What makes a good movie critic?

[Tuukka]

I think a good movie critic is simply someone who gives well thought arguments. I know that you can't really be objective, when you critize art, but you should TRY to be. And you should always remember that it's just your opinion. I don't mind if a critic disagrees with me, as long as he has good points to do so.

Another good thing is that the critic understands and likes different genres. The film should always be compared to other films of the same genre. You shouldn't compare different music styles to each other and same counts for movies.

It's also important that you can trust a critic. If he likes one film for some reason, he shouldn't bash another film for exactly same reason. It's surprising how many critics do this all the time.

And finally critic should understand something about the art of filmmaking. It's painful to read reviews, where the critic has no idea what he is talking about. A prime example: Many critics constantly praise / bash the director for decicions which were made by the screenwriter. If you can't see the difference between these two, maybe you shouldn't be a critic.


Here are my two favorites of the moment:

Joblo -I might disagree with him, but he is always honest and tells you exactly why he likes the film, with well thought arguments. The only film where he has given bad arguments was The Happiness. But at least he admitted that maybe he just didn't "get it".

The Variety -It has many critics, but usually I can trust them all easily. They always try to be objective and obviously know a lot about the art of filmmaking. They also appreciate different genres in their own terms.

[Tuukka]

One more thing: I'm talking about the weekly variety, which has really long reviews. Those yearbooks with short versions of the reviews suck.

[TenTen]

I think a movie reviewer needs to do 3 things:

1 - Describe the movie - outline the plot, characters, style and other relevant details.

2 - Say what they did/did not enjoy about the movie, purely on a creative level (critiqueing the acting, the story etc.)

3 - Say, if any, what was technically wrong with the movie - unexplained endings, shoddy production, bad FX, and so on.

Having said all that, I firmly believe that a movie critic can and will become jaded if they see too many films without time to consider them, or even to look forward to them. I read reviews in certain papers & magazines because I'm used to their negative and pretentious outlook, and everything they slate I know is probably going to be good entertainment. But if you're really trying to make a decision whether to see something or not, read all the reviews you can find. Even if they're split between good/bad, you'll know enough about the movie to guess if you'll like it or not. That's why I didn't bother with Battlefield Earth, despite adoring sci-fi.

[PackBacker]

I find that I like very few critics....most are too condescending for my liking. I think you have to find one that:

1) Is on your level (art-house, general cinema, etc.)

2) Has adequate writing skills to give a plot synopsis. Then, he/she must be able to express their opinions in a written manner and be able to explain/defend their reasoning.

3) Be one that you can respect and/or agree with most of the time. This comes in either similar movie views or through consistency.

I rarely check anything other than this site. The guys in the local papers suck. Ebert tends to be hit and miss for me. JoBlo has the writing skill to give me the plot succintly and then explain why he liked/did not like the flick in an entertaining manner. Plus, we tend to agree on a lot of flicks. I can check this out and decide if I am going to be throwing my money away or not (something I really appreciate JoBlo!) [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

[NathanRomano]

Someone that can still give props to a movie even if they don't like that kind of movie

[john_rambo]

Someone who doesnt just praise indie films

[Digifruitella]

I love ancient threads, really I do. It's amazing how long this site has survived.

This is why I dig Ebert/Siskel (rip)/Roeper. I might not agree with them on some things - happens always with everything, but they are legit critics that know what they're talking about

[john_rambo]

holy shit i didnt realize it was that old lol
but ya ebert and roeper may not always succeed... but they at least try to be on the audiences level unlike others (leonard maltin)

[ilovemovies]

What makes a good movie critic? Very simple. To have an opinion.

That's all there is to it.

A love and knowledge of film is good but not always 100% necessary.


I truly believe in the phrase, everyone's a critic. Seriously. The only difference between us and critics? They actually get paid for their opinions. That's it.

[EVILxxx]

Someone who realizes what kind of film they are watching. For example, a reviewer not afraid to give a relatively high score to a film that in some areas may come across as shallow, but who's intent was to give the audience an exciting action film and accomplishes that goal.

[Cosimo]

someone who knows film and who started their career in film criticism unlike johnathon ross. bring back barry norman! i sometimes agree with a few peeps on newsnight review. mark kermode is ok

[Johnson]

Originally Posted by La Motta

someone who knows film and who started their career in film criticism unlike johnathon ross. bring back barry norman! i sometimes agree with a few peeps on newsnight review. mark kermode is ok

I always liked Barry Norman - pity he took the Sky money, he could still be on the Beeb. Wouldn't be Jonathon Ross's biggest fan but I appreciate his enthusiasm.
Mark Kermode kind of overdoes the artiness for me - kind of like if Dieter from Sprockets did movie reviews. And was English.

To go back to what someone else was saying about finding your level - I generally, though not always, find I identify with Owen Gleiberman and A. O. Scott.
These guys can distill the essence of a movie, contextualise it and are, for the most part open-minded.
I usually read loads of reviews on www.mrqe.com
I usually wait til after I've seen the flick though.

[bigred760]

A good movie critic is one who is a fan of movies. I've read too many reviews lately that constantly give bad grades to every kind of movie. I don't mind a bad review here and there, but give out hundreds and I begin to wonder whether or not they enjoy what they do. A knack for writing helps too (which is what I lack).

[The Heart Collector]

I look for two things

1. the writer has some insight into the movie that other reviews don't have. too many reviews are the same old thing. a good recent example of this is a review i found for 'there will be blood' in the ruthless reviews website. even though i think the reviewer is full of it and just being a contrarian for the sake of it, the review was totally different from any other review of the movie i read, not because it was bashing the movie or overpraising it but rather it was complaining about the general view that the main character is some horrendous monster. the 'thesis' of the review, so to speak, was that the critic didn't feel the movie was that amazing because it failed to established the inhumanity of the main character, and gave a bunch of examples of that. i don't necessarily agree with the guy but it was infinitely more entertaining to read than every other review ive read of the movie, which is THE SAME SHIT.

2. the writer doesnt' have a mechanical way of writing. he/she doesnt summarize the plot in one paragraph then proceed to discuss every other particular in separate paragraphs, etc. rather, the ideas just float. to put it in another way, i prefer a review to be written in terms of "here's my idea about this movie, and i will proceed to justify it in the following paragraphs" rather than "here's a paragraph about how good the acting is, here's a paragraph about how good the cinematography is", etc etc. the latter is tremendously boring.




this is what i'm looking for in terms of good and entertaining writing. however i'll concede that doing this when you review full-time is practically impossible.