Your Favorite/Most Hated Film Critics

[malcolm1980]

We sometimes love them. We sometimes hate them. We sometimes think they're pretentious snobs. We sometimes think they're idiots. But who are some of your favorite film critics (TV, print or internet) AND your most hated ones , regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with them?

Favorites:
Lisa Schwarzbaum
Jonathan Rosenbaum
Ed Gonzalez (of SlantMagazine.com)

Ambivalent:
Roger Ebert - I like him a lot at first but he undeservedly overpraises some films (The Blair Witch Project) and undeservedly undervalues others (Rushmore). So I'm conflicted about him.

Most Hated:
Owen Glieberman
Richard Roeper - I saw him on Leno one time. He strikes me as a pretentious asshole. The worst kind of critic, btw.
Gene Shalit - What's with this guy? He looks like a weirdo.

[Buck Turgidson]

GOOD:
Roger Ebert
Gene Siskel (I miss his irreverence)
Stanley Kauffman
Pauline Kael
Stuart Klawans (I really loved him at one time, but we've drifted apart.)

BAD:
Michael Medved. Politically motivated hack. If he likes your movie's point or ideology, he likes it. If not, not. He's an embarrasment.

I think these days he's quit pretending to be a critic and now is called a "Cultural Critic".

Those used to be called "Cranks".

[sanshodayu]

Well, i'm an admirer of 3 writers in particular;

Geoff Andrew, now programmer for the NFT in London. Perceptive, and exemplary writing style. His book The Film Handbook (1991) was invaluable.

David Thomson, anglo-American critic, whose latest edition of his classic Biographical Dictionary of Film (titled The New BDF) is due out next week. A must.

Gilbert Adair; slightly pretentious, perhaps, but i love his book Flickers. I was saddened he left The Independent on Sunday- perhaps due to unwarranted flak over his view of Billy Elliot, though he said he'd simply fallen in love with young Zhang Ziyi.

Philip French, Derek Malcolm, Jonathon Romney are all sound.

I need to read more of the American critics' work; Jonathon Rosenbaum seems pretty impressive.

There's a 23 year old, Alex Jacoby, who is already extremely knowledgeable and writes well. I was pleased with his article on Mizoguchi in Senses of Cinema online magazine (which is excellent). I have high hopes for him.

I despise Jonathon Ross' (another critic called Jonathon Ro..)dumbing down of the BBC Film programme, and his appalling factual errors.

[VicVega]

Words cant describe my hatred towards Leonard Maltin. The man is so fucking hard to please. Seriously, what critic gives Memento only 2 stars out of five? Whatta prickhole that guy is.

[notchreturns]

FAVORITE: Roger Ebert

LEAST: Leonard Maltin

[Tom Samborski]

Good: Roger Ebert, Richard Corliss, Gene Siskel, Peter Travers, Mike Clark, Mr.Cranky


Bad: Owen Gilberman, Lisa Schwarzbaum, Robin Clifford, Laura Clifford, Leonard Maltin

[Raena]

Critics I dig:

JoBlo of course!
Roger Ebert
James Berardinelli
David Denby
Peter Travers


I read all the critics if they have columns, what have you. Some just stand out more than others or simply write for bigger publications.

[El Bracamonti]

richard roeper is such a dumbass!!!!!!!!!! thumbs down to fellowhip of the ring?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what the fuck was he thinking?!

[malcolm1980]

Originally posted by El Bracamonti
richard roeper is such a dumbass!!!!!!!!!! thumbs down to fellowhip of the ring?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what the fuck was he thinking?!

He IS a dumbass. Not because he didn't like LOTR but his reasons for giving it a thumbs down were inane. According to him, it was "too long" and "didn't have an ending".

[CheekyShepherd]

I really like Kim Newman. He likes challenging films.

I tend to disagree with Roger Ebert a lot.

I detest Barry Norman.

[charliebobo]

LIKE:
Roger Ebert
James Berardinelli
Barry Norman
JoBlo

HATE:
Richard Roeper
Leonard Maltin

[tbone]

I disagree with Ebert somewhat but his reviews are logicall. Siskel was really good, and I don't mind Ansen and Berardinelli either. Don't really like either ew critic, but if I had to choose one over the other I'd choose Owen.

[A Canadian ThereWolf]

Like:

Roger Ebert
JoBlo
Mick Martin & Marsha Porter (Writers of The Video & DVD Guide)
James Berardinelli
Gene Siskel (ThereWolf misses him so much!)
Peter Travers
Joel Siegel

Hate:

Leonard Maltin (This guy wouldn't know a good movie if it came up and took a dump in his mouth!)

Joyce Kulhawik (Maltin's partner in crime on "Hot Ticket"! And just as lousy as critiquing movies as he is!)

Richard Roeper ("Thumbs Down!" to The Fellowship Of The Ring, but "Thumbs Up!" to 3000 Miles To Graceland, Collateral Damage, Not Another Teen Movie and putting Shallow Hal on his Top Ten of the year list! WTF! :mad:)

[CheekyShepherd]

Is Leonard Matlin that dude who brings out the Golden Retriever books and rates films by the bone?

If so, that guy doesn't deserve to call himself a critic!

[Antonio]

FAVORITES
Arrow (He knows I'm not kissing ass like the other horror Schmoes)
Gene Siskel (RIP)
Roger Ebert

LEAST FAVORITES
Leonard Maltin
Richard Roeper

LUKEWARM
Rex Reed
Joel Siegel

TRUSTWORTHY MAGAZINE REVIEWS
ROLLING STONE
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY (Lisa and Owen)
PEOPLE

[blankpage]

My Favourites-Joblo(the God),Roger Ebert,Peter Travis,The Arrow,Cranky Critic(always cracks me up),

Least Favourite Critics-Lenard Maltin,Richard Roeper,Joyce Kulhawik,Clay Smith

[Luke-Abbott]

Well, I only like one film critic and that would be the name himself.......Joblo (no ass kissing involved). Seriously though Jo knows his sh!t, I hate Barry Norman. That fool doesn't know anything about movies IMO, but hate is a very strong word so.....I dislike him very, very much!!!

[Nate6]

Originally posted by malcolm1980
He IS a dumbass. Not because he didn't like LOTR but his reasons for giving it a thumbs down were inane. According to him, it was "too long" and "didn't have an ending".

Yes, Malcolm, that's right. Those were his reasons. They don't make him a dumbass at all.

FAVORITE:
Roger Ebert is the greatest film critic in American history. Maybe Truffaut was better, I'm not sure. But the only man to win a Pulitzer Prize for it, he was. He always gives reasons and rates films based on their own merits, instead of in comparison to others.

LEAST FAVORITE:
Leonard Maltin is a bad critic essentially because he is too hard to please. Yes, an opinion is an opinion, but he gives poor reviews to almost every film. Lighten up, dude! And start writing reviews that are longer than two sentences, please.

Of course, JoBlo is a terrific reviewer, who always tells it like it is with no bullshit. I wish you and your book great continued success, you'll always have a fan here.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Nate6
Yes, Malcolm, that's right. Those were his reasons. They don't make him a dumbass at all.



If you complain that a film that's known to be the first of a trilogy doesn't have an ending, you are a dumbass.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by A Canadian ThereWolf
Mick Martin & Marsha Porter (Writers of The Video & DVD Guide)



Agreed. There are several guides of that type, and that tends to be the best one.

[Nate6]

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
If you complain that a film that's known to be the first of a trilogy doesn't have an ending, you are a dumbass.

No, you're not. Every film must have a resolution. FOTR IS CONSIDERED A STAND-ALONE FILM. It doesn't matter that it's a part of a trilogy, it should have at least somewhat of a conclusion.

[vastlynne]

I don't have a favorite critic of my own but every sunday afternoon I religiously watch "Roger & Roeper" just to hear what they have to say.

But I can think of two people that I loathe oh so much...the mofos on "HotTicket"
I would rather stick up a hot coal up my butt then to watch them jabber on (especially that biotch whats-her-name). Does anybody listen to them??? Their reasoning behind their opinions on the films are absurd and preposterous in every way. I don't know how some people can stand them.

:confused:

[Strider]

FAVORITE:

Gene Siskel (He was the best... RIP)
Roger Ebert
James Berardinelli


ALRIGHT:

Leonard Maltin
Joyce Kulhawik
Richard Roeper
Joel Sigel


HATE:

Owen Gleiberman
Lisa Schwarzbaum
Harry Knowles

Strider

[tbone]

To cheeky Maltin is the dude that publishes an annual viewing guide. He has a beard and glasses. He doesn't really have a website that posts reviews www.leonardmaltin.com (http://www.leonardmaltin.com ) . I wouldn't say he is horrible and wouldn't know a good movie if it hit in the face, but he definitly isn't my favorite.

[Buck Turgidson]

Originally posted by Nate6
No, you're not. Every film must have a resolution. FOTR IS CONSIDERED A STAND-ALONE FILM. It doesn't matter that it's a part of a trilogy, it should have at least somewhat of a conclusion.

Is that an AMPAS rule or something? It had a resoultion: the first part of the quest was over, it was time to move on to phase two. It's not like they ended it in mid-sentence.

I don't have to rely on this, alone. @ 11 seconds of Roper viewing will convince the most good-hearted objective viewer that he was oxygen-deprived in his first few minutes of life.

There were plans (I suggest if Bad CoverVersion is reading this, she cease now, or there will be projectiles thrown...) a few years before Jackson secured the rights to do a trilogy, to boil all three books down to a single film, of @ 135-150 minutes, to star...Tom Cruise as Frodo. :eek:

Roper would've eaten that shit up w/ a tablespoon.

[WriterManX]

LIKE:
JoBlo (agree with him nearly 100%)
Arrow (ditto)

HATE:
Roger Ebert
Richard Roeper
Harry Knowles
Leonard Maltin

Of course, I really don't tend to listen to individual critics. I like www.rottentomatoes.com since it gives you a plethora of reviews to choose from, thus giving a "general consensus" rather than a single opinion. Not that I'm plugging JoBlo's competition. :cool:

And as for LOTR not having a conclusion, my take is that it is merely 1/3 of a longer film, so not having a conclusion is forgiveable in my book. I'd rather get 2 films without a finale that a 9 hour movie with one.

[Buck Turgidson]

His book is not worth the paper it's printed on (I've laughed out loud flipping through it at the bookstore).

He gives opinions that seemingly have to be the results of bribes he's accepted (anyone who has seen Mike Nelson do him, in the last Comedy Central episode of MST3K, Laserblast, which Maltin inexplicably gave two stars to, will probably still laugh at the mere mention of his name.)

He is almost a total embarrasment, of Roperian proportions, on his Hot Ticket show...

And yet... When you click on the bios he's written of various Hollywood stars that the IMDB has displayed on their profile pages, his eloquence is amazing. I've read dozens of those and really been struck by how dead-on they are.

[docholiday_13]

Best:

The Arrow (I dig how he breaks it down into dif categories)

Ebert's pretty reliable

Peter Travers (Rolling Stone dude. I agree with all his stuff basically.)

Worst:

Geoff Peovre (He's a pretentious prick who writes for The Toronto Star. He writes each review like he's trying to win a Pulitzer. Just tell me if it's good dude!!!!)

Roeper (Okay...........so LOTR gets a thumbs down.............3000 Miles To Graceland gets a thumbs up.........riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Plus Shallow Hal was one of his ten best in 2001. What a fucktard)

Leonard Maltin's a douche.

[CheekyShepherd]

Which critic brings out the Golden Retriever Review Books and rates films by the bone?

They're pretty fucking bad.

[bowieee]

Originally posted by Antonio
FAVORITES
Arrow (He knows I'm not kissing ass like the other horror Schmoes)
Gene Siskel (RIP)
Roger Ebert

LEAST FAVORITES
Leonard Maltin
Richard Roeper

LUKEWARM
Rex Reed
Joel Siegel

TRUSTWORTHY MAGAZINE REVIEWS
ROLLING STONE
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY (Lisa and Owen)
PEOPLE

Antonio that wasn't very nice about the other horror schmoes they are all good people who make sure to respond to your lists all the time. Just because people compliment the arrow for the hard work he puts into the site doesnt mean they are kissing ass. Keep that in mind as you see people responding to all your posts.

[James Logan]

To be honest, I don't give a flying fuck. ;) Movie critics get too much attention if you ask me...

[Moviejunkie]

Originally posted by James Logan
To be honest, I don't give a flying fuck. ;) Movie critics get too much attention if you ask me...

that about sums it for me too! i almost never listen to critics because they hype films too much and make your expectations to high about a movie.

so i don`t listen to them that often.

but i have to agree with docholiday and the others about Roeper.

i can`t take ANYONE`S opinion seriously if they think shallow hal was one of the best films of the year...

:rolleyes:

not to say he`s a dumbass... the guy obviously likes movies that would appeal to the mindless masses. i think 'ignorant' is a better word.

[the movie guy]

I disagree with ALL critics from time to time, of course, but here goes...

REVIEWS I ENJOY READING/LISTENING TO MOST:

Ebert AND Roeper (I used to think Roeper was the biggest fucking moron on planet Earth, but now I tend to agree with him more than disagree, and he argues really well, and humorously, with Ebert, so he ain't that bad.) (I disagree with Ebert probably just as much as with Roeper these days, but Ebert always has a good reason, and when I DO agree, it's usually dead on with what he thinks.)

JoBlo (I think he's a little too shy with those 10/10's, but I usually agree with what he says, even if my grade might be a point higher than his every once in a while. Oh, but I don't like "Fight Club", and I loved "Mumford".) (But his review for "The Truth About Charlie" is dead on.)

Owen Gleiberman (I don't always agree with his reviews, but I do enjoy reading them because they're less "wordy" than Lisa's.)

The Arrow (I disagree with his reviews because I'm not a big horror fan, but he's pretty funny, so I read them anyway.)

REVIEWS I DISLIKE READING/LISTENING TO MOST:

Lisa Schwartzbaum (She's a fool. She thinks her reviews are so smart because they contain witty phrases and words that no normal person knows, but, really, it just makes her look like a jackass. And the movies she likes a lot, I end up usually hating.)

Leonard Maltin (He's a bigger fool. On "Hot Ticket", he'll go on about what he enjoyed about a certain movie, and then, mid-review, he switches over to negative stuff, and usually ends up giving good movies a "Not" because of very disagreeable reasons.)

Harry Knowles (Sometimes I laugh at his reviews, but I still think he's a bad critic and a sad sad individual who hasn't seen his dick since he was 3.)

Any TV or Radio Station's Reviews (These guys aren't real critics, and at least one of them always has a positive review on some really fucking bad film saying, "SLAM-BANG!" or "NON-STOP FUN!")

[robk]

Overall, I'd say that enjoy the reviews of guys like Roger Ebert.

The critic I dislike the most, hands down, is Mark A. Altman, who, in almost EVERY review he writes, shows that he has a h@rd-on for William Shatner, referring to him like he's the greatest creation on God's green Earth.

[Cyclonus]

The "arts review" people at the World Socialist website are one miserable bunch--they almost never enjoy any good movie! I don't know why I even look at them. I guess it's because of a perverse curiosity to see how cynical reviewers can possibly get--in this case their extreme negativity usually makes it hard for me to take them seriously.

They only evaluate films based on whether or not it fits their own worldview, and refuse to judge them on any terms other than their own. Sometimes I'm tempted to compare them to the CAPalert guy.

http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/arts/hwood.shtml

[Scarface98.9]

Favorites:
Roger Ebert
Even when I disagree with him, he always justifies his reasons well and is funny in some of his negative reviews. If you've ever heard his commentaries for Dark City and Citizen Kane, he is informative and an easy listen.

James Berardinelli
I agreed with him entirely on Rushmore, although I would've given it less stars. But he's usually spot on with his reviews, and always justifies his reasons well.

Ron Welles (Filmthreat)
Even though FT gets a bit strange with its ratings, Welles is also a good critic, even when trashing a movie I really like.

Least favorite:
The CAPALERT guy
We all know why, right?

[charliebobo]

Anybody heard of a guy called Brian Koller? He's the worst critic ever, he hates almost every movie and for the stupidest reasons

EXAMPLES:
Almost Famous 42/100 CONS:stereotyped characters, unlikely ending, 'feel good' statutory rape
As Good As It Gets 31/100 CONS:manipulative, jerks aren't funny
Dark City 38/100 CONS:direction, acting, script, big showdown
Clerks 45/100 CONS:cinematography, sound, story, characters, cast
Magnolia 48/100 CONS:story, characters, script direction
Trainspotting 48/100, The Usual Suspects 49/100, Silence Of The Lambs 49/100, JFK 49/100, Boogie Nights 49/100, Good Will Hunting 50/100, The Shawshank Redemption 59/100 and many many more

And what is up with his grading system? 100 point grading scale is fine, but what is the difference between a 78.4 and a 78.6???

Here's his homepage: http://www.filmsgraded.savantnetworks.com/movies/movies.html

[Ren Hoek]

Hey Charliebobo, thanks a lot for the...er... 'recommendation'. Koller's site is hilarious... just couldn't stop laughing:
49/100 for JFK and The Silence of the Lambs... and 83.7 for Clueless?

Is this guy fuckin nuts????? Gimme a break!:D

[Hannibal21]

BEST:
Roger Ebert. We don't agree all the time, but I do love reading his reviews and he has fantastic taste in movies, plus his commentaries kick ass!

WORST:
Leonard Maltin

[WriterManX]

Originally posted by charliebobo
Anybody heard of a guy called Brian Koller? He's the worst critic ever, he hates almost every movie and for the stupidest reasons


I think it's our duty as movie fans to ensure that this man never breeds. :D

[zeppelin]

I don't know about any of you, but I don't judge critics on their taste alone. Yes, it's a factor, but I think being able to write a good and well-thought-out review is much more important to being a good critic.

My favorites:
-Roger Ebert- probably the best writer amongst all critics. I agree about 3/4 times with him too, which counts for something. His commentaries are the best I've ever heard, by the way.
-James Berardinelli- a good writer...sometimes he seems a little bit snobbish, but I still like him.
-JoBlo- if for no other reason than this message board! He's a good critic too though...one of the most honest critics I've read. A lot of critics seem to give movies good grades only because they think they have to or else it will damage their reputation, and they give movies they enjoyed lower ratings just because it is "intellectual" enough for a good rating. But not JoBlo. I will actually go on record and say that I disagree with him about half the time (please don't ban me!), but I still respect him for stating his opinion in an intelligent and thoughtful way.
-Gene Siskel- (sigh) I miss Gene.

My least favorites:
-Leonard Maltin- I don't think he's that good of a writer, and he seems way too hard to please. And I know I said I didn't judge critics by their taste, but 2 stars for Taxi Driver and 3 and a half for The Godfather? Sorry, I wouldn't trust this guy to recommend movies to me.
-The people at filmcritic.com- way too snobbish, and not good writers at all. Their review for Goodfellas was only one paragraph long, and said something to the effect of "The most overrated movie ever." And that's basically all it said. And whenever they write a negative review, the whole thing is just insulting the movie and everyone involved with it, but never giving any real reasons for why it is so bad. And judging by the responses they give to their e-mails (they post them on the site), they are real jerks too.
-Brian Koller- Never heard of him until I came across charliebobo's post here, and I agree: he's simply the worst critic I have ever seen. He marks points off Dr. Strangelove for Dr. Strangelove's "robotic arm," and lists "sad and violent" as cons for The Godfather Part II. Well, duh! You were expecting a happy, violence-free movie? And who the hell criticizes The Nightmare Before Christmas for having songs that are "too melodramatic"? Also, I think it goes without saying that his rating system is ridiculous.