What do you think about critics?

I wrote a blog recently about critic's that you can read at, I'd like your opinion and would like to hear your thoughts.

I can sum up any critic with just one word: biased.

The one critic I like signally is Ebert, though I really hate his Donnie Darko review. But I do use RT quite a bit, before I wacth a movie I check out the rating. Some say that'll make you biased coming in but I don't think thats the case. I like a lot of films that are poorly rated an hate a lot of well rated ones

__________________

I'm a life-long Roger Ebert fan; I don't always agree with him, but I never miss any of his reviews. An all around amazing critic and person.

Ebert is a tremendous writer who knows cinematic history. That's the main reason to read his stuff. Opinions themselves aren't generally worth much so, to be worth the time it takes to read, a critic needs to offer those sorts of tangible things, I think. An angle or an insight, raw education, and ideally, an aesthetic quality to the critique.

Since lots of critics lack in one or more of these areas, few are worth reading. But I will say that critics are highly useful in the aggregate, IE: Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic.

It's always interesting to hear opinions but I'd never miss a film due to what someone has said, even a professional critic.
I tend to make up my own opinion and ignore what any critic has said.

__________________

I like Roger Ebert too. He writes extremely well and his and my opinions actually seem to match up more often than not.

Nother thumbs up for Ebert here.

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

Ebert

Ebert is also the only one I follow regularly, though I do disagree with him on a few films (namely Blue Velvet and A Clockwork Orange... and does he really think Platoon is better than Full Metal Jacket??)

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

I love Ebert as well. He's a great writer, and his opinions usually match with mine on certain films, with a few exceptions (Fight Club and A Clockwork Orange). Plus, he said video games can't be art, which really irks me, but that's beside the point. Gene Siskel was another great critic before his tragic passing, though he nitpicked movies to death, in my honest opinion. I actually still watch their old Siskel & Ebert shows online just to hear the banter and arguments they would get into about the merits of just one film.

I always read the Daily Mail on a Friday to read the moronic reviews by Chris Tookey, it's actually quite amusing, especially when he goes in a sissy fit over a film that's violent/graphic sex or even worse sexualised violence. You should have seen his comments on Cronenberg's Crash.

I read reviews, but even if there bad, I still go see the movie. Then after the movie I realize, sometimes, I should listen to those critic's, but I just keep on doing it.

Most critics, especially those who get paid for it, don't know how to word their criticisms or can't think outside the box of their textbooks. The worst critics are the people who enable Hollywood.

That about sums up 90% of critics ya?

A good critique will have evidence for its points and possibly a couple resolutions for the main problems. It also shows understanding of what the product was saying/where it was going, etc. in order to back up its claims. Engage the reader that way, not by using a bunch of thesaurus-drawn words to sound like a "film critic."

The casual moviegoers could listen to the critics because its obvious that the critics have seen more films than the average moviegoer and have accumulated much knowledge to at least discern whether a movie is worth watching or not. Although one can make the case for the choice of movies casual moviegoers go for. Generally, they seek movies that entertain. The critic, on the other hand, having seen a lot of CGI infected blockbusters (while seeking more unconventional, thought-provoking films of today) would naturally dissuade casual moviegoers from the genuinely good entertaining movies. Thus leaving the casual moviegoer scratching his head over say, The Tree of Life.

For the cinephile, the professional critic might fail because s/he mostly watches recent films and this will distort the critic’s sense of what is good and bad in a way that isn’t helpful for a cinephile. I would guess that many cinephiles try to see as many good films as possible—current movies or movies from the past. At the same time, they try to avoid many bad films. The professional critic, by the nature of their job, has to see a lot of bad movies. So I’m suggesting that seeing all these bad movies might make some of the average or pretty good movies seem a lot better than they are. (I’m wondering if this partly explains the reason critics rave about films that many cinephiles don’t highly regard, eg. Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind)

So film critics have a hard time satisfying both the casual and experienced moviegoer. My advice: Use your brain and your experience when judging your movies. The movie that you watch and enjoy is yours, not someone else', and definitely not the movie critics'.

You guys do make valid points.

__________________
Check out my blog: thehollerinhog.blogspot.com. I write about movies and other things that interest me. Stop by, take a look. I'd love to hear feedback and maybe chat it up about the latest movies.

Some critics like Spill.com do a great job. Others are way to...erm...excuse the pun...critical.

__________________
Oxfords not brogues.

While I've never really found a critic who I enjoy enough to make it a habit of reading their work, I do tend to agree with the tomato meter at Rotten Tomatoes. For example, check out the rental list here. Of the films I've seen, MI:GP, The Muppets, The Descendants, and The Innkeepers all have positive marks and I would give them positive reviews. I watched part of the new Underworld and all of The Divide and I'd give them negative marks, and they fall into negative tomato ratings.

There's the occasional oddball, IMO (Footloose remake was good?!?), but I think the tomato meter is one of the best tools for critical breakdowns.

__________________

If movie leaves me at least some impression,I always read what Roger Ebert and James Berardinelli says about them.

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

I don't know. I find that a lot of movie critics are too full of themselves just like most interviewers, that think that they are more important ( or at least they try to be ) then the subject of their interview.
Some of the choices that they make certainly leaves me with a "who cares? " attitude. Dick Cavet and Orianna Fallaci were good interviewers.
Bruce Williamson was a great movie critic and Roger Ebert a very knowledgeable one.