What Movie critic do you ahte the most?

KenSwee

Let's face it, most of them are idiots.

I can't stand George Byrne.
Pompus fool with his dismissive attitude.

Mods, fix my title!

Bullseye1

George reminds me alot of posters on here. He has the same sensibilities.

BTW what did he review that upset you?

Ronanc1

Cosmo Landesman from the Culture in the Sunday Times!

e_e

I hate any critic who panders to the reader (only going to see the mainstream movies and writing for people who rarely even go to the cinema) and is dishonest in their reactions to the movie (reviewing it based on an arbitrary target market that may not even exist, even if they themselves were bored by the film).

But I do get a little annoyed when people naively slam all critics and forget the fact that so many amazing films would not even reach an audience if not for them.

Bullseye1

A critic has to get the right balance between reviewing a movie for those people it is aimed at and also to movie goers who only occassionally visit the cinema and who normally watch Indy movies on DVD due to lack of theatrical release.

Kinski

I feel equal measures of contempt and admiration for Mark Kermode.

Skinfull

I stopped reading reviews a few years ago because I could never find a critic that agreed with me on even 50% of movies. I loved Barry Norman when he was doing The Film Program, but didnt love when Jonathan Ross took over.

But I especially hate the unpaid critic (ie Joe Bloggs) who will dismiss an entire genre of movie because they have seen one bad one, or even not at all. If you don't like a particular genre then fine (I hate period dramas ala Emma or Wuthering Heights but I've given it so many chances to win me over, it almost got me with Howards end). but you have to be open to being surprised by a film, any film, any genre. To dismiss them outright is doing yourself a disservice.

Psychedelic

Roger Ebert. He seems to give all the films I like bad reviews, and his reviews (not that I've read that many) seem to be nothing more than mere summaries of the film rather than any deep analysis. I can't remember what else it is about him I don't like but I know he just really irritates me any time I see one of his reviews.

delbertgrady

Cosmo Landesman always seems to be contrary just for the sake of it. There's nothing wrong with advocating your own point of view, but more often than not, he'll pan films that are getting universal praise, and find merit in films that everyone else slates. Such repeat offending suggests he just does it out of spite.

al28283

Kermode! He's got that hipster douche way of hating whatever is popular no matter what

mikhail

Psychedelic wrote: »

Roger Ebert. He seems to give all the films I like bad reviews, and his reviews (not that I've read that many) seem to be nothing more than mere summaries of the film rather than any deep analysis. I can't remember what else it is about him I don't like but I know he just really irritates me any time I see one of his reviews.

I think Ebert is overrated too. I've also noticed that tendency he has to write reviews composed of a summary (often containing spoilers) and very little analysis.

norrie rugger

I bloody hate Ebert's habit of spoilers. I notice that he does it more often in films that he does not like and it feels really spiteful, as if he wants you not to enjoy it if he did not.

I can not read his reviews anymore because of the spoiler threat (I used to read them because if he hated something then I would probably like it)

johnny_ultimate

I actually wish a few more critics were less concerned with spoilers. Not being able to go into detail about the plot automatically limits the potential for in-depth analysis. There should be a clearer divide between reviews and analysis, naturally, and it should be flagged clearly if there's potential narrative surprises discussed. But the problem is many great film writers don't tend to re-examine films after the initial review, which is an unfortunate restriction on more deeper layers of discourse.

That's another topic I guess, but there's a good article from Donald Clarke in The Ticket today about how obsession over spoilers is kind of killing the potential for online criticism. Flag it properly, and I see no reason why more critics shouldn't be delving into more than a star rating.

al28283

It depends on the type of review they're doing. If it's for a recent release there's not much point in analysing a movie which most people haven't seen yet

johnny_ultimate

It's actually probably beneficial kicking off a more in-depth discussion as soon as people have seen it (or with a short delay), as it would let more people get involved in the discussion while its still fresh in people's minds. The well-written Film Crit Hulk stuff is actually a good example of how to go about it, albeit with a slightly geekier skew on the subject matter.

norrie rugger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I actually wish a few more critics were less concerned with spoilers. Not being able to go into detail about the plot automatically limits the potential for in-depth analysis. There should be a clearer divide between reviews and analysis, naturally, and it should be flagged clearly if there's potential narrative surprises discussed. But the problem is many great film writers don't tend to re-examine films after the initial review, which is an unfortunate restriction on more deeper layers of discourse.

That's another topic I guess, but there's a good article from Donald Clarke in The Ticket today about how obsession over spoilers is kind of killing the potential for online criticism. Flag it properly, and I see no reason why more critics shouldn't be delving into more than a star rating.

Flagging it is great but Ebert never did, in my experience

krudler

the slashfilm podcast is good at discussing new stuff and have a specific spoiler segment so you can skip forward to avoid it, I rarely listen to newspaper critics, most of them dont even seem to like films, then there's the ones who just love everything. Harry Knowles (if you can call him a critic) is mine, gushing over anything his bff's Del Toro and Rodriguez make and pissing on anything that didnt give him set access.

Kinski

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That's another topic I guess, but there's a good article from Donald Clarke in The Ticket today about how obsession over spoilers is kind of killing the potential for online criticism. Flag it properly, and I see no reason why more critics shouldn't be delving into more than a star rating.

But couldn't reviewers working for established publications just maintain a blog with more detailed, spoilerific analysis, so you could get their general impression of the film from review in the paper (or wherever), then check out what they wrote on the blog after?

FishBowel

Dave Fanning - calling De Niro 'Bobby' in a TV interview. Show some respect you tosspot.

e_e

al28283 wrote: »

Kermode! He's got that hipster douche way of hating whatever is popular no matter what

He has given this Summer alone positive reviews to Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, Avengers and The Amazing Spider-Man. His number 1 film of 2010 grossed over 800 million worldwide, and another in the top 3 grossed over a billion.

Just saying!!! Doesn't strike me as somebody who is setting out to hate what's popular.

norrie rugger

FishBowel wrote: »

Dave Fanning - calling De Niro 'Bobby' in a TV interview. Show some respect you tosspot.

What if DeNiro said "call me Bobby"?

Cartman78

re: Kermode - very knowledgeable & has a lot of interesting things to say but would like to see him detached from Simon Mayo as their chumsy double-act has became quite nauseating in my opinion.

Filmspotting and The /Filmcast are pretty decent movie podcasts

OldeCinemaSoz

Chris Tookey, he of The Irish Mail, (a rag even Bertie regretted
letting into the country), has to be the most reprehensible piece of Right
Wing vomit to put word to paper since that clown LittleJohn scribbled in The Irish Sun.

:mad: