Favourite movie reviewers/critics

splashthecash

Hi all,

With all the talk of the initial feedback for BvS coming through, I wanted to see if there is a consensus on reliable movie reviewers/critics?

Ideally I'd be looking for someone who can appreciate a good film regardless of genre...i.e. Someone who isn't above a comic book film is it deserves praise. Someone who doesn't gives a fair go even if the director is X or has Y as an actor in it.

Is there anyone that people go to first and foremost to get reviews, and that you find their reviews and well written and on point?

I understand that movies are a subjective matter so the reviewers taste will colour the outcome somewhat but like in said above, they should be able to give props where due.

The only person I really know is Mark Kermode on BBC and I find that he is quite good for then most part

crybaby

Looking at older films, Roger Ebert's work is a really easy read and very insightful.

At the moment I really enjoy listening to the Filmspotting podcast most weeks on the way to and from work.

Ciaran_B

Current reviewers who's work I'd consider insightful and interesting are Catherine Bray, Robbie Collin, Helen O'Hara and Guy Lodge. There's loads more that I follow on twitter but I wouldn't read all their work. The best of all time, for me, is Philip French.

e_e

Like to read/listen to:

Adam Kempanaar
AO Scott
David Bordwell
David Ehrlich
Jonathan Rosenbaum
Mark Kermode
Matt Singer
Matt Zoller Seitz
Michael Philips
Pauline Kael
Peter Labuza
Robbie Collin
Roger Ebert
Scott Tobias
Tasha Robinson

Can't go wrong with Filmspotting too. Even when I disagree with one or both of them it's always illuminating and entertaining.

blue note

I used to think Donald Clarke was good but spotted reading him when work stopped buying newspapers.

I enjoy Philip malloy on Newstalk, but you have to get used to himself and George hook and take them with a large pinch of salt.

I really like spooool.ie.

And I do listen to mark kermode too, he's probably the best of them.

Two things which I will say though, is that film reviewers find it very hard to review comedies and musicals. I don't think it's just a taste thing for comedies as many people suggest, I think people are as likely to agree on them as they are on any other genre. I just think that film critics generally struggle to give us useful or meaningful reviews on them.
And musicals my problem really is that the music comes second when they watch them. So a film like sweeney told which deserved to be slated for casting people who couldn't sing it does alright (Johnny Depp even got an Oscar nomination!). The people going to musicals tend to go for the music and it hardly factors into their reviews.

Fysh

You can still get your Donald Clarke fix via the Irish Times online, film reviews are normally available here.

Having said that, I've found he's slipping over the last few years for genre films. I think that he doesn't enjoy genre films (particularly superhero films) as much now that they're more common, but he can't seem to put that aside when reviewing them. He's better than many, but not as reliable as I used to find him...

AnonoBoy

Anthony Lane in the New Yorker is great.

He's a tremendously funny writer I think. I even bought a book of his reviews once.

Arghus

Fysh wrote: »

You can still get your Donald Clarke fix via the Irish Times online, film reviews are normally available here.

Having said that, I've found he's slipping over the last few years for genre films. I think that he doesn't enjoy genre films (particularly superhero films) as much now that they're more common, but he can't seem to put that aside when reviewing them. He's better than many, but not as reliable as I used to find him...

I still read Donald Clarke when I get the chance.

I saw in the BvsS (BS thread?) that some were accusing him of being one of "those" types of critics: the type that gives full marks to impenetrable arthouse films, and null points to the popular stuff. That's not the case really. I think he's got a broad enough appreciation for films, both the obscure and the popular. He might have higher standards than the rest of us and rightly so: he's a professional movie watcher and, personally, I prefer my critics hard to please.

There is one flaw in his style that I could take exception to it's the fact that he can be one-eyed about films he dislikes or likes. For example, he reviewed The Hateful Eight recently and did not like it one bit. His review pointed out the many flaws that were there to be found, and I agreed with him on most of them. But he gave the film no credit whatsoever in it's technical achievements and overall craftmanship. I think whatever you may have thought about that movie - and I certainly didn't love it - to only draw attention to its flaws and to not make any concessions - to not even make mention - to the obvious effort that went into it's production, is a failure of objectivity on his part. He's guilty of pre-judging movies sometimes; it feels like he's got his mind made up before viewing and is only going to approach certain films with a postive or negative attitude, no matter what they have to say

Fysh

Arghus wrote: »

I still read Donald Clarke when I get the chance.

I saw in the BvsS (BS thread?) that some were accusing him of being one of "those" types of critics: the type that gives full marks to impenetrable arthouse films, and null points to the popular stuff. That's not the case really. I think he's got a broad enough appreciation for films, both the obscure and the popular. He might have higher standards than the rest of us and rightly so: he's a professional movie watcher and, personally, I prefer my critics hard to please.

There is one flaw in his style that I could take exception to it's the fact that he can be one-eyed about films he dislikes or likes. For example, he reviewed The Hateful Eight recently and did not like it one bit. His review pointed out the many flaws that were there to be found, and I agreed with him on most of them. But he gave the film no credit whatsoever in it's technical achievements and overall craftmanship. I think whatever you may have thought about that movie - and I certainly didn't love it - to only draw attention to its flaws and to not make any concessions - to not even make mention - to the obvious effort that went into it's production, is a failure of objectivity on his part. He's guilty of pre-judging movies sometimes; it feels like he's got his mind made up before viewing and is only going to approach certain films with a postive or negative attitude, no matter what they have to say

Like anyone he can also be blind to faults in films he likes - I remember he gave the 2009 Star Trek reboot 5 stars, and reading his review it was clear that this was largely down to his very pronounced fondness for Star Trek TOS.

Most of the time he brings a good critical eye to the films he reviews, and it's a joy to see him choose to review something terrible just so he can be entertainingly vicious with his disembowelling

Technocentral

Phillip French and Roger Ebert the best ever

Arghus

I enjoy a lot of what Devin Faraci has to say. I also think that if I met him in real life I'd like to wring his neck: He's so obnoxious!

Ebert was great, but towards the end he was probably a better writer than a reviewer. I felt he handed out full marks far too easy.

Nathan Rabin is very enjoyable to read. He might be my number one.

A.O. Scott
Matt Singer.
Anthony Lane
David Ehrlich
Dave Kehr
David Thomson
Kim Newman

Mark Kermode - Inveterate name dropper though, "I was just saying once to Billy, you know Billy Friedkin?", and can go soft on British films.

The boys from Filmspotting are great.

Just realised that I've no female critics in my list; I haven't read enough Pauline Kael to have an opinion. I feel bad saying now that Tara Brady is my least favourite critic, but it's true! I find her style of reviewing to be pretty lousy: she doesn't engage with the film, I've read reviews of hers where she barely talks about the movie she's dealing with.

Tony EH

Yesteryear - Ebert (although I've always felt he was too easy on some films)

Today - Kermode

Sad Professor

Arghus wrote: »

Ebert was great, but towards the end he was probably a better writer than a reviewer. I felt he handed out full marks far too easy.

Probably because he sometimes did what a lot of franchise fans now claim a critic should do: predict whether they think the film's intended audience will like the film rather than offer their own opinion. As it turns out he was frequently wrong.

Decuc500

What I got from reading Ebert was that he genuinely loved movies. I read so many critics now who’s reviews make it feel like watching a movie and writing about it is a chore for them. I’m not a fan of reviews that read like academic exercises. A movie isn’t some sort of mathematical equation to work out.

I do enjoy reading Donald Clarke’s reviews and his gruff Ulster persona but I would never be swayed by his opinion before seeing the film myself.

Tony EH

To me Ebert always gave a film a chance, as opposed to some critics who you just know had the "red pen" out for some films they "knew" they wouldn't like going in.

He was a bit too happy clappy in many cases though. But, on the whole, I found myself agreeing with his opinions more often than disagreeing.

kronsington

If anyone is looking for some utterly bizarre film reviews, check out Armand White. He writes for some big American publications (whose names escape me) but he is the most contrarian, pompous critic ive ever listened too. Makes Donald Clarke look like a acne ridden, hygienically challenged fanboy. They had him on the Slashfilm podcast a few times. Didn't agree with one thing he said but weirdly fascinating at the same time.

I like Kermode, Screenrant, Collider, Slashfilm, Empire, Total Film generally

zoobizoo

Can't read and don't rate Donald Clarke or Tara Brady.

It's as if they are watching different films to me.

Kermode is my go to guy

kronsington

zoobizoo wrote: »

Can't read and don't rate Donald Clarke or Tara Brady.

It's as if they are watching different films to me.

Kermode is my go to guy

I might be wrong here but I think Kermode had a reputation as a bit of a snooty critic years ago? He comes across very well in the Kermode/Mayo podcast I think and his reviews are intelligent, measured and fair

Dirty Dingus McGee

Roger Ebert's reviews were excellent.His website is brilliant ( although unfortunately the look was changed after he died and the new look just isn't as good as it was before).He seemed to really loved films and he even loved all the stupid little things about films and could appreciate all types of films.He always tried to see the good in a film rather than try to find a way to trash a movie.

Tony EH

kronsington wrote: »

I might be wrong here but I think Kermode had a reputation as a bit of a snooty critic years ago? He comes across very well in the Kermode/Mayo podcast I think and his reviews are intelligent, measured and fair

Been watching and reading Kermode for years. Never got that impression from him.

In fact, he's an exploitation film fan, as I am myself. Snooty critics don't tend to like that side of moviedom.

mansize

I love Egbert, before I watch a movie I'll read his review. I'm lost now.

LandonRicketts

For Me I would have to go with Kermode and RedLetterMedia's Half in The Bag film review series

charlie_says

I like the Filmspotting guys also

Kev W

Outlaw Vern is the only critic I have time for, though he writes in character (to a far lesser degree than he used to, it must be said), which may be off putting to some.

He is one of the few critics who approaches the action genre with both respect and intelligence.

e_e

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Roger Ebert's reviews were excellent.His website is brilliant ( although unfortunately the look was changed after he died and the new look just isn't as good as it was before).He seemed to really loved films and he even loved all the stupid little things about films and could appreciate all types of films.He always tried to see the good in a film rather than try to find a way to trash a movie.

For fans of Ebert this video compilation somebody made of their shows best moments is amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iZ9suJXJTk