their lead writers usually get the big reviews but they will (or used to when I bought it) use newer or casual writers for reviews of rubbish films to give positive reviews.

They also backtrack on poor reviews if there is a backlash (Taken - one star cinema review, three stsr DVD review) or a film wins awards and praise (The Pianist - two star quarter page review, four star full page DVD review).

Nevermind Attack of the Clones, Phantom Menace was given a five star review and featured in a "100 DVDs you must own" supplement sponsored by Blockbuster circa 2002.

You can say it is different reviewers, differing opinions etc. but there are still editorial decisions being made. When Nolan's Batman films came out the editorial line threw the Burton films under the bus despite them bigging up the 1989 Batman as one of the greatest films ever made during Empire's publication history.

FunLover18

Ageyev wrote: »

@FunLover18, haven't read Empire in years but two Colin Farrell films Miami Vice and Alexander got four star reviews and in subsequent issues there were barbs thrown at those films about how abysmal they were.

For big films their lead writers usually get the big reviews but they will (or used to when I bought it) use newer or casual writers for reviews of rubbish films to give positive reviews.

They also backtrack on poor reviews if there is a backlash (Taken - one star cinema review, three stsr DVD review) or a film wins awards and praise (The Pianist - two star quarter page review, four star full page DVD review).

Nevermind Attack of the Clones, Phantom Menace was given a five star review and featured in a "100 DVDs you must own" supplement sponsored by Blockbuster circa 2002.

You can say it is different reviewers, differing opinions etc. but there are still editorial decisions being made. When Nolan's Batman films came out the editorial line threw the Burton films under the bus despite them bigging up the 1989 Batman as one of the greatest films ever made during Empire's publication history.

I definitely agree that there's room for scepticism, I always read the sponsored segment with a pinch of salt I think the current one is a brief rundown of films in production sponsored by Sky Movies. At the same time I think it's pretty normal for writers to disagree over certain things. Just because a reviewer gave Alexander 4 stars does that mean every writer for the magazine has to agree with that or just ignore it if they don't?

Right Turn Clyde

Ageyev wrote: »

You can say it is different reviewers, differing opinions etc. but there are still editorial decisions being made. When Nolan's Batman films came out the editorial line threw the Burton films under the bus despite them bigging up the 1989 Batman as one of the greatest films ever made during Empire's publication history.

Yes, there ought to be a certain degree of internal consistency between different editorial teams. For example, if Citizen Kane was re-released on Bluray, it would seem odd if the person reviewing it for Sight & Sound thought it was overrated, and in fact, actually disliked the movie. That would undermine the editorial line that the magazine has taken over the past 50 years. But where do you draw the line? There has to be scope for change, otherwise dogma kicks in.

Right Turn Clyde

If S&S changed their editorial line in relation to a number of films, you suspect it would be done in a special 'reappraisals' issue where they'd put their arguments out front and centre. Empire, on the other hand, would just change the party line and pretend nothing happened, like some Orwellian Ministry for Film. And that's the difference. Empire are hard to trust because you simply don't know what's going on behind the scenes. It reminds me of those video-game magazines of old (or maybe they're still the same), where Generic Shooter Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 all received terrible reviews, yet the preview of Part 5 still made it sound like a possible Game of the Year™.

Ageyev

FunLover18 wrote: »

I definitely agree that there's room for scepticism, I always read the sponsored segment with a pinch of salt I think the current one is a brief rundown of films in production sponsored by Sky Movies. At the same time I think it's pretty normal for writers to disagree over certain things. Just because a reviewer gave Alexander 4 stars does that mean every writer for the magazine has to agree with that or just ignore it if they don't?

No of course not. As you say, there's room for scepticism and for me I put little weight into their reviews and don't buy the mag.

Fwiw I don't think there is some corrupt conspiracy where they are getting backhanders for positive reviews however, this strawman is typically how Empire respond to criticism. I don't expect Halliwells level of critique but a bit of integrity in the magazine overall would go a long way.

Ageyev

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

If S&S changed their editorial line in relation to a number of films, you suspect it would be done in a special 'reappraisals' issue where they'd put their arguments out front and centre. Empire, on the other hand, would just change the party line and pretend nothing happened, like some Orwellian Ministry for Film. And that's the difference. Empire are hard to trust because you simply don't know what's going on behind the scenes. It reminds me of those video-game magazines of old (or maybe they're still the same), where Generic Shooter Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 all recieved terrible reviews, yet the preview of Part 5 still made it sound like a possible Game of the Year™.

I remember Empire did an issue with Fantastic Four 2: Silver Surfer on the cover and the article inside had something like this. "Yeah we know the first one was crap but OOOH LOOK! we got an exclusive cover and the sequel might be good".

johnny_ultimate

I've grown to appreciate Sight & Sound's spoiler policy - or lack thereof - more and more. Inability to discuss narrative in depth has neutered mainstream film criticism, and given most publications - S&S included - only have the space and resources to cover a film at release (and then maybe far down the line), I think it's great that at least one publication is not content to skip over the details (and tbf they usually do flag spoilers when if and when the reveal is truly critical to the audience's response). After all, that's necessary to give a truly thorough response. But then I look at Sight & Sound as almost a reference library, with writing to delve into after I've seen the film. If I really want to see something, I simply don't read anything in S&S - or indeed almost anywhere - about it beforehand

As for conflicting opinions, that should only be encouraged even within individual publications. I always enjoy when a critical S&S (or another magazine or site) review is accompanied by a more favourable feature, or vice versa. That diversity of response leads to a livelier and more insightful discourse about the film, and allows individual writers' responses to emerge more vividly.

Sad Professor

Re: aggregators, for anyone looking for an alternative to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, check out Critics Round Up. It’s a one-man show so it's not as well updated as RT, but the focus is less on statistics and more on quality writing. I’d also recommend David Hudson’s excellent daily round-ups at Keyframe Daily.

Mizu_Ger

I haven't read Empire for years. I got fed up with constant "Top 50 ??? Films" in every issue.

Sight & Sound is like a publication of record. I rarely read their reviews until I've seen the film. With Total Film (I subscribe digitally, very cheap!!) I'd read most reviews before seeing the film. That's the difference. S&S is a full breakdown and discussion of the film. TF is more of a recommendation guide.