comment #1

byanyother says ...

All I know is that in the era of bloggers replacing critics what is missing is style. I like Lisa Schwarzbaum, EW. The age thing, for what it's worth, blows. What a stupid and pointless way to mention critics -- Kim Morgan and Kim Voynar, yes. Who cares if they're under 40 or not. Ugh, why is it that every day on the web someone writes something stupid and disappointing?

Anyway, what I notice most in the era of bloggers pretending to be film critics is that style is out the window. Manohla Dargis still writes with style. David Edelstein is a great writer of film, David Thomson, etc. But many of the bloggers just yarn on and on randomly - making a point but doing it without understanding language. They write post after post and after a while it all starts to sound the same. I hope we can preserve the art of film criticism.

comment #2

Chase Kahn says ...

Christy Lemire? Claudia Puig? I'm not sayin' I like reading either of them -- the latter in particular -- but, there you go.

comment #3

raygo says ...

Somebody asked me to name off my favorite under-40 female critics the other night.

Better question ... who is this "somebody", and why "under-40" unless you "guys" are having a discussion about hot chick critics. It's a fairly reasonable assumption, and you're just baiting LexG all the same. So your fair warning seems just as silly as this post.

comment #4

jesse says ...

Ugh, Christy Lemire is one of my least favorite critics around. Both AP film critics have this weirdly clinical-yet-pedestrian version of evaluating a movie; they basically seem to proceed by taking off a certain number of "points" for pretty boilerplate flaws (stuff like: too long; implausible; miscasting; "unfunny" -- all the usual vague and not very insightful stuff) until they arrive at a rating of 1.5-2.5 stars, occasionally 3 or 3.5. They don't ever sound remotely passionate, and in fact some of their 1.5 reviews read pretty similar to their 2.5 star reviews, because I get the sense it's all the same to them. If I'm giving a movie one star or equivalent or whatever, it tends to be something pretty effing bad, not something where I have some mild nitpicks. Their reviews always sound more nitpicky than truly critical. Maybe this is a fallacy of the ratings system... but on the other hand, it can be a useful barometer when no one review sounds very different or more engaged than anything else. Here's a tip: actually love movies! Don't just regard them as an occasionally reasonable diversion. Dargis can come off as snooty, but you also can tell she LOVES movies. And her prose is fantastic. So it's that easy, huh?

Schwarzbaum, like Gleiberman, has some stylistic tics that she repeats and drives me crazy (though not as crazy as some of OG's fondness for certain words and phrases). That could just be an offshoot of her productivity, though, since both EW critics do several big reviews per week, and I've been reading them both for years and years.

comment #5

Jonas Grumpy says ...

[RIP, Jonas Grumpy -- banned for life.]

comment #6

Steven Kar says ...

How about that Victoria Alexander?

I don't know who she writes for or even if we can take her seriously as a critic but sometimes her "reviews" are funny and dead-on and amateurish and wrong all at the same time.

So many people hate her on rottentomatoes...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author/author-3571/

comment #7

Chase Kahn says ...

I can't stand Claudia Puig even though I mentioned her above (just sort of popped out) -- her rwriting is so meager and trite, they're like assembly line reviews.

comment #8

Mr. Peel says ...

Kim Morgan is wicked smart, she has a passionate and unique love of film and she's a damn good writer too. She should be on TV every week.

comment #9

LexG says ...

Manohla Dargis is pretty close to the best critic in America, male or female. I thought she *was* in her 40s, but then again even though I've read her for over a decade, I've never had any idea what she looks like.

Schwartzbaum's writing is extremely grating... Puig? I don't even know how she landed that gig as replacement to the always-awesome and dependable Mike Clark, who was funny and kept things in such a nice perspective. Sample Puig reviews read like this: "This is a movie. It was good. Some parts were better than others. The actors are good. If you are going to see it, you might like it. Or you might not. I did. This is who is in it. I like them. Here is the plot..."

Also, Wells is awesome and "Jonas Grumpy" sounds like a total tool above.

comment #10

corey3rd says ...

what about critics under 40 who dress up as women when they go see Meryl Streep films?

comment #11

MartinBlank says ...

Kim Morgan has interesting (if predictable) taste, but her stuff always reads like some teeny-bopper smitten with some pop idol, only the pop idol is Warren Oates or someone. If she weren't attractive, I doubt she'd get as much fawning from male bloggers who on some level dream of attending a Monte Hellman triple feature with her, followed by pie and perhaps more.

comment #12

byanyother says ...

I agree with you Martin to an extent. I think people are interested in her because she's pretty, no doubt. Diane Keaton talks this up in Manhattan. And Jack Nicholson said in Wolf, "but the only reason anyone would want to bother is because you are so beautiful."

Her writing is interesting, though a bit too showy ultimately - she's always dropping uber cool names -- she is cultivating an image I suppose. It's interesting, though.

Manohla Dargis is still my number one since Janet Maslin quit

And LexG, I think you know who the only tool is around here.

comment #13

LexG says ...

Kim Morgan is great and an interesting read... but Why So Serious? She has an cool take on most things (though what MartinBlank just said is fairly accurate)... but anyone watch that roundtable she just did with Poland and Co.? She was so deadly serious and intimidating in her trademark "vintage noir bombshell kitten with a whip" badassedness I thought she was gonna wipe the floor with those genial dudes.

Someone above said she'd be great on TV on a regular basis -- and she would -- but at the end of the day... it's just movies, not a healthcare debate.

Anne Thompson, who everyone in these parts seems to love and find interesting and I'll presume is maybe a tad older, also came off as dry and schoolmarmish in that format a few weeks back. Sometimes a little showmanship and levity is required. It was interesting when Roeper had that rotating series of guest critics on, that these folks who watch movies for a living and cherish entertainment so much can't be delightful, charming, disarming and magnetic in front of a camera. Turan is also a TOTAL STIFF in those video reviews. Geez, shouldn't you critics KNOW how to act like a movie star on camera?

comment #14

Jonas Grumpy says ...

[RIP, Jonas Grumpy. Banned for life.]

comment #15

byanyother says ...

Jonas Grumpy banned for life and LexG gets to stay? Ack, time to head on back to the Hot Blog.

comment #16

LexG says ...

Byanyother...

What are you talking about? I stay on point when asked and I respect Wells, and with my minor following I'm not some jerkoff troll but a legit commenter and L.A. film voice with a certain sense of humor. So stop trying to throw me under the bus.

On topic: How about Betsy Sharkey? It's odd, she's been at LAT for, what, eight, ten months now? And has made seemingly no impression or either me or anyone else; While I'm just glad it means I have to read that buffoon Turan that much less, I can't get a read on her style...

Which leads me to Carina Chocano, who was awesome and readable, though as others have said, seemed more pleased with her ability to write than actual film reviewing and watching.

comment #17

Clear says ...

I'm fully comfortable admitting that I'd love to see a Monte Hellman triple feature and eat pie with Kim Morgan. The old movies and pie alone bit has gotten rather old.

"This is a movie. It was good. Some parts were better than others. The actors are good. If you are going to see it, you might like it. Or you might not. I did. This is who is in it. I like them. Here is the plot..."

That sounds mostly like Ebert too. There are few truly original writers, so personality goes a long way.

comment #18

Phatang! says ...

Moira Macdonald in Seattle is pretty good (no clue how old she is). Dargis is awesome. Schwartz. is dull and has no sense of humor. Dana Stevens watches movies like a college student (though I used to like her TV writing).

comment #19

Chase Kahn says ...

DZ: that is spot-on about Puig. I remember buying a USA Today for 25 cents at a Panera (not Pantera) across the street from the AMC in between movies and could hardly read two of her reviews before planting my head in my Bacon Turkey Bravo.

comment #20

MartinBlank says ...

I would suggest Stacie Ponder of the blog Final Girl. She's funny, she doesn't take herself or her subject too seriously, there are no "look at me, boys" hawt photos of her on her blog, she's passionate about certain films without sounding like an easily impressed fangirl, and she's creative in her own right, doing illustrations and short films featuring Lena Hedley. Granted, she isn't writing as often because of the last thing, but when she sits down and tackles some VHS-only turkey she picked up at a yard sale, she strikes an amusing and useful balance between ironic appreciation and actual appreciation.

comment #21

Cadavra says ...

May I assume no one's mentioned Lael Lowenstein because they're not sure she's a she...?

comment #22

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

Amy Nicholson - www.amyweekly.com

And every time Leslie Gornstein, E!'s "Answer Bitch," does a review for E! Online, it tends to be pretty good too. Since I too write for E! Online, I may be biased, but check out her reviews of Julie & Julia and Hannah Montana at http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/movie_reviews/index.html

comment #23

wireddan says ...

I also enjoy Leslie Gornstein. My favorite "reviewer" though is apparently only 19 and is from Malibu. I read every one of her reviews and I don't usually say that about anyone.

http://valeriewriter.wordpress.com

comment #24

Frank B says ...

Kim Morgan might suffer for putting her looks out there. I don't mind, especially when all of her picture are interestings. But there's so much cool surface there, and she's so unafraid of loving pulp as well as "serious cinema", that some might forget to look at the depth and style in her work. Her pieces on Hitchcock, Punch Drunk Love, In a Lonely Place and Repulsion, for example, were not teeneagy by any stretch of the imagination. They were really, really smart, unique and insightful. And her interviews with Tarantino and James Toback were stellar. This woman knows her movies, books, music.. As for TV, she was delightful sitting in for Ebert.

comment #25

Goulet says ...

Two words: MaryAnn Johanson.

www.flickfilosopher.com

One of my favorite critics, male or female, young or old.

comment #26

Sean Means says ...

Lisa Kennedy at the Denver Post, Moira MacDonald at the Seattle Times, and Mary Pols is back (writing freelance for Time.com, when she's not birthing a Jenna Elfman sitcom based on her pregnancy memoir).

But I agree with others here: Manohla's da bomb.

comment #27

Alice says ...

Who are you missing?? ME!!

(And wow, I hope the irony translates).

I love Manohla's style and agree with above comments that blogging film criticism often lacks the polish of the printed word. As a blogger developing into a published reviewer, I'm noticing a few things:

1) There is a glut of male reviewers and very few women on the ground (here in Australia, anyway).
2) Bloggers too often write in the first person, which I think is a dead giveaway if/when they try to jump into print.
3) If you do write in the first person, then you'd better 'be' somebody with an established opinion/body of work. Otherwise I think it comes across as just lazy.

Looking forward to checking out some more of these names. Many thanks!

comment #28

kitty78 says ...

#23, Thanks for that link. That girl is hilarious!

comment #29

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

Wow, hugely impressed with Valerie Atherton and have bookmarked her.

Thanks, wireddan!

comment #30

BurmaShave says ...

I really like Ann Hornaday, and feel privileged to have her as one of my hometown critics, but she's a sexist. Read her IRON MAN review and imagine if it were a man writing about a well-made romantic comedy.

comment #31

K. Bowen says ...

LIke any other writing technique, it depends on how you use first-person.

comment #32

Alice says ...

@K. Bowen - agreed. But would you agree that most blogging is written in first person, compared with print, which mostly uses the third, or sometimes, the second person?

Perhaps it's just a stylistic trend made popular by the ever increasing band of bloggers, but I think there's a way to have a personal style without resorting to writing in the first person.

And of course I think we need more female reviewers!

comment #33

Frank B says ...

Regarding first vs third person. Who cares? Great writing is great writing, blog, print, bathroom wall, wherever it goes. Boring bloggers abuse first person, yes. Interesting bloggers excel at it. Boring print critics use first person as do good ones who get things very wrong. For example: :

"When I pass a newsstand and see the saintly, bearded, intellectual Kubrick on the cover of Saturday Review, I wonder: Do people notice things like the way Kubrick cuts to the rival teen-age gang before Alex and his hoods arrive to fight them, just so we can have the pleasure of watching that gang strip the struggling girl they mean to rape? Alex's voice is on the track announcing his arrival, but Kubrick can't wait for Alex to arrive, because then he couldn't show us as much. That girl is stripped for our benefit; it's the purest exploitation. Yet this film lusts for greatness, and I'm not sure that Kubrick knows how to make simple movies anymore, or that he cares to, either."

That was Pauline Kael, btw. And that was a sloppy paragraph.

comment #34

Alice says ...

Fair point, Frank. I guess I'm more likely to warm to first person if that reviewer is established - if, through their body of work, I 'know' them. Pauline Kael being a perfect example.

But, male/female, first, second or third person, it appears critics (Australian critics at least) need to expand their vocabularies!?!

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/cut-time-for-a-free-kick-for-niche-australian-movies-and-their-makers-20090827-f132.html?page=-1