comment #1

Jay T. says ...

The other thing is that a great many film critics are horrible, horrible writers... I rarely read actual reviews anymore because most of them are so boring and unimaginitive. That's why Ebert has stood the test of time: despite some major issues with this taste, his reviews are typically more like essays.

comment #2

cjKennedy says ...

Jeff, forgive me if you've already discussed this in another thread, but I'd be interested to have you list your handful of online taste makers.

I don't think film criticism is dying, newspapers as a means of distributing information are dying and there is a necessary consolidation and reshuffling since not every communith needs it's own critic, but the good ones will survive and turn up in other formats.

Mostly they'll come down from their ivory towers and be forced to stir it up with the riff raff. Be a part of the conversation as you say.

comment #3

DarthCorleone says ...

"...today's moviegoers are far less interested in meekly accepting the word of the lofty know-it-alls. It's all about the conversation, the community talk-back."

Yeah, that's an excellent summation. I'd say it's intrinsically tied to the advent of the internet in that there are so many people in the world who love movies as a diversion and love talking about them. Suddenly they've been given a completely public forum that can be read by anyone in the world, and immediately they're all authorities (on their own opinions, of course) with the ability (and desire) to be heard.

With all the internet movie communities I surf, it verges into silliness to see yet another moviegoer with his or her novel personal top ten list, many with the ambition to write critically for an audience. It's not that I don't appreciate the impulse and resulting discourse; I do very much. I'd just agree that the days of the professional movie critic - already merely a "dream job" for many - are dwindling but for those precious few "conversation starters."

Jay T. has an excellent point as well. Reviews with the stock synopsis and laundry list of positive and negative film elements are challenging to make fresh even for a good writer. I very much value it when a critic can write outside those boundaries and make a creative, engaging piece.

comment #4

corey3rd says ...

my local newspaper critic turns me off with his constant "woe is me, I must watch another bad movie" lead. As if we stinking care that he had to watch a crappy film -cause he got paid for it. And he didn't have to pay for the ticket. Also hasn't there been reports about how movie studios have been cutting back on print ads in newspapers? In today's newspaper budget, if you don't bring in the eyeballs or the ad inch count - you're gone! Everyone is getting laid off - film and the music critics are the first to go. Oh well.

comment #5

T. Holly says ...

Yeah corey, it's like the comment here:

http://blogs.nypost.com/movies/archives/2008/03/no_we_cant_revi.html#comments

Prob I have with the web's treatment of indie film and docs, is how flicks are treated with kid gloves and all the reviews pattern after each other and it's all the same and it's all good. Bullshit. The web has to allow indie film to live and die on the merits of the work and not what the work represents and most docs should find their way to cable for reasons I don't feel like getting into. Anyway, there's great criticism on the web.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/03/michael_haneke.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031303597.html

comment #6

corey3rd says ...

a classmate's movie came out a few years ago and it was amazing how many of the critics used the adjectives provided in his press kit to describe the film especially the "organic" buzz word.

Critics don't have as much sway as they used to with audiences The marketing machine is what makes or breaks a film. I can't think of any "small" films that were major hits that didn't have the massive push. Juno didn't only get its attention from review inches.

On an indie note, I made the horrifying mistake of getting Margot at the Wedding from netflix. How long can Noah Baumbach's lack of talent be hidden by his alleged worshipping of French and '70s filmmakers? And Nicole Kidman must be stopped from ever playing a New Yorker. This woman has done is less convincing as a true Yankee than A-Rod Jack Black was hideous - especially his big "confessional" scene. Scott Rudin owes me a netflix rental on this "When We Were WASPS" POS.

comment #7

T. Holly says ...

Why should they have sway?, you got to get over it, criticism in it's true form is entertainment, like fiction is. I don't waste my time with any of it which doesn't rise to that level. People revered critics for the writing, they didn't ask whether they should see the movie, that question was always up to the public, nothing's changed except there's more marketing and sometimes it's successful, you're right about that.

comment #8

T. Holly says ...

"its true form" (I don't want you to think I'm ignorant)

Wells, there's a typo in the memorial to your sister: she "instantly voiced a disapproving judgment, and riskED the consequences." It's so sweet, I had to point it out, but good lord, my mother was never in bed when I got home from school. Q'uelle affliction?

comment #9

corey3rd says ...

If a critic doesn't have any sort of sway - especially when it comes to getting an audience for a small film with limited marketing dollars, than a movie reviewer serves no purpose to the movie industry and therefore deserves zero attention from the studios when it comes to setting up special screenings and all those other sweet perks that comes with the position.

If a movie reviewer is merely there to entertain a reader like a Dilbert cartoon, than they should buy their own ticket and show up on Friday like the rest of us to see a film. Newspapers don't need to keep these "academic" people on the payroll. The critic that doesn't serve the consumer shouldn't care when they review a film.

If anything, the writing of a movie reviewer is to give one simple fact to a prospective viewer - "Am I seeing all the good stuff in the trailer?"

comment #10

T. Holly says ...

The short answer, Corey, is that stimulating writing is the best way to motivate people to see it. So a good critic's review can be mixed or a pan and generate more desire to see the movie than a bad critic's good review.

You can't tell me either of my links are academically written. And regarding your seeing Margot at the Wedding, had you gone to Metacritic or Rottentomatoes, you'd know exactly what you were in for, and the honesty in the bad reviews may have led you to see it anyway.

comment #11

corey3rd says ...

All I needed to see was the trailer to Funny Games to say, "What's the point of sitting through that mess?" And after reading both of those reviews, I have little care for the film - even on Netflix. And I found myself wondering, what's the point of spending that much time reading about the film. Wouldn't I be better off just watching a Faces of Death marathon? at least Funny Games crashed and burned even in a small release.

it is funny that you mention Rotten tomatoes which has become a strange tool against local film critics. A recent talk I had with a pal that works at a mid-size paper showed how little they care about their staff critic because when people write in to complain about the guy's taste, they mention the whole Rotten Tomatoes business. This is leading the arts editor to ponder if they should just run the Rotten Tomatoes number with the pro or con quotes instead of having to pay a goof to write the reviews. Plus they can have jazzy graphics instead of merely text.

comment #12

jenyamato says ...

T. Holly, you bring up an interesting point regarding Rotten Tomatoes. I'm an editor at RT, where of course we value our Tomatometer rating as snapshot of what most critics are saying about a film -- but that itself depends on contributions from critics. It's been very sad for me to watch as more and more print critics get the axe, since they are the reason why we exist. I hope your friend makes a strong case for himself to his superiors.

I share Jay T.'s lament regarding writing quality; far too many pro critics these days publish inconsequential cookie cutter reviews. If more critics remembered to be writers first, perhaps there would be more readers. In any case, RT is trying to unify the critics community, not diminish it...I'd love to hear the solution to that problem if anyone has it.