Let's review the Reviewers

[Phantom Hugger]

The other day I was thinking how great it is to hear Tom pan the darling new movie du jour when most other observers are singing its praises. Usually I'm on Tom's side, so Ive come to trust most of his suggestions.

The majority of film critics seem to have some sort of agenda, be it payola, politics, narcissism, nepotism, sycophantic fanboyism or just plain bad taste.

Which critics do the FOT think are class acts and which ones are a part of the problem.

Class Acts.....





Part of the Problem...

[Matt]

I can't say I'm familiar with too many film reviewers, but all the writers at the A.V. Club do a great job.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

If I might expand the discussion to reviewers of all kinds, I generally like The New Yorker, Salon, Harper's, Time Out, and The Village Voice, dislike The New York Times and Rolling Stone (I actually have a subscription that I can't figure out how to cancel).  There are exceptions to this - I'll take A.O. Scott at the NYT over David Denby any day, and while I like Anthony Lane I can see why he gets on peoples' nerves...  And I don't read Sasha Frere-Jones at all.

Probably my favorite critic of any kind is Douglas Wolk, who mostly reviews comics and music.

[Chris L]

I wouldn't say Siskel was much of a critic, although he and Ebert were entertaining together.  Ebert's taste is notoriously suspect (see his rapturous Juno praise for the latest example) but he's a thoughtful, interesting writer, which is ultimately more important.

I can't think of any current film critics that I find consistently enlightening or persuasive as far as recommendations go.  Maybe the previously mentioned AV Club writers (except Tasha Robinson, who maligned The Big Lebowski and thus is dead to me). The House Next Door sometimes has interesting content --- especially their weekly Sopranos and Deadwood reviews they were running -- although they just ran a petulant review of THERE WILL BE BLOOD that I consider to be part of the "problem" (one of them, anyway). I actually only skimmed it to avoid spoilers but honestly you can grasp the overall tone from the opening paragraph and the comments section alone.

[samir]

I like Dana Steven's film reviews at Slate.com, and a few UK reviewers, particularly the BBC's Mark Kermode, who went to the same high school as me, and gets very angry where it's deserved. They have a podcast every Friday which I recommend subscribing to, and you should watch his Pirates of the Caribbean rant here.

[Martin]

Second Samir's reco - Mark Kermode is very entertaining. He's at his best when he's complaining about something, but he's also very knowledgable and witty, and passionate about things he likes. As with all great critics, once you get to know him and his preferences, you can listen to what he has to say, agree or disagree, but always know where he's coming from - and hopefully you learn something along the way. The same could be said about guys like Jonathan Rosenbaum.

Kermode's slam of Pirates 3 is great, but his rant about Tarantino/Grind House is even more insightful. I actually isolated that segment when it aired back in September - here it is.

[Phantom Hugger]

That Mark Kermode is great fun. I just subscribed to his podcast. Thanks!

[Amplituden]

Peter Travers from Rolling Stone is the worst.

to wit :

Chocolat is a sinfully scrumptious bonbon!

He always has to make a lame pun with the movie's title in it.

As they say in MAD magazine BLECHH.

[scotttsss]

I haven't read his review of Juno, but Roger Ebert is pretty much my go to guy just because I've become so familiar with his reviewing style over the years.  There are times when I completely disagree with him, but I don't find him to be the kind of reviewer as cultural weather vane, generally.  When Reservoir Dogs came out for example, I think he gave it 2 stars and said that Tarantino could make a better film someday.  He hated David Lynch's movies for years, but came around for Mulholland Drive.  He's loved movies that I can't stand, but he's like an old friend who's taste I've grown to understand over the years. His recent medical problems might have an effect on his judgement when it comes to movie reviews of Juno, though, who can say.   If you're trapped in a hospital maybe Juno's a welcome departure..  His standing as a class act is still firmly set in stone in my book, and I hope he hangs around to enjoy movies, because I feel like if Ebert's not around to enjoy a good movie one day, I'll be a little bit sad seeing it without him.  And also, he kicked Oprah to the curb, so you've got to respect that kind of taste. 

[Amplituden]

Part of the Problem...

I like to call him Jellyan.

[kleoville]

Anthony Lane cracks me up. Especially reviews of Inside Deep Throat and the last Star Wars debacle.

[masterofsparks]

Mark Kermode

Thanks for mentioning this guy, samir. I wasn't familiar with his stuff before I watched that youtube clip and listened to the Grindhouse clip that crimestick posted (thanks to him as well!) and I'm now a fan. Good stuff.

[Jason]

Mark Kermode

Thanks for mentioning this guy, samir. I wasn't familiar with his stuff before I watched that youtube clip and listened to the Grindhouse clip that crimestick posted (thanks to him as well!) and I'm now a fan. Good stuff.

Moi aussi.

[Omar]

Armond White is clearly a lunatic, and said lunacy frequently leads to comic gems.  From his There Will Be Blood review:

"Plainview is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta."

Excerpt from White's Norbit review:

"Norbit would be enough to confirm his status as the most brilliant comic actor in America. (Murphy plays characters, unlike Sacha Baron Cohen’s one-note Borat which has been extravagantly compared to Peter Sellers. Murphy’s virtuosity surpasses both.)"

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

I kind of like Armond White.