What do you think about most professional movie reviewers?

Question

I've noticed that many reviewers have certain genres of movies that they enjoy (and review favorably) and genres of movies they clearly never enjoy (and always give a thumbs down to). Shouldn't professional movie reviewers be impartial or more general? Or, should there be multiple reviewers for different types of film?

I'm not saying every movie should get a good review.

I hate reading a bad review about comedies that do well at the box office and are popular among many people. You get the impression that the writer just doesn't like comedies. If you read them regularly, you get a feel for what they do like. I wish they would either remain impartial (not even reviewing movie genres they clearly don't like or know little about) or I wish there were more than one reviewer to accomodate different tastes.

I'm not just talking about comedies. I often read: "typical action flick," or "pointless horror slasher."

Answer 1

Alas, most reviewers are generally in the pockets of the movie companies, or they don't get to see the previews, go to the parties etc. Have you noticed how rare a poor review is, yet the golden age of hollywood is certainly over. All Hollywood produces are puerile comedies featuring as many girls in bikinis as possible, remakes of films that were good enough to still be watchable today, and spin offs/sequels by script writers who had nothing to do with the originals.
Fortunately, Asia is producing some great movies still; The Ring Trilogy, Dark Water, Azumi, Battle Royale.
I do agree wholeheartedly with your point that certain reviewers seem to have an idea of exactly what genre they believe to be worthy, and put down anything that doesn't fit that bill, though as you say these comments are easily dismissed because they simply AREN'T reviews.
I believe 'word-of-mouth' is still the best way to hear about a good new movie, trust your friends who have similar tastes to yourself, and if you catch a good movie, be sure to tell them, too.

Answer 2

I don't have a problem with critics taking shots at films that are "merely" commercially successful. After all, a "film critic" SHOULD have more going on intellectually than just propping up films that strike a chord with the general public. You know? I mean, just because a film rakes in millions at the box office, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was a good movie.

Are some of them snobs? Sure. But, I think they serve a useful function nevertheless. A good critic should provide a CONTEXT that the average filmgoer lacks: he/she should be familiar with other films in the genre in question, and should also be conversant with prior films by that director and those actors. The critic can then offer a critical yardstick; i.e., what ought we to EXPECT from that filmmaker under those circumstances? Then, the majority of the review can deal with whether those expectations were fulfilled, exceeded, or failed.

Pauline Kael was my all-time favorite. I still enjoy reading collections of her old film reviews. Harlan Ellison was also superb, even though he was never a full-time critic. Of today's group, I especially enjoy: Manohla Dargis (NY Times), Mick LaSalle (S.F. Chronicle), and Scott Foundas (L.A. Weekly).

I find Ebert to be pleasant and generally readable...but terribly inconsistent, which I have a problem with.

Answer 3

I think they lose sight of whether they are reviewing or writing a critique.

A review is mostly a recap of the story with some commentary.

A critique is an artistic comparison with respect to the genre.

My personal peeve is that most national or big time reviewers seem to think it's all about them -- writing banal headings like "Little Miss Sunshine Eclipsed" or "Lake House Drowns."
Why we must read a reviewers personal experiences regarding the film is beyond me.

The only one I really enjoy is Yahoo's Movie Mom -- odd, but true. I think she's really spot on.

Answer 4

Good point. Movie reviewing is subjective by every notion of the word. And, you are right, that these personal prejudices have to influence the reviewer's perception of the films he is critiquing.
I think that having multiple reviewers with their areas of interest identified is a good one.

Answer 5

i dont know ho wit is in other countries, but here i germany i cannot shake the impression that most movie reciewers think they are some kind of art critic... they keep bickering about shallow plots, unbelievable characters.. missing artistic value... and they review a frigging actionmovie!
i mean... of course ther is a shallow plot... it has to be, or you loose too much time before the first explosion... and seriously... would you believe in action heros as real people? of course not... and about artistic value... i dont want art... when i choose to watch an actionmovie... i want ACTION... hence the name...



i once heard one of those guys saying on tv, about charlie's angels, nah, cant be a good one... that actress lucy liu... all she ever had sone was television... like that is a bad thing to do for a movie actor... and if he had even cared to look into his database, he would probably have noticed that she HAD done cinema before, and done it pretty well... as she did her role on ally mcbeal...

come on... ho wcan i take a guy like that serious? and he probably LIVES off it too... shakes his head...

Answer 6

Some are good...like Siskal and Ebert were....others make you wonder if they are lobbyist for the film industry.

Answer 7

according to adam sandler in big daddy, all crictics are a**holes

Answer 8

There are just about a hand full of them out there that know there a s s from a hole in the ground.....................
The rest of them should be working in a soup kitchen.............................................................

Answer 9

snobs.