Comments on: Has the Web killed movie criticism?

By: rczosnvge pirc

rczosnvge pirc — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:43:11 +0000

dhlcr zcdq uencyoagd vbuh hbtedunc kybpem rbvawipd

By: lypjronm xelbahsc

lypjronm xelbahsc — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:32:37 +0000

zgkpnq bxlenhvt sgwauxyn youh hfyi zwrcdg axuwkb

By: Madeleine

Madeleine — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:49:15 +0000

To get a rounded, overall critics viewpoint, rottentomatoes is the site to visit. Love it.
I too wish EW had 2 critics for one movie (at least the “big” movies). It’s more interesting when it’s 2 viewpoints, Owen versus Lisa’s review. EW should do that more often, not just on occasion…listen up EW, the times they are a changing.

By: Brian W. Fairbanks

Brian W. Fairbanks — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 04:09:57 +0000

Most internet “critics” are illiterate, but some are fine writers and many have it over their print rivals because they are true film freaks, not former obit or sports writers who were assigned to the job because there was an opening. Anyone who likes movies probably thinks he/she is qualified to be critic, but a critic should KNOW movies, too, and that includes the medium’s history. Research and reporting skills are as woefully lacking among film critics as they are elsewhere in print media.
I once aspired to be a film critic myself, but I do believe we are nearing the end of the road when it comes to “professional” criticism.

By: t3hdow

t3hdow — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 03:19:09 +0000

Frederick made the best point here. Before Electronic Gaming Monthly (a gaming magazine) sucked, I liked its multi-perspective reviews. Granted, there were a few games I liked which were poorly reviewed, but the three/four-man reviews led to some interesting discussions. Every so often, there were games where the group had wildly differing opinions on the same game, where on others, they unanimously agreed on. There might be a reviewer or two you hated, so it’s easy to ignore that specific person if you choose to. Entertainment Weekly needs something like that. They occassionally do that, but not often enough. It would at least attempt to alleviate the stereotype that critics are overly cynical people who praise art house/independent movies over mainstream films.
If anything, it’s some of the posters speaking their mind against film critics I can’t stand. Granted, some of you do have some enlightening and intelligent things to say, but I don’t like how the ew.com reviews are used as a catalyst for bashing some of the editors. Have any of you seen the responses for Lisa S.’s recent Apocalypto and Blood Diamond reviews? Good lord, most of the posters wouldn’t shut up about how wrong and stupid her opinions were. HELLO? It’s called an opinion for a reason! It’s her thoughts, not yours! And don’t even get me started with Owen’s We Are Marshall review…I’ve never seen so much ignorance in my life.

By: Mary Alice

Mary Alice — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:36:13 +0000

I enjoy reading Jon Sieruga on IMDB. I also enjoy Ebert and Roper, I sure miss Roger and hope he gets back soon.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 01:42:30 +0000

I hope not, because I’d like to be a film critic (and actually, a TV critic would be my top choice, if EW is looking). That said, I always felt that a film should be given two grades: one for how well-made it is, and one for how outright entertaining it is. Thus, a cliched film like “John Q” would get a low ‘well-made’ grade, but a higher entertainment grade, while a film like “In the Bedroom” might get a low ‘entertainment’ grade but a high ‘well-made’ grade.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:54:06 +0000

I really only pay close attention to the criticisms of Orson Scott Card on his http://www.hatrack.com. I’ve found that when he likes a movie, I tend to like it. I disagree with Owen and Lisa about pretty much every movie out there. Sorry, but give me populist, fun movies any day over “important” depressing independent movies.

By: Ep Sato

Ep Sato — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:44:23 +0000

I like Fredric’s point. Even newspapers like the Washingtonpost will send out two reviewers. One of them is a snooty C*nt who hates on everything that isn’t an “smart” or “independent” movie (maybe he writes reviews Bob Woodward would read?). The other three main critics (Desson Thomson, Anne Horniday, Michael O Sulivan) seem to be more in touch with real people.
Anyway, the point is that when Liza Schwarzbaum is sent to review a movie like “Four Brothers” and writes, in the first line of the review “I don’t think this movie was made for someone like me”, maybe it’s time for EW to have a second reviewer give their 2 cents as well.

By: Ned

Ned — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:32:53 +0000

If I’m iffy on a movie, and it gets a lot of bad reviews, then I’ll usually pass. Other than that, I don’t use reviews that often to decide what I see, I still like to read them though, because I enjoy reading about film. Harry Knowles reviews can be fun, because he obviously enjoys film so much, but he tends to go way overboard with his praise sometimes. Even Mori, who is a little more reserved most of the time, can get a little weird with his reviews. I’ll never forget his review of Adaptation, he claimed that it was so good that he literally started shaking on the way home and had to be helped inside, come on, that’s having a stroke, not a reaction to seeing a movie.