The war on film critics

gopgymnmode Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:03 PM EST

The good convenient site is made.

Heitteeinal Mon, May 5, 2008 at 06:27 AM EST

Hello I am a soviet that I called on this site I very like here

erupttriliJem Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:13 PM EST

The good convenient site is made.

Smunnyunduche Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:23 PM EST

Hello! Excellent site! Searched a long ago

Lemobooda Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:06 AM EST

Hello, excellent site, very rich in content
and correctly carefully thought out,
personally I found here much interesting
and useful

Jeff Thu, Aug 9, 2007 at 09:00 PM EST

Leonard's comment is hilarious. It is not the job of the film critic to be "in touch" with the public or reflect the taste of the populace any more so than it would be for a food critic or art critic. If it was, Bon Appetit would be raving the fabulous cuisine at McDonalds and Brian Sewell would be extolling the virtues of "Dogs Playing Poker."

It is the duty of a critic of any art form to examine the artist's technique and how well he uses that technique to explore the possibilities of his art. With movies, that can often mean, "how successful is this piece at entertaining its audience without insulting or patronizing them?" Giving a bad movie a good review just because you think a lot of idiot teens at the mall will like it doesn't do a service to anyone.

I share the lament for loss of local critics and, to a degree, criticism in general. The Robert Denersteins and Michael Wilmingtons of the world are slowly being replaced by the aforementioned mall monkeys.

Leonard Part 5 Thu, Aug 9, 2007 at 04:57 PM EST

I won't miss them. It seems like 90% of the time they are out of touch with wat people enjoy anyway. I don't know if they are too caught up in the artsy aspects of a movie or what, but a badly reviewed movie can still be a lot of fun.

Sam Marie Thu, Aug 9, 2007 at 02:11 PM EST

We used to have a local paper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, but it was outsourced to AP, Reuters, Gene Shalit, and Dear Abby's daughter. I always read our local movie critics' reviews (Thanks, Eleanor Ringel Gillespie and Bob Longino for all the great rants and raves) but I no longer can. If I wanted to read Gene or Steve Roeper or Roger Ebert I would go to their websites. I resent having my options limited and my neighbors fired or reassigned to cover gossip. Thanks for calling attention to this travesty. We tried to argue with the paper, but the automated system forwarded it to some customer no-service center in India.

Ned Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 04:23 PM EST

I love to read reviews, but our local newspaper critic needs to be fired. He made a big show of refusing to see Happiness, and called American Beauty pornography, and generally makes himself look foolish. I would be happy to see him out of a job.

Francisco Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 03:51 PM EST

I would miss film critics if they were ever to leave the news print. This would be another nail in the coffin for daily news publications in general considering their dwindling sales and readers.

I hardly ever support a critics opinion, however they do serve an important function of marketing by generating a discussion usually around a watercooler or blog like this one.

Jen Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 02:56 PM EST

We don't have a movie reviewer in my small town (I keep trying to convince my editor that I should), but I would think that people from a smaller town might enjoy hearing the opinion of a movie from someone that they might be able to relate to better than a film snob in a big city. I know I get sick of hearing from "critics" about what "films" at the "cinema" are good - I want to hear a reviewer tell me what movies are good down at the multiplex! I think the problem with a lot of critics are that they are pretentious and out of touch with what the masses enjoy.

Chris Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 02:55 PM EST

I think that local critics should be used provided that they do the job correctly. In our city, we had a critic who obviously did not enjoy horror films, so he would not give a fair review, sometimes even going so far as to let you in on who survives. I was not disappointed to see him moved to another section. But if they give insightful comments, and tell you the truth about a film, I think they can be a valuable asset!

paxamoret Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 02:33 PM EST

I think the general problem is that a certain personality type is drawn to criticism, and they are the people who like FILMS, and use the word "cinema" unironically. I think we tend to defer to them because they lack a sense of humor, and thus seem more "serious," leaving us slightly embarassed of our lowbrow taste. Their definition of a good movie is usually way too narrow. Think about it -- when was the last time you saw a comedy receive an A? I actually tend to avoid movies that are too well received, because I know they are likely to be filled to overflowing with suffering and end sadly. I live in Atlanta, where the local paper has the insufferable Eleanor Ringel, but also the very funny and very knowlegeable Alan Smithee (yes, I know it is an alias), who clearly enjoys the full spectrum of movies, which should be a prerequisite for critics. We need more people like him. (Are you paying attention, EW?)

jds Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 02:05 PM EST

I love reading movie reviews, when they're written by people who care about movies. I don't care if I agree with them or not. People here are saying, that critic is bad because he/she loved/hated something I hated/loved. That's just a difference of opinion. Someone here trashed Stephen Hunter -- what a tremendous writer he is! My wife and I recently found ourselves discussing his piece on Garden of Stones, which was what, 20-some years ago? We both still remember it.

I want to read people who are passionate about the subject they're writing about. I, who have never hunted or fished and never will, read the outdoors column in my paper because it's well written by someone who cares what she's writing about.

What more do you want?

FLIPPER Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 01:12 PM EST

Ditto what cRAIG said.
But I do admit, before I'll even consider a movie, I gotta check on my fav critics reviews, which I don't always agree with. It has saved me money and the desire to boot my TV screen. I won't go see a movie blind. But like someone said earlier, the trailers will often tell the tale whether it's crap or not.

Dio_K Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 01:07 PM EST

Wow, I want to read your local papers. I haven't read anything but opinion in the local papers for years. Criticism of the kind I studied in film school? Nope. Aesthetics? Nope--nothing in my towns and cities. Maybe one or two pretentious quotes from high school memories of the Iliad or a passing reference to Fellini, but nothing that passes for true criticism. But like I said, I want to read your local papers.

Raymond Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 11:32 AM EST

Now that anyone can start a Web site and claim to be a critic, the concept of film review has been diluted. On one hand, it is more egalitarian. However, being hired by a reputable publication has no relevance, so along with the pool being less stuffy, there's less in the way of qualifications. Now we have a collection of single-minded opinion folk rather than writers offering true criticism and analysis.

Stephanie Travitsky Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 11:21 AM EST

Critiquing is a dying art form. Critics exist so that they can say that they liked or hated something but that does not mean that the person has to. Not to mention that some of these music and movie critics introduced me to movies and music that I would have not known about.

eliz.s. Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 11:18 AM EST

I read the national critics. I'm not a fan of the local paper's critic. I know if he doesn't like something, I probably will.

Sue Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 11:09 AM EST

I read both local and national reviews, and I appreciate both. Especially living in NYC, local reviewers (such as Time Out or New York Magazine) often make me aware of small, independent movies that have opened in only one theater locally. I also really like getting to know the "voice" and personality of the reviewers I read, so that over time, I know whether my opinion is likely to jibe with theirs. So yes, I know the general taste of Owen Gleiberman and Lisa Schwarzbaum, so even if I don't agree with their reviews, I appreciate their viewpoint. Same with my local reviewers and those in the NY Times. If my paper started printing syndicated reviews from some random writer anywhere in the country, I'd notice and be annoyed.

hemisphire Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 11:07 AM EST

Not trying to suck up, but one of the reasons I started subscribing to EW was the film critics there seemed far closer to my tastes than the critics in my local papers (Washington Post, Washington City Paper). I still read the other reviews out of interest to see others' views, but the EW grade carries a lot more weight.

sarah Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 11:06 AM EST

i hate our local washington post newspaper critics, especially stephen hunter. however, i LOVE to listen to willie waffle on the radio. i've heard him in several different markets & he has a website www.wafflemovies.com. unlike stephen, who's a pompous ass, willie seems so down to earth, like a buddy. & while i don't always agree w/ every review, he's still fun & funny & worth listening to/reading. i think to get rid of film critics like willie would be a damn shame. tho fil critics like stephen hunter & the other critics, like the one in buffalo, should not be allowed to exist.

G-Dog Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:53 AM EST

Film critics are becoming obsolete because there are so many other ways to get info. I would rather have the opinions of other moviegoers like myself than som self-riteous critic that tries to hold "Superbad" to the same status as "Schindler's List". There are so many venues for opinions now that you can really research a movie before you see it. Keep the critics if you want, but maybe they should start taking an "Everyman" direction rather than being so....well, critical.

carole Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:50 AM EST

I sometimes base my decision to go to a movie on the reviews. But recently i saw a few movies I had avoided b/c the reviews were so bad and thought that the critics were all wrong. so if they go, they go.

DLM Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:45 AM EST

I most certainly will miss film critics, if only because I want to become one. Selfishly, I'm afraid that the blogosphere is swallowing up the discourse on film, and I might find myself unable to make my voice heard in this marketplace. But even apart from my career aspirations, there's nothing like reading the opinions of a good critic. If film criticism is becoming a dying art, then film will suffer across the board, especially when it comes to smaller films that don't have the marketing bucks to make an impression against the aggressive advertising of big-budget studio productions.

Josh Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:39 AM EST

Speaking as a local film critic, I'd like to think my opinion is important, but we're not exactly curing cancer.

I've had people tell me that they held off on seeing a movie because they wanted to hear what I thought first. I usually tell them that just because my opinion is in print doesn't mean it's more important than theirs. Movies are always going to be subjective and personal.

I'll tell you what doesn't help local critics though: the people who set up press screenings deciding a critic from a mid-sized paper isn't "worthy" enough to be included. Doesn't exactly keep the reviews timely.

NineDaves Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:38 AM EST

i'm with you - the more critics, the better. when i see a newspaper that has a syndicated critic, i just view the paper as a whole as lazy. i want to hear what the local voice is and the national voice. i don't always agree with critics, but i always learn something from them. i appreciate the other side of things.

Hi Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:33 AM EST

There should be two types of critics at every news outlet that attempts to print film reviews. One should see the film through the eyes of the average person, yet this person must still possess good writing skills and film knowledge. The other should be the film critic, the historian who can put the film in proper context. I'm not talking about a point-counterpoint thing, just two points of view in separate articles.

Hi Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:26 AM EST

Film critics help me discover movies I may never have heard of otherwise. Documentaries, indies, things like that. I don't really care what kind of rating they give Dukes of Hazzard b/c my mind is made up about that as soon as I hear about it or see the trailer. It's with the smaller movies where critics are valuable. Also, I enjoy their knowledge of film history. I like that Roger Ebert can speak intelligently about 60s Italian movies and why they are important. It's like any art or part of culture, people with knowledge of the history have value.

GingerCat Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:19 AM EST

Kevo, we've got a local critic in my area who does what you describe--he tries to guess what the audience is for a movie. Unfortunately, it doesn't work because it doesn't take into account that people's tastes are eclectic. He'll say things like, "If you like Jane Austen adaptations, stay away from Wedding Crashers!" As someone who likes both Jane Austen and Wedding Crashers, I'm always annoyed by those comments. Just tell me whether you liked it and why, don't try to pigeonhole everyone.

Jenny P Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:14 AM EST

This argument is really troubling to me--as you say, the more critics the better, because the less there are the easier they are to pay off/corrupt into giving good reviews for bad films. In a capitalist society like our own (if we're going to bring economics into it), it's better to have MORE options to choose from, MORE competition, not less. Of course, maybe this is just a step in the direction that Marx laid out--the movie critic industry is imploding into what will eventually be one ultra-movie critic who will decide the fate of all movies--and perhaps, like Marx predicted, the blog culture that is emerging is simply backlash against that. Whether blogs are ultimately a good or a bad thing, I'm not sure--but now that everyone and their brother has a forum to voice their opinions on what is *still* an unbiased internet, I'm not so sure if the firing of local critics is going to have such a big impact afterall.

cRAIG Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 10:13 AM EST

With each year that passes, I have less and less respect for film critics. Might as well start with Owen Gleiberman (who gave Dukes of Hazzard a B+ and hailed Jessica Simpson a force to be reckoned with) and Lisa Schwartzenbaum (her praising of Crash was a joke): i've been skipping their reviews for a while now. I'm also growing tired of The New York Times' pretentious opinions, and Siskel & Ebert is now Roeper and Whoever. I think the downward spiral began when critics nation-wide were falling over backwards to rave about Mystic River, which just happened to stink. Same with Crash a few years later...

aramis Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 09:07 AM EST

I think Susman used a good phrase..."conversation about film" because it's certainly that, at least, when talking about a reviewer's opinion of a film vs. the marketing, and last but not least, the moviegoer him or herself. Lord knows that Hollywood's history is riddled with a battle of wits between reviewers and moviegoers, one often forsaking the other. But it is all about a "conversation" one that does stimulate intellect between audiences and critics. I like reading film reviews because I like seeing if we agree or not on whatever film is in question. Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don't, but that's the fun part. What's sad though is that there is ONE entertainment supplement here in Meridian, MS's MERIDIAN STAR in which one can find film reviews, and the reviews there are syndicated from other parts of the country. There is no local voice on films. So I turn to ROTTEN TOMATOES in which to gauge my "conversation" about film. Useful site, that Rotten Tomatoes.

Strepsi Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 08:55 AM EST

I love critics and critiques, and local reviewers. But

Gary, you need to acknowledge that critics themselves are largely responsible for their own demise. Since Siskel & Ebert, reviewers -- ESPECIALLY local ones -- whored their writing to be quoted in the ads "A Feel-Good Film for the Whole Family!" - Joe Localcritic, Nowhere Times. And many many local reviewers are spectacularly LAZY - there was a day when the audience would not know if a "review" was simply a paraphrase of the Press Release, but today's audience is better informed. If all a reviewer does is recount the plot and give a quotable blurb, well, we've got polls and the internet for that. Bring back real film reviews and they will come!

Kevo Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 08:44 AM EST

I agree with Tiki. I find many film critics tend to base their reviews on whether they liked it or not, not whether it was a good movie. A critic needs to know the difference between what is good and what they like. For example, I did not like Singin' in the Rain or Apocalypse Now but I will defend til the end of time that they are two of the greatest movies ever made. I think critics need to ditch the whole grading system too. Howabout rating a film by who will enjoy it: like saying "Transformers is the movie to go to if you are a teenage boy or teenage boy at heart looking for a good time!. If you enjoy serious cinema verite and wine over dinner, this is not the movie for you." Plus, they is nothing more off-putting to me than when a summer blockbuster is a hit and the reviewer basically calls everyone who sees it a moron because they happen to enjoy a mindless summer movie. Sometimes you need those mindless summer movies.

D Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 08:32 AM EST

Jack Garner, the local critic in my hometown, used to have film forums, where people would get together and watch classic movies and then discuss them. Having a local voice is important, if only to foster interest in film as art. Also, they give me an argument against seeing some crappy movie my wife wants to see, like "Because I Said So" (which I avoided only because I told my wife what awful reviews it got).

Herman Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 08:29 AM EST

I'm not going to miss Schwarzbaum.

GingerCat Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 08:07 AM EST

As a movie lover, I feel like I need critics. Sure, there are some movies I know I'm going to see no matter what, and some I know I'm going to avoid, but for all the rest it's helpful to find reviews that help me separate the wheat from the chaff--especially since most trailers and ad copy are deliberately misleading these days.
As for critics being "pretentious"--please. When did we as a society get so insecure (or egotistical) that we can't handle it when someone offers an intelligent opinion that we didn't/couldn't come up with ourselves?

Dear Joseph Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 07:54 AM EST

It's attitudes like, "to stimulate their minds and not get them to accept the film passively" that makes so much of film criticism unreadable for the rest of us. Ah, I need you, Joe, to stimulate my poor little brain and show me how to actively engage in watching a movie. I'd look at your sentence structure, too, if you want to be a better and more accessible (not dumbed-down) writer. Sorry-I don't want to be mean, but you guys bring it on yourselves.

Joe C Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 07:53 AM EST

ALthough I have complained about critics through the years, they just laid off our local film critic here in Tampa, FL. Now we read the Associated Press reviews. I don't like it, but I don't like reality TV either. It's the way the entertainment world is now.

Joseph Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 07:12 AM EST

Very interesting ... and frightening article. I am a film critic trying to make a name for myself in Montreal It's hard enough as it is to make your voice heard and a nmae for yourself when there are already established critics in place. Now you're telling me thatwe're being considered irrelevant. Lovely. It seems the arguments only pertains to marketability. I don't write to encourage or discourage people to see this or that movie. They will do what they want. I write to engage the reader about what is going on on the screen, to stimulate their minds and not get them to accept the film passively. Now, could someone please hire me.

www.blacksheepreviews.blogspot.com

Nix Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 02:56 AM EST

Well, I divide parasites (i.e. critics) into 2 kinds: reviewers, and critics. The reviewer who went through film school, failed to become a writer or director, and ends up having to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster so as to be able to deride not merely it, but also everyone else except himself, should and must die out. The critic who engages in Criticism, such as is taught in schools and discussed in journals, is sadly out of reach of such things as economics, and will continue to construct vast edifices of thought out of various modes of discourse dedicated to the sole end of alleviating the misery of the overexamined life. I'm looking at you, Paul.

Ravis_Harnell Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 01:57 AM EST

First of all, the film critic survives for the same reason that the film itself survives -- because people want to see the elements of life they agree/disagree with mirrored on bigger screens, or at least in the pages of the local alt-weekly.

Secondly, the syndication of film reviews is just another contributor to the death of print media. We need local voices, telling us in their colloquial tone, what they think about stuff. We always have. Pity that the folks currently buying up "local media" in various locations are clueless to that fact.

Thirdly, I hate to say it, but there should be a quiz before anyone - ANYONE - is allowed to access the internet. It's not like I'm all for eugenics (look it up, douchebags), but if you're going to spread your opinion, you should know the difference between "you're" and "your." And if you think it's OK to use an apostrophe to denote the plural, you really, really need to get into a line of work that DOESN'T, DOESN'T, DOESN'T involve writing.

Carrie Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 12:34 AM EST

I read lots of reviews for the films I'm interested in. I even read reviews for those I don't wish to see, just to see if I can guess the grade before I read the article. Also, I'm majoring in Film & TV Cricism so I'm a little biased.

Tiki Wed, Aug 8, 2007 at 12:20 AM EST

Often the problem with movie reviewers is their pretentiousness and lack of understanding of the movie's intention. You mean '300' wasn't intended to be an accurate historical portrayal? 'Knocked Up' is nothing more than adolescent humor? 'Transformers' is a 10-yr old boy's fantasy with a brain to boot? Yea, no s***. I still went to see them. I don't need some self-serving fool critic to tell me that and judge my viewing experience. Why can't movies be fun for the sake of fun? Often the "Holy Movie Critic" doesn't recognize this. These critics being offed is fantastic, because it knocks them down a peg and sends them a message. For years I've been going to movies based on the only opinion that actually matters: my own.

Dio_K Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 11:52 PM EST

I didn't look at the source article yet, but could this be part of the way newspapers are grasping at straws to stand out and be meaningful? And I don't mean just the economic pop you get from laying off a few people. I've lived in quite a few cities in the past ten years and, just as many of the people posting here, have seen great and horrible local film critics--actually more horrible than great. I shed no tears for many of these pompous bores. Sorry, Gary, I do understand the idea of film being enhanced by more voices, but too many of the voices deserve to be ignored. If a critic has something great to say about film, we can read their blog. You don't need a newspaper chain to stand behind you. But what are newspapers trying to do by firing the local color? You can get syndicated-anything online or through a subscription to USA Today. Where is the win in getting rid of something that truly makes you different and worth reading? Unless your critic is no different from another?

Jackie Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 09:49 PM EST

Yes, I will miss my local movie reviewers and any other movie reviewer, even if I don't agree with them. If I want to see an indie movie that I haven't seen advertised as much, I check to see what the critics have said - and if it's a critic I usually agree with...I'll go see it. In a way I think a lot of indie films or smaller, not as marketed films DEPEND upon the critics. Because, let's face it, half the time American movie viewers just want to watch a bunch of crap.

Claire Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 09:43 PM EST

mscisluv,
I hope you're not referring to the guy who reviews for the N&O. He has unreasonably high standards for all movies he reviews. He always seems to find something wrong. As for the lack of critics it's unfortunate because I usually read several reviews if I'm going to see a movie. People have different tastes. Everyone won't agree with one critic.

mj Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 09:10 PM EST

I love reading reviews, but not to help me figure out what movies I should see. Like most people, if there is a movie I want to see I will see it--whether it has earned a collective A+ or F. I like to decide for myself (though if I'm on the fence, a review is likely to push me one way or the other). I do, however, turn to the critics for insight and opinions. I love reading what other people think of films and why they think such things--especially when it's well written and carefully thought out, and it really helps me gain a better understanding as to why I liked or hated a film. And many times critics pose questions or toss out ideas that may have never occured to me otherwise but encourage me to think deeper about film theory. Please don't let fil critics disappear.

And as for local critics, they are 100% necessary. As a born-and-raised Boston girl, I just wasn't satisfied reading a review of "Fever Pitch" by anybody but another Red Sox-loving Bostonian.

mscisluv Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 08:55 PM EST

The local film critic where I live (Raleigh, NC) has a very distinctive style that I recognize and have grown accustomed to. His writing is rarely profound (or even thought-provoking), but I've grown accustomed to it, and I always check what the local paper says before seeing a movie, even just as a formality.

idigress Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 08:47 PM EST

I see a movie every weekend, sometimes it is a blockbuster and sometimes it is a small independent film. I can honestly say that I do not read reviews at all. We have a great theater here in town that shows the smaller independent films and we have the major "big box" theatres as well. I just go with my gut when it comes to picking a film to attend. I saw "Once", "Waitress", and "Paris Je t'aime" because they were on the matinee and I thought they would be good - I was right. I have no idea who the local reviewer is in Phoenix - so I guess that I won't miss him or her very much.

Andy Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 08:18 PM EST

I think local film critics are important to help maintain an interest in criticism in general. My local film critic (Jack Garner, who has been used a couple of times in Reviewing the Reviews) just retired a couple of weeks ago. He goes back all the way to the first Star Wars, and now writes a freelance column every week about movies and other thoughts, but all the reviews are syndicated John Q. Critics who I don’t know or care about. It was interesting to hear the reliable local critics take on the movie, and I was more interested to see what Jack thought about the latest film I wanted to see than some person whose taste and history of movies I knew nothing about. I wanted to be able to put a face to the reviews, and the local movie critic allows that, and makes the reader want to compare his or her take with the other reviewers with different taste.

Horatio Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 07:27 PM EST

Now that it's all syndicated...

Horatio Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 07:26 PM EST

Local film critic? That went the way of the dinosaur in Central VA years ago. Not it's all syndicated. I tend to read several of the national critics (EW's included), but certainly do not count on local critics any longer.

Dee Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 07:26 PM EST

As a general rule, I don't read critics if there is a movie I *know* i'm going to see and I know they're going to hate. But I do check them for other films. I checked critiques for "Waitress" and was glad I read them in advance. Some critics give away WAY too much of the movie, or significant plot points. There has to be a way for them to review a film without giving out significant info. Just my 2cents

Dominique L. Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 07:07 PM EST

I'm a film review whore, and I've found it to be very useful to read what the critics have to say in The New Yorker and my local paper alike. As a film student, I see many films and I rely on critics to help me pick what to see. For instance, I wouldn't have seen the amazing "Once" if it weren't for critics. Same with "The Squid and the Whale" and "Pan's Labyrinth". They also help me steer clear from pictures that might have good trailers, but end up sucking the big one (i.e. last year's "Trust the Man"). In fact, bad reviews kept me away from a blockbuster I was sure I'd go see: "Shrek the Third". My boyfriend on the other hand (also a film student) avoids reviews like the plague so he can avoid spoilers and "make up his own mind." Because of this, he doesn't hear about smaller independent flicks or the failings of major blockbusters unless someone tells him. Don't get me wrong: I don't always agree with critics, but I love having them around all the same.

Paul Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 06:58 PM EST

Art cannot exist outside the discussion of art.

Dee Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 06:09 PM EST

I confess that I am guilty of what the Variety article suggets - local criticism isn't really a concern. I've always read and respect Roger Ebert's reviews, and I usually look to Rotten Tomatoes for the rest.

wildecat Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 06:09 PM EST

Well, I guess it depends on what city you live in. I live near Buffalo (no jokes, please - born and bred here and I'll love it 'til I die!), and our main newspaper critic definitely suffers from "big fish in a small pond" syndrome. Namely, he stuffs every review with all sorts of literary and obscure film references just to prove he's the smartest guy in the room. He's really gotten insufferable but since we're a one newspaper town, he's the only game in town. There are other reviewers at the paper, by the way, but since he's an editor, he makes sure to assign himself all the big or important films to "critique." Blech! Thank God for the internet (especially rottentomatoes.com), so I can read a variety of reviews and not just the pompous ramblings of that gasbag.

Christine Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 05:59 PM EST

I think that local critics are needed because people (like me) want to be informed by professionals out of curriosity.I want to know if the movie I'm interested in going to is worthwhile.

Maybe critics are being fired because people don't want to feel belittled by an educated professional when their favourite film gets called "trailer park, B-flick trash". I'm personally the only person I know who reads reviews.That says alot about the intelligence of the people I choose to acompany.

Stephen Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 05:54 PM EST

Also, critics are losing relevance. How else can you explain the success of any Adam Sandler film?

Stephen Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 05:53 PM EST

Reviews depend on the movie. For instance, I knew I would see 'The Simpsons Movie' no matter what any critic said. However, I had to comb through rotten tomatoes before seeing 'Knocked Up.'

joe Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 05:47 PM EST

Zach Effron on the main page = Donny Osmond

Lesley Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 05:42 PM EST

While I agree that people will still go see blockbusters despite what critics say, the movies that will be hurt are the smaller movies that rely on good reviews and word-of-mouth as a large part of their advertising. I'm sorry, I don't care what anyone says, there are a large number of movies that we would not have seen if it hadn't been for positive reviews. We may say that we don't go see a movie because it got good reviews, but we are indirectly affected the things critics write about them.

Jason Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 05:42 PM EST

I don't know about any of you, but our cities are already losing their character via Wal-Mart, McDonalds and the rest, this is just one more case of globalization gone wrong. Cities need their own character, their own celebrities, their own feel. We especially get this in Canada. Things aren't deemed cool unless the stamp of approval comes from outside. I try my hardest to embrace whatever is local without shunning what comes from outside my community. Local critics fall into this category.

Joey Jo Jo Tue, Aug 7, 2007 at 05:37 PM EST

I used to be a movie critic in San Francisco and I don't miss it. Mostly because I had to hang out with movie critics and they are the most overeducated yet unfulfilled lot I've ever met. After the screenings they'd stand around in a circle jerk, trying to impress each other with their witty putdowns. Knowing them made me rethink my choice of career. So even though I'm feeling for you Gary, I'm kind of glad to know that there are some of those people will be laid off and moving on to more fulfilling lives.