Automotive Deals BOTYSFKT Shop Women's Clothing Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis STEM Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Movie forum

Film Critics: Your Favorites!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 25 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 2, 2009 10:00:33 AM PST
MTK says:
Roger Ebert's unfortunate absence from the television has me checking his website regularly for his reviews. They are consistently as entertaining to read as the films themselves, and even better when the film is a real turkey. A fantastic writer whose opinions are always golden.

Another favorite read is New York Post critic Kyle Smith. His witty reviews are a real treat to read.

Any others out there?

Posted on Dec 2, 2009 12:25:28 PM PST
CDaniels says:
I don't follow professional published film critics at all anymore. Now I can go on Amazon, Yahoo! Movies, and/or Rottentomatoes, and get multiple opinions, from ordinary people, who do not see every single movie released, aren't given freebies at film festivals or Hollywood parties, or concerned with advertising revenue. Even for most of Ebert's career, he was trapped into rating thumbs up or thumbs down and a paragraph or a few remarks to justify the choice. Maybe I'll read a review for movies like the last Star Trek movie, when there is a rabid fanbase that can distort ratings one way or another, or to find older, DVDs that are remastered or re-released for an anniversary. But for the latest films in theaters, I don't bother with critics anymore.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2009 12:32:09 PM PST
MTK says:
Cuvtixo: Funny enough, I found Kyle Smith from rottentomatoes. that site continues to be a fantastic source i always check before going to the theatres. I agree with you that Ebert was pigeonholed by his popular 'thumbs up' trademark, however that was always for the television audience. His written reviews for the Chicago Sun allow him more room to write (which is where his true talent lies) and gives him 4 stars to gauge his opinion with. His collection " I hate hate hate this movie" are a books worth of essays on all the stinkers he's seen, and they are hilarious. I love reading random reviews also, but it is only a few people- Ebert, Kyle Smith, and another cultural critic Chuck Klosterman who are worth keeping up with. Looking for more of those writers/critics!

Posted on Dec 2, 2009 5:39:00 PM PST
M. Gaudet says:
I used to listen to roger ebert but the man gave good reviews to indiana jones IV and Revenge of the Sith. The only reviews he has given lately i agree with were for transformers 2 and star trek.

Gene Siskel had better taste then Ebert i bet he would have hated those awful star wars prequels.

Posted on Dec 2, 2009 7:29:42 PM PST
PlanetHell says:
I have to go with Mr. Cranky because he hates everything and it can be pretty funny.
But seriously, I like all of the people (Brad specificially) from Ropeofsilicon.com, mainly because whether he (or they) like it or hate it, you actually get to hear details about why or why not. Not just "Michael Bay made it it's junk" like the usual. Agreeing or disagreeing is almost irrelevant because at least you can form a opinion based on truth.
If I have to hear another "Ebert calls it two thumbs up!" and for something like Knowing...seriously?

Posted on Dec 3, 2009 1:18:23 PM PST
www.reelviews.net
The best site for movie reviews. Mr James Berardinelly is also a great and straight to the point writter.
A 10!!

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2009 3:10:01 PM PST
Roger Ebert. I used to think he was a grouchy, bombastic, pompous curmudgeon on the old TV show and found myself agreeing with Gene Siskel much more often, but then I discovered his writing. I don't always agree with him, but he explains well why he likes or dislikes a movie, is an encyclopedia of film knowledge, and can be funny as hell. His "Great Movies" books are, well, great, and his website is the first place I look for a review of an unknown movie. His audio track on "Citizen Kane" is the best I've ever heard, and made the move (otherwise kind of a snoozer) really enjoyable as film history. Not sure if I'd want to get a beer with him, but he's a great writer and (for me) a more dependable barometer than most.

Posted on Dec 4, 2009 8:36:29 AM PST
the producers with zero mostel and gene wilder ,some like it hot ,butch cassiday and the sundance kid , the graduate , goodbye columbus

Posted on Dec 4, 2009 10:44:08 AM PST
Thomas Pain says:
The late and lamented Pauline Kael.

Posted on Dec 24, 2009 3:43:48 AM PST
Joe Bob Briggs!

Posted on Jun 22, 2010 6:01:50 PM PDT
My pick is Roger Ebert. He is very good with films, but not with logic. For example, he gave thumb down on Tarantino's film, Reservior Dogs, but gave thumb up on Cop and 1/2 which is one of the worst of the worst. And I absolutely hate that film. But, still, I enjoy his being film critic even though I don't agree with him on some films like this sometimes.

Posted on Jun 22, 2010 6:35:39 PM PDT
Leonard Maltin. Though I often don't agree with his negative reviews of certain films, sometimes he'll recommend obscure movies that I seek out and enjoy.

Posted on Jun 22, 2010 8:48:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 26, 2010 9:25:53 PM PDT
I've been watching Ebert's TV show ever since Richard Roeper took over the show, and it was taken over by those 2 "Ben"s, and now by AO Scott and Michael Phillips. I just like seeing professionals discussing movies.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2010 12:48:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2010 12:50:13 AM PDT
Bob Bykowski says:
Mike Clark used to be a regular contributor to USA Today (don't know where he is now), but I found his reviews to be thoughtful and totally objective. While I feel for Roger Ebert and his terrible health problems, I've never liked his writing much. I've always found him to be WAY too generous with films - he seems to like just about 90% of everything that's released, and it often seems as though he gives a "thumbs-up" to just about any movie that features or is directed by African-American artists simply because he is married to an African American in real life. He also tries too hard to be politically correct in a liberal sense with films that address homosexuality. I think he is a much overrated critic. I enjoyed the late Gene Siskel's writing much more, and agreed with his opinions much more as well.

Peter Travers from 'Rolling Stone' magazine is very good as well. So is Stanley Kaufmann from 'The New Republic' magazine.

Posted on Jun 26, 2010 9:32:37 PM PDT
"and it often seems as though he gives a "thumbs-up" to just about any movie that features or is directed by African-American artists simply because he is married to an African American in real life"

Are you serious? Do you have any facts to support that statement, or are you out-of-line?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 28, 2011 11:24:09 PM PDT
RW says:
My one problem with Pauline Kael was her view (if I recall correctly) that a movie should only be watched once.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 29, 2011 10:05:56 PM PDT
Joe Kane (The Phantom Of The Movies)

Posted on Aug 30, 2011 4:31:30 PM PDT
D. Stepp says:
J. Hoberman and Amy Taubin of the Village Voice

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2011 5:10:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 30, 2011 5:19:39 PM PDT
Jonathan says:
My favorites are not the ones necessarily I agree with most, instead they are the ones that challenge me to think more about what I'm watching:

1. Manny Farber: Farber on Film: The Complete Film Writings of Manny Farber.

2. Andre Bazin: Bazin at Work: Major Essays and Reviews From the Forties and Fifties

3. James Agee: James Agee: Film Writing and Selected Journalism (Library of America).

There are many others I read and enjoy, but these are my Big Three favorites.

For those writing today, I'll say Dave Kehr is a good one.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 30, 2011 5:16:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 30, 2011 5:20:21 PM PDT
Jonathan says:
>Robert Bykowski says:
"While I feel for Roger Ebert and his terrible health problems, I've never liked his writing much. I've always found him to be WAY too generous with films - he seems to like just about 90% of everything that's released, and it often seems as though he gives a "thumbs-up" to just about any movie that features or is directed by African-American artists simply because he is married to an African American in real life. He also tries too hard to be politically correct in a liberal sense with films that address homosexuality. I think he is a much overrated critic."<

Aside from the mildly outlandish speculation about the personal reasons for going "soft" on black directors, I agree with everything you wrote.

I think the wordless Thumb-Up-Thumb-Down school of anti-critical Criticism has does inestimable harm to film writing by and large.
I can tell you where Ebert can stick his thumb. . .

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 1, 2011 11:38:48 AM PDT
Jonathan P. Baker: I've watched/read Roger Ebert since the show first came out. His take is always interesting but he is obsessed with 60's European new wave (Fellini, Godard, etc.) and occasionally closed minded about edgy films like "Clockwork Orange" and "Blue Velvet." He absolutely IS more generous to "black films." Watch the last minute here as Siskel exposes him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no8xNrEKJyU

Movie reviewers are strongly biased by whether they agree with the filmmaker and or content.

Posted on Sep 1, 2011 9:45:19 PM PDT
J. Paul says:
Ebert he actually is fair to an extent on a lot of action movies he liked Die Hard 2 & Sudden Death he was sort of kind to Lethal Weapon 4. But in all honesty I don't listen to The High Brow crowd.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 2, 2011 10:15:10 AM PDT
That's why I read Ebert. He is not afraid to give two stars to something the academy is fawning over and not afraid to put something in his 10 best of the year that the academy totally ignored. The liberal, racial, and cultural favoritism he shows don't bother me too much because 99% of major newspapers require it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 17, 2012 9:23:13 PM PDT
Jonathan says:
Robert Bykowski says:>"...very good as well. So is Stanley Kaufmann from 'The New Republic' magazine"<

_____________________________

Stanley Kaufmann says [pans]:

"'Unforgiven' ... At the last, we're left with a film that tries to doll up a conventional genre with hints of depth, hoping to disguise the cross-dressing by putting it in the shape of an epic. Murnau, Mizoguchi, Ford, even you authors of the Book of Genesis, rest easy."

"'Miller's Crossing'... A lifeless, tedious picture... A complete dud."

"'Who Framed Roger Rabbit' ... The plot, the gags, the action are so stupid and strident, so unfunnily parodic, that the film's only interest is in wondering how they did it-the mix of animation and live action."

"'Adaptation' ... Virtually everything that happens in Adaptation is almost juvenile showing off - daring to make a film that is in search of a script."

"'Elephant'... A braggart piece of empty exhibitionism."

"'The Player' ... In crudest terms, there's no one to root for, and unlike Mamet or Pinter, for instance, the story isn't remotely strong enough to thrive without such a center..."

"'Scoop' ... Allen is wretched. It is no kind of pleasure to say so, especially with the memory of the good things he has done; but here he simply plunks front and center the fact that he cannot act and never could."

"'Barton Fink...Billed as a comedy, but it could also be billed as a drama, a satire, an allegory, or a film (partially) noir. It wouldn't matter, or help... Not since Robert Altman has any American filmmaker been as overrated as this pair.'"

"'Jackie Brown' ... It's the flat, self-exposing dud that fate often keeps in store for the initially overpraised."
___________

Jonathan Baker says: .......really? Sounds bitter-approaching-cluelessness these days.
I enjoyed reading some of his work in the past (1960s)... looking him up today is a depressing sight. Even sadder than what happened to Andrew Sarris.

I guess we should all hope to stay employed at 96, huh? Even while evidencing possibly advanced signs of senility, I will stay he's certainly no worse than the average reviewer these days.

Posted on Aug 30, 2012 8:59:07 PM PDT
Leonard Matlin in my view is the most objective and balanced film reviewer - his comments are nearly always either spot-on or close enough to the mark - he only falls short on the more extreme types of action movie which presumably his life experience as an armchair critic has not fully equipped him to objectively comment on - its like his comments just dribble away to nothing when he enters that particular action-movie type of territory - BUT that said he is way better than all the rest put together
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Movie forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Movie forum
Participants:  20
Total posts:  25
Initial post:  Dec 2, 2009
Latest post:  Aug 30, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions