What makes a movie critic a good movie critic?

Question

I know they have some back ground in movies and stuff but I almost feel like they are just bitter people. And what is the criteria that they judge on. Now, granted everyone has their own opinion, so even they should know that to judge a movie harshly doesn't make them better, or worst for that matter. What's do you think?

Answer 1

Good criticism of any kind is good literature, and there are several good critics out there.

Personally, I believe that there are a number of criteria that make a good critic.

1) They should be a student of film history. Unless you know how the art form has evolved to its current state, you can't put new films in the proper CONTEXT.

2) They need to understand the GENRE of the film they're reviewing. Again, it's all about context. Every genre (Western, Science Fiction, Romantic Comedy, etc.) comes with its own set of given circumstances and audience assumptions. The critic needs to know what these are, so that he/she can evaluate the success (or lack of it) with which the director addresses those issues.

3) They need to bring to each review a through understanding of the prior films of that director/actor/screenwriter. Once again, context. In order to assess the quality of someone's effort in their current film, it's important to look at where they've been and what they've done before.

As you can see, I believe that it's the critics job to know a LOT about the context in which a film exists PRIOR to saying whether or not they liked that film. Critics who basically are merely saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" aren't doing anything worthwhile. Unless you can tell me WHY you hold the opinion you hold, I don't know why I should care.

Last point: critics should NOT be the arts equivalent of sportswriters. Too many critics think that it's their job to give me a detailed plot summary -- that's the LAST thing I want to read before I see a film! -- and then just kind of go through the major "players," giving each one a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. That's lazy criticism, and doesn't provide anything useful for the reader.

Answer 2

I think that the thing that matters the most is whether or not he or she has tastes similar to your own. Ebert is tremendously popular, but I rarely agree with him. My personal favorite is Chris Hewitt who writes for the Pioneer Press in Minneapolis. It also helps to have some understanding of how a film is put together, the definition of the art form and suchlike, but as audiences don't know all those things then it really comes down to taste.

Answer 3

You have to be objective, and try to not put your personnal opinions. I know It's hard