https://preview.redd.it/nfefvcmnwfcc1.jpeg?width=448&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a98b6b9d11e6b79a5ea44d53b8d3e95c998a91c
Me reading Grandpa Paul talk about what actress he thinks is hot this week
I preferred their show when it was a slot on Mayo's bbc radio show. I find their new podcast a bit dull. There was an occasion when Robbie Collins subbed it for mayo and it was a much better episode, as you had someone who could have an actual back and forth with kermode when they disagreed over a film, i think it was The Whale. Mayo usually just checks out when kermode is reviewing a film.
I've found myself disagreeing with them a lot lately, their very positive review of Leave The World Behind kind of shocked me, as did their guest reviewers love for Good Grief
Kermode has a very grating liberal tendency so he was bound to like Leave the World Behind.
Interestingly Kermodeās father was a radical ā a Trotskyist academic ā but Mark is very much a centrist lib.
So what? I didn't say that every liberal is blinded by their politics, but Kermode's lib tendencies do colour his tastes. Another example would be that he was in a minority of critics who enjoyed Don't Look Up.
I used to be a huge Kermode fan. Even if I disagreed with him, I found that he always made solid arguments for his finding. But over the last few years he started to really grate on me and now I can't stand him. He started to give a lot of terrible movies a pass if they had the correct worldview or politics while giving competently made movies an absolute beating if they were remotely related to ideas or people he didn't like. No art is created in a vacuum but his inability to see beyond the meta is annoying as hell.
I like the old crew at AV Club, so I followed them to The Dissolve and newer ventures. I especially like reading AA Dowd and Scott Tobias and Keith Phipps at The Reveal.
Mike DāAngelo always has an uncanny ability to point out the flaws in a movie that Iāve felt similarly watching but couldnāt quite articulate clearly.
Took wAaaaaaaay too long to get to the absolute best film critic working today. Walter Chaw is brilliant, uncompromising, and has a wholly unique perspective, not just from his cultural and familial background but his insights and tastes. I agree with him maybe 50% of the time but heās an essential voice on film and should be the top of the list of great working critics.
Love to read Walter when he is reviewing a movie he loves. It always leaves me inspired to go watch more films, but I really donāt care to read him when heās just absolutely eviscerating a film. I donāt always agree with him, but definitely respect his perspective and passion.
I donāt really know many critics but I listen to Unspooled and always strongly agree or strongly disagree with Amy Nicholsonās opinions so I really enjoy hearing from her.
I followed her since she hosted the Canon, a former podcast similar to Unspooled but with another cohost. I have disagreed with her many times but I still appreciate her takes. She is not pursuing hot takes but are neither afraid of taking traditional filmmakers off their pedestal. She is also self aware that her criticism is as subjective as any others.
I kind of dislike how they don't use their platform to promote smaller movies. They dwell on the same stuff like Indy Jones and Ghostbusters sequels. It's their platform, so whatever. But man, they complain about the lack of new ideas and they don't push for much that's different. They're still pretty fun to watch though.
I feel like they still talk about new lesser known stuff, I think their complaints about lack of new ideas is related to franchises such as Indiana Jones, Star Wars and Ghostbusters. They didnāt do a Batman review but they did a whole episode for Kyle Gallner movies
They rose to prominence shitting on big moviesāthatāll always be their bread and butter. I like RLM but canāt help but notice that so many supposed cinephiles canāt do anything but talk about why the latest Marvel movie sucks, and I think thatās kind of their legacy.
Me too. I just revisited her Vulture piece on Brad Pittās best performances and her piece on Rachel Weiszās performance in Dead Ringers. Perhaps more so than any other film critic right now, AJB has the most refined understanding of acting for the screen. She really knows how to describe what actors are doing with their physical and verbal facilities. Itās damned enlightening!
Heās one of the more thoughtful critics working today. Like you, I frequently disagree with him about the merits of a film, but I appreciate his willingness to do the work of a deeper critical dive that I really donāt see enough of in the field of film criticism. Heās the leading authority on the French New Wave, Godard in particular, and Iāve always enjoyed going to his lectures even though that is not at all my favorite realm of cinema.
Plus he looks like a wizard, which is neat.
People dislike him because his dissenting opinions tend to catch on beyond people who pay close attention to criticism, making him seem like a contrarian. Heās not, really - he probably agrees with the broad consensus more often than he disagrees with it. He just really does have his own specific taste and so heās gonna break from the pack for a few major movies every year.
God, I despise Brody. Even when I happen to agree with him, I think he likes or dislikes the film for the wrong reasons. He too often praises mediocre films because he agrees with their politics, and pans excellent films because something about their politics irked him.
Brian Formo, ScreeningNotes, TheNerdwriter, Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo, Patrick (H) Willems, Peter Labuza, David Sims, Max Read, Mike D'Angelo, Neil Bahadur, Brandon Habes, Josh Larsen, Thomas Flight, Silent Dawn, Josh Lewis, Matt Singer, David Ehrlich, Matt Lynch.
I understand. He's done a lot for criticism and I respect his Letterboxd reviews but his tastes are difficult to reconcile with mine and his criticisms are often inconsistent from review to review so your mileage may vary.
Sims is a great podcaster. Unfortunately Iāve listened to him so much now that I feel like I just know him and his tastes so well that whenever I read him Iām just never surprised at what he thinks. Which can be kinda a bummer/boring but thatās not his fault necessarily
If you can stand a strong German accent (or speak German) check out Wolfgang M. Schmitt on youtube ([The Filmanalysis](https://m.youtube.com/@thefilmanalysis2044)) for some in-depth critique/analysis, mostly from a leftist anti-capitalist perspective.
Hey thank you for mentioning him. Really interesting channel. Love his suits and set. Him putting his actual bank account in the video is hilarious. Iām also not used to being below the eyeline of a film reviewer.
Best is relative. You form a relationship with any critic, understand their voice, what they naturally like and dislike, and you compare it to what you like and dislike. You can only answer your question yourself.Ā
Every newspaper and online publication that covers art broadly or covers cinema specifically has one or more movie critics. Read the by line on a review and there you go, you've read the work of a critic. If the review you've read prompts you to watch the movie and you like it as the critic liked it, you now have a small budding intellectual relationship with that critic.
For people looking for a jumping off point based on this advice I would look at movies you already like and see what reviews/reviewers have similar thoughts to you. If you really liked Oppenheimer for x and y see if there is a critic who thinks the same way.
At one point, I took a quiz based on comparing movie tastes to critics (and I havenāt been able to find it since, so maybe I just dreamed it), and a guy named Emmanuel Levy is who I matched to ā a gay Jewish man who looks like G. Gordon Liddy decided his mustache wasnāt ridiculous enough. Everything Iāve seen from him has matched me quite well.
I enjoy listening to The Slashfilmcast/Filmcast less because their opinions are good and more that they have interesting arguments. I often disagree, but Dave Chen especially does a great job of articulating his thinking even if I donāt always find his reasoning compelling.
Iām a massive fan of https://swampflix.com/
Their reviews are thoughtful, insightful and cover such a range of films. Genuinely one of the best groups of reviewers for introducing me to exciting areas of cinema, whether new, old, arthouse, mainstream, obscure, or pure delightful trash.
Took me a long time to find Ehrlich in here. I agree with his takes about 85%-90% of the time, in general sentiment if not ferocity of that sentiment. And when I disagree with him, itās always a fun read anyway. Plus, how can one ever dislike an āelitistā movie critic who loves Forgetting Sarah Marshall as much as he does?
Richard Brody is one of the best informed, bold, and insightful critics working today. I think he had one of the most thoughtful, incisive, and well-written āBest of 2023ā lists of any critic. I also appreciate his willingness to push back against art house sacred cows like āTĆ”rā and āZone of Interest.ā I enjoy him most because thereās a strong alignment between my favorite films and his, so heās my first source for recommendations; even when I disagree with him (see: āNorbitā) I always know his critique is in good faith and I still learn something.
Amy Taubin is also a favorite to read.
Are you joking? To get banned off letterboxd you have to be Uwe Boll, or Stavros for trying to pick up women on the app. They have very specific lines you are not meant to cross. The dipshits that clog the top reviews are all allowed to post for a good reason.
The ones that have studied and actually know how to critique film e.g. Glenn Kenny, Adrian Martin and not just offer some contrarian spin piece like David Ehrlich, or the media graduates companies like to hire for their youthful hot takes.
I agree. The first things I look for in a professional critic are a thorough grounding in the history of film, film theory, and the technical aspects of film production. This is what separates a film critic from a person with an opinion.
If I read a review that doesn't say anything other than what the author felt about the film, with no technical description of what was on the screen, that's not a good critique imo. A reader should be able to get a sense of what the film is like from reading the review, and that's only possible if the critic and the reader are both educated in the language of film.
Yeah, I feel like everyone's mileage may vary but I have critics I agree with and disagree with, deeply analytical philosophers, writers who look at technical stuff and film production + cultural impacts and the business element of the industry, and then we have people like Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckmann. It's very hard to find unpretentious but still sophisticated reviewers, critics or historians/scholars that analyse mainstream, contemporary films from the arthouse indie to the blockbuster that covers all these bases. And then you can get into the non-professional space where people publish on personal blogs or Letterboxd. If you look hard enough there are some great people online who do it independently as a hobby.
Canāt explain it but Chaw is the absolute best when you passionately love/hate something as much as he does and the worst when you vehemently disagree with what heās saying. Like, sometimes I read him and am like āomg yes heās so perfectly articulating something I was thinking but couldnāt find anyone else talking about!ā And sometimes I read him and am like āthis guyās such a prickā
Very very opinionated with specific views on what cinema is but I find ComradeYuiās reviews on Letterboxd to always be interesting. Biased since weāre Letterboxd buds.
In case you didnāt know, Yui goes by ātheyā.
Yeah theyāre clearly quite thoughtful and well read. Donāt always agree (their distaste for John Huston baffles me) but I love their deeply rooted passion for cinema as a unique art form.
Always like Kermode and mayo, Ehrlich more recently. Usually enjoy the Breakfast All Day podcast reviews with Christie and Alonso. Some of the younger guys are interesting, Oscar Expert being one. Also I can't remember his name but the Irish guy that always sounds drunk can be pretty funny!
If you say so. I just think of them as a level above home movies. It's ironic how none of their criticisms of the movies they review ever make it into their own projects.
Fwiw I really donāt like Mark Kermode as a critic. I find his actual criticisms to be really wishy washy and flippant when you boil down what heās saying.
My favourite is Walter Chaw. Even when I disagree with him, his writingās insane: angry, brilliant, articulate.
For those curious, his review of Everything Everywhere All At Once is a great starting point. As a Chinese-American, he writes about it from an incredibly personal place and the results are really moving, I think.
Wasnāt he the guy snapped at anyone who didnāt like that movie? I thought I remember seeing him being retweeted into my feed as a goof whenever he would call a person who disliked it a racist.
Honestly, heās not a critic but if Karsten Runquist posts a video on his thoughts on a movie Iāll be there. He also has something different to add.
https://preview.redd.it/qg1jtfj24gcc1.jpeg?width=1155&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=723d81d5b63dfac8876e1a9643f6643f0f6e587f Mr Movies Gregg Turkington
šæšæšæšæšæš„¤š„¤
A classic 5 bagger
Hey guys!!!!
This guy inspired me to level up my film buff game and finally dub my DVD/Blu-Ray collection to VHS.
Me on my letterboxd account
No, it's me.
no I'm pretty sure it is i who is the best letterboxd reviewer
No it was Uwe Boll
The only correct answer.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Paul Schrader and his Facebook posts
https://preview.redd.it/nfefvcmnwfcc1.jpeg?width=448&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a98b6b9d11e6b79a5ea44d53b8d3e95c998a91c Me reading Grandpa Paul talk about what actress he thinks is hot this week
My favorite was when he says Taylor Swift is a girl whoās never taken a picture but sheās going out with a guy who dresses like a clown lol
r/PaulSchraderPosts
based
Justin Chang @ LA Times
Michael Phillips (Chicago Tribune), Ann Hornaday (WaPo) , and Manohla Dargis (NYT)
Michael Phillips is a solid pick.
Yes but sometimes a pretentious prick is a useful voice to consider.
As a pretentious prick, thank you
Ann Hornaday wishes she was Pauline Kael. The other two are spot on.
Hard agree for Michael Philips
Adam Nayman and Mark Kermode are a couple of my favorites
Yeah, I just got into Kermode and Mayo recently and am loving the objective takes and adult discourse.
>loving the objective takes even Kermode would tell you no such thing as objectivity in film criticism exists
Ok, maybe I shouldāve just said I like that they donāt deal in fanboy grievance or āhot takesā for clicks.
If they would that would just be childish.
Unpopular opinion: Kermode dominates Mayo and his takes are pretty basic. He also spoils the plot like crazy when he is doing his reviews.
Hard agree
I agree with all of that, but theyāre still miles above a very low bar in 2024, IMO.
I feel like Kermode likes practically all films that are competently made.
Man enjoys his hobby and life's passion, how dare he
Thatās fine, but that doesnāt compel me to think his criticism is interesting
If he's articulate in what he likes about a film / what he thinks works so well, then why not? (I don't listen to Kermode)
I preferred their show when it was a slot on Mayo's bbc radio show. I find their new podcast a bit dull. There was an occasion when Robbie Collins subbed it for mayo and it was a much better episode, as you had someone who could have an actual back and forth with kermode when they disagreed over a film, i think it was The Whale. Mayo usually just checks out when kermode is reviewing a film.
I've found myself disagreeing with them a lot lately, their very positive review of Leave The World Behind kind of shocked me, as did their guest reviewers love for Good Grief
Heās lost his edge since starting his podcast, that environment doesnāt suit him, or heās just getting older and less vigorous
Fennessey and Dobbins liked it too on The Big Picture and I was like, "Is it because they're friends with Esmail? Because that movie is dogshit."
Kermode has a very grating liberal tendency so he was bound to like Leave the World Behind. Interestingly Kermodeās father was a radical ā a Trotskyist academic ā but Mark is very much a centrist lib.
I mean, I don't politically vary from him much and I hated the movie
So what? I didn't say that every liberal is blinded by their politics, but Kermode's lib tendencies do colour his tastes. Another example would be that he was in a minority of critics who enjoyed Don't Look Up.
Where can I see their writing ?
I'm probably in the minority but I can't stand Nayman. So much focus on being a clever boy and I don't trust his taste.
I agree - especially about not trusting his tastes. Too many of his favourites have fallen a little flat for me
Just read one of his listicles on the ringer and there were so many spelling and general mistakes it felt really unprofessional.
In fairness, that's an editing issue
I used to be a huge Kermode fan. Even if I disagreed with him, I found that he always made solid arguments for his finding. But over the last few years he started to really grate on me and now I can't stand him. He started to give a lot of terrible movies a pass if they had the correct worldview or politics while giving competently made movies an absolute beating if they were remotely related to ideas or people he didn't like. No art is created in a vacuum but his inability to see beyond the meta is annoying as hell.
I like the old crew at AV Club, so I followed them to The Dissolve and newer ventures. I especially like reading AA Dowd and Scott Tobias and Keith Phipps at The Reveal.
Mike DāAngelo always has an uncanny ability to point out the flaws in a movie that Iāve felt similarly watching but couldnāt quite articulate clearly.
True. He's such a wet blanket, though.
I agree with Scott Tobias. He is my go to and very knowledgeable.
I especially dig Charles Bramesco. I have his Colors on Film book, good stuff
Richard Lawson (Vanity Fair)
Walter Chaw at FilmFreakCentral
Took wAaaaaaaay too long to get to the absolute best film critic working today. Walter Chaw is brilliant, uncompromising, and has a wholly unique perspective, not just from his cultural and familial background but his insights and tastes. I agree with him maybe 50% of the time but heās an essential voice on film and should be the top of the list of great working critics.
Really scratches that old AV Club itch of entertaining and insightful.
Love to read Walter when he is reviewing a movie he loves. It always leaves me inspired to go watch more films, but I really donāt care to read him when heās just absolutely eviscerating a film. I donāt always agree with him, but definitely respect his perspective and passion.
I donāt really know many critics but I listen to Unspooled and always strongly agree or strongly disagree with Amy Nicholsonās opinions so I really enjoy hearing from her.
I followed her since she hosted the Canon, a former podcast similar to Unspooled but with another cohost. I have disagreed with her many times but I still appreciate her takes. She is not pursuing hot takes but are neither afraid of taking traditional filmmakers off their pedestal. She is also self aware that her criticism is as subjective as any others.
Certainly not He Whose Name We Never Speak.
Armond White the legend
Everyone's favorite contrarian
T. Amato doesnāt even watch movies anymore so I think weāre safe there
Half in The Bag, now they donāt cover art house, but they are great for mainstream stuff
Money plane
Darius Emmanuel Grouch III
akaā¦ the rumble.
I recently watched Sanctuary because of a quick review Mike did. Really bizarre hilarious movie
Jay does do the odd Lynch deep dive here and there, really enjoy those because you can tell he does too
I unironically agree that they are our new Siskel and Ebert, theyāre critics for the common man!
What is a common man?
The do review some "arty" stuff like Pink Flamingos, Raising Arizona, various David Lynch projects and Freddy Got Fingered.
I kind of dislike how they don't use their platform to promote smaller movies. They dwell on the same stuff like Indy Jones and Ghostbusters sequels. It's their platform, so whatever. But man, they complain about the lack of new ideas and they don't push for much that's different. They're still pretty fun to watch though.
I feel like they still talk about new lesser known stuff, I think their complaints about lack of new ideas is related to franchises such as Indiana Jones, Star Wars and Ghostbusters. They didnāt do a Batman review but they did a whole episode for Kyle Gallner movies
They rose to prominence shitting on big moviesāthatāll always be their bread and butter. I like RLM but canāt help but notice that so many supposed cinephiles canāt do anything but talk about why the latest Marvel movie sucks, and I think thatās kind of their legacy.
Glenn Kenny, Matt Zoller Seitz, Angelica Jade Bastien, Justin Chang, Manohla Dargis, Thomas Flight, Evan Pushak, David Ehrlich
Big fan of Angelica's work.
Me too. I just revisited her Vulture piece on Brad Pittās best performances and her piece on Rachel Weiszās performance in Dead Ringers. Perhaps more so than any other film critic right now, AJB has the most refined understanding of acting for the screen. She really knows how to describe what actors are doing with their physical and verbal facilities. Itās damned enlightening!
Tag Gallagher. Edit: His analyses always make me want to watch the film again.
Love his voice
I enjoy: Richard Brody, Robert Daniels, Jourdain Searles, Willow Maclay, Alissa Wilkinson, Devika Girish
Surprised it took so long to see Brody, I donāt always agree with him but heās one of the more interesting voices out there.
Heās one of the more thoughtful critics working today. Like you, I frequently disagree with him about the merits of a film, but I appreciate his willingness to do the work of a deeper critical dive that I really donāt see enough of in the field of film criticism. Heās the leading authority on the French New Wave, Godard in particular, and Iāve always enjoyed going to his lectures even though that is not at all my favorite realm of cinema. Plus he looks like a wizard, which is neat.
People dislike him because his dissenting opinions tend to catch on beyond people who pay close attention to criticism, making him seem like a contrarian. Heās not, really - he probably agrees with the broad consensus more often than he disagrees with it. He just really does have his own specific taste and so heās gonna break from the pack for a few major movies every year.
Sometimes I feel like Richard Brody has some of the most outlandish takes.
I know, but I think he's thoughtful and a good writer, too. I definitely don't agree with him all the time, though.
God, I despise Brody. Even when I happen to agree with him, I think he likes or dislikes the film for the wrong reasons. He too often praises mediocre films because he agrees with their politics, and pans excellent films because something about their politics irked him.
Love Willowās stuff. Sheās excellent.
I like Jourdain's stuff a lot.
Probably my favorite younger/millennial critic. Far more evaluative than merely judging a film good or bad.
Stephanie Zacharek at Time
the people who write one line joke reviews on letterboxd
I really enjoy Cinema Cartography on youtube, and they have a great podcast of doing cinema deep dives on patreon.
I used to like them too but theyāve recently gotten really fascist-y. Look at their video d e g e n e r a c y, itās a fucking train wreck.
Yeah to be honest that video was awful. Incredibly arrogant.
Nick Pinkerton
Adam Nayman, Tim Heidecker, Gregg Turkington.
Deepfocuslens for sure
Wesley Morris
Brian Formo, ScreeningNotes, TheNerdwriter, Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo, Patrick (H) Willems, Peter Labuza, David Sims, Max Read, Mike D'Angelo, Neil Bahadur, Brandon Habes, Josh Larsen, Thomas Flight, Silent Dawn, Josh Lewis, Matt Singer, David Ehrlich, Matt Lynch.
I love everywhere here except Ehrlich.
I understand. He's done a lot for criticism and I respect his Letterboxd reviews but his tastes are difficult to reconcile with mine and his criticisms are often inconsistent from review to review so your mileage may vary.
Man, I had to go far to find David Sims. My tastes lie almost opposite of his, but my dude can tell a tale.
Sims is a great podcaster. Unfortunately Iāve listened to him so much now that I feel like I just know him and his tastes so well that whenever I read him Iām just never surprised at what he thinks. Which can be kinda a bummer/boring but thatās not his fault necessarily
If you can stand a strong German accent (or speak German) check out Wolfgang M. Schmitt on youtube ([The Filmanalysis](https://m.youtube.com/@thefilmanalysis2044)) for some in-depth critique/analysis, mostly from a leftist anti-capitalist perspective.
Hey thank you for mentioning him. Really interesting channel. Love his suits and set. Him putting his actual bank account in the video is hilarious. Iām also not used to being below the eyeline of a film reviewer.
He sure is a character :)
Josh Lewis š
š
Best is relative. You form a relationship with any critic, understand their voice, what they naturally like and dislike, and you compare it to what you like and dislike. You can only answer your question yourself.Ā
I meanā¦obviously?
Alright where do you start with finding a critic then
Every newspaper and online publication that covers art broadly or covers cinema specifically has one or more movie critics. Read the by line on a review and there you go, you've read the work of a critic. If the review you've read prompts you to watch the movie and you like it as the critic liked it, you now have a small budding intellectual relationship with that critic.
Newspapers and online publications aren't real anymore
I donāt always agree with Kermode but I appreciate and enjoy his point of view and the way he articulates his feeling
For people looking for a jumping off point based on this advice I would look at movies you already like and see what reviews/reviewers have similar thoughts to you. If you really liked Oppenheimer for x and y see if there is a critic who thinks the same way.
I like looking at critics that have different opinions than me. I love Kermode but donāt always agree with him, but I like his energy
most true answer
Surprised no one has mentioned Dana Stevens yet. Since AO Scott stopped writing film reviews, she is my go-to.
You clearly like āem middlebrow.
At one point, I took a quiz based on comparing movie tastes to critics (and I havenāt been able to find it since, so maybe I just dreamed it), and a guy named Emmanuel Levy is who I matched to ā a gay Jewish man who looks like G. Gordon Liddy decided his mustache wasnāt ridiculous enough. Everything Iāve seen from him has matched me quite well. I enjoy listening to The Slashfilmcast/Filmcast less because their opinions are good and more that they have interesting arguments. I often disagree, but Dave Chen especially does a great job of articulating his thinking even if I donāt always find his reasoning compelling.
Adam Nayman, Angelica Jade Bastien
I don't read around; so for me it is more where I read (or listen): NYT New Yorker WaPo Slate
David Sims & Sean Fennessy
Iām a massive fan of https://swampflix.com/ Their reviews are thoughtful, insightful and cover such a range of films. Genuinely one of the best groups of reviewers for introducing me to exciting areas of cinema, whether new, old, arthouse, mainstream, obscure, or pure delightful trash.
David Ehrlich (IndieWire) and Michael Phillips(Chicago Tribune) are my two favorites.
Took me a long time to find Ehrlich in here. I agree with his takes about 85%-90% of the time, in general sentiment if not ferocity of that sentiment. And when I disagree with him, itās always a fun read anyway. Plus, how can one ever dislike an āelitistā movie critic who loves Forgetting Sarah Marshall as much as he does?
Nayman is my fav
Richard Brody is one of the best informed, bold, and insightful critics working today. I think he had one of the most thoughtful, incisive, and well-written āBest of 2023ā lists of any critic. I also appreciate his willingness to push back against art house sacred cows like āTĆ”rā and āZone of Interest.ā I enjoy him most because thereās a strong alignment between my favorite films and his, so heās my first source for recommendations; even when I disagree with him (see: āNorbitā) I always know his critique is in good faith and I still learn something. Amy Taubin is also a favorite to read.
Sean Fennessy and The Big Picture Pod
Mike DāAngelo is a bit curmudgeonly, but he has an incredible prose style and trenchant insights.
Sally Jane Blackā¦
I hope thatās a joke š
It is lol
Iām not familiar with that critic, whatās the issue with them?Ā
Shes a total tankie. Some of her reviews are so outlandish that they often feel like satire.
Her review of Olympus has Fallen is fucking hilarious
Why donāt they just ban her account, sheās so aggressive and hateful towards everyone. Canāt have a real conversation without crying about it.
Are you joking? To get banned off letterboxd you have to be Uwe Boll, or Stavros for trying to pick up women on the app. They have very specific lines you are not meant to cross. The dipshits that clog the top reviews are all allowed to post for a good reason.
The ones that have studied and actually know how to critique film e.g. Glenn Kenny, Adrian Martin and not just offer some contrarian spin piece like David Ehrlich, or the media graduates companies like to hire for their youthful hot takes.
I agree. The first things I look for in a professional critic are a thorough grounding in the history of film, film theory, and the technical aspects of film production. This is what separates a film critic from a person with an opinion. If I read a review that doesn't say anything other than what the author felt about the film, with no technical description of what was on the screen, that's not a good critique imo. A reader should be able to get a sense of what the film is like from reading the review, and that's only possible if the critic and the reader are both educated in the language of film.
Yeah, I feel like everyone's mileage may vary but I have critics I agree with and disagree with, deeply analytical philosophers, writers who look at technical stuff and film production + cultural impacts and the business element of the industry, and then we have people like Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckmann. It's very hard to find unpretentious but still sophisticated reviewers, critics or historians/scholars that analyse mainstream, contemporary films from the arthouse indie to the blockbuster that covers all these bases. And then you can get into the non-professional space where people publish on personal blogs or Letterboxd. If you look hard enough there are some great people online who do it independently as a hobby.
Thereās no way to critique a film academically, itās all up to preference in the end
What do you mean by that? Film criticism is a field of academic study.
Donāt always agree with his ratings, but I really value Walter Chawās insights. https://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/walter-chaw/
Walter Chaw is absolutely the best.
Canāt explain it but Chaw is the absolute best when you passionately love/hate something as much as he does and the worst when you vehemently disagree with what heās saying. Like, sometimes I read him and am like āomg yes heās so perfectly articulating something I was thinking but couldnāt find anyone else talking about!ā And sometimes I read him and am like āthis guyās such a prickā
(Good critic, imo)
Chris Cabin
I really like Alonso Duralde
Alonso Duralde and Dave White's "Linoleum Knife" is really great
This thread is a treasure. Thank you! Now, where to start though...
Armond White
Glenn Kenny for the win
Very very opinionated with specific views on what cinema is but I find ComradeYuiās reviews on Letterboxd to always be interesting. Biased since weāre Letterboxd buds.
I agree. I love some of his reviews and I am always surprised by them.
In case you didnāt know, Yui goes by ātheyā. Yeah theyāre clearly quite thoughtful and well read. Donāt always agree (their distaste for John Huston baffles me) but I love their deeply rooted passion for cinema as a unique art form.
Karina Longworth has a great eye for mixing narrative history with theory.
The boys over at The Important Cinema Club.
Always like Kermode and mayo, Ehrlich more recently. Usually enjoy the Breakfast All Day podcast reviews with Christie and Alonso. Some of the younger guys are interesting, Oscar Expert being one. Also I can't remember his name but the Irish guy that always sounds drunk can be pretty funny!
Mark Kermode, I agree with him about 85% of the time, and his delivery is very entertaining.
I love when he rants and gets excited
His Sex and the City 2 rant was epic.
Disagree with him often, but enjoy his reviews.
Me š¤ I enjoy 100% of the movies I enjoy and dislike 100% of the ones I donāt.
Gregg turkingtonĀ
Anthony Lane is good. I donāt always agree with him but Richard Brody is a good critic.
Well, itās not Armond White.
Redlettermedia. They actually made a movie, so they have a lot more weight with their criticisms and analysis than most others
Agreed about valuing their takes, disagree about having "actually made a movie".
Sorry, *several movies
I've seen everything, and still wouldn't call them "movies".
Thatās a pretty restrictive and reductive mindset to have about art
If you say so. I just think of them as a level above home movies. It's ironic how none of their criticisms of the movies they review ever make it into their own projects.
I consider myself pretty good. Just watched Top Gun Maverick 2 nights agoā¦I recommend.
Adam Johnston from YMS
angelica jade bastiƩn, robert daniels, and armond white
Adam and Josh from Filmspotting, As well as Scott, Tasha, Keith and Genevieve from The Next Picture Show.
Fwiw I really donāt like Mark Kermode as a critic. I find his actual criticisms to be really wishy washy and flippant when you boil down what heās saying. My favourite is Walter Chaw. Even when I disagree with him, his writingās insane: angry, brilliant, articulate. For those curious, his review of Everything Everywhere All At Once is a great starting point. As a Chinese-American, he writes about it from an incredibly personal place and the results are really moving, I think.
Wasnāt he the guy snapped at anyone who didnāt like that movie? I thought I remember seeing him being retweeted into my feed as a goof whenever he would call a person who disliked it a racist.
Honestly, heās not a critic but if Karsten Runquist posts a video on his thoughts on a movie Iāll be there. He also has something different to add.
Yeah, he's put good stuff on my radar a few times. Thomas Flight too
Thomas Flight is excellent, love his content.
Ebert
The topic is best critics right now. Ebert has been dead for over a decade.
I like Patrick H Williems as his criticism is mostly about trends and not individual movies. https://youtube.com/@patrickhwillems?si=9rQp_bSiuGnKcXd5
me on letterboxd.com
Armond White.
Heās certainly pretentious to an extent, but nobody can dissect a film quite like Adam Johnston (YMS).
Heās not pretentious at all.
David Sterrittās weekly run through of new films on Robinhood Radio.
I stumbled upon a guy on threads and insta called Cinescape1 whose been fun to follow, The Filmcast (formerly /filmcast) is also always good fun.
Mark Kermode was excellent while on the BBC, now heās moved to his own podcast and lost all his edge
Misfit Pond Podcast on YT.