Which film critics do you trust (if any?)

Yeah, because that's her doing, not Salon's.

Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times is pretty solid, and deserves respect for having raised James Cameron's ire for panning Titanic when it first came out. Also, Paul Tatara used to do a good job reviewing movies for cnn.com, but it appears that he's not writing for them anymore.

Not really: he is always praising new films. His sense of the moral is one thing that sets him apart from many; so, as my editor once said re. Fast-Talking Dames, is his ability with ambivalence.

>>> Bradshaw continues the great Guardian tradition of utterly shite film critics (Malcolm, Richard Williams etc.)

I don't think I see what's so awful about Bradshaw. Certainly Malcolm became a slug, but I don't think Williams awful either.

>>> Antonia Quirke in the IOS is prob. the worst 'serious' newspaper critic that I know abt.

She's still in the IoS?? I thought she'd moved on. I heard her on Stuart Maconie's R2 show (!!), where she was irritating re. S&S Top Movies etc. Is she meant to be foxy? (I am going by comments above.)

Actually, AQ's worst flaw surely = too much casual swearing in print. Unforgivable.

Surprisingly, among the NYT crew, I've really been digging A.O. Scott's writing lately. I wish he'd write about music in the same earnest, bookish way. Seriously! He's great. Elvis hasn't been doing much for me these days. End of year best-of lists comparison!

A.O. Scott

1. Talk to Her
2. The Fast Runner (Atanarjuat)
3. Adaptation
4. Far From Heaven
5. The Pianist
6. Spirited Away
7. Storytelling
8. Gangs of New York
9. Lovely and Amazing
10. Punch Drunk Love

Elvis Mitchell

1. Bloody Sunday
2. Catch Me If You Can
3. Morvern Callar
4. Paid in Full
5. Personal Velocity
6. Spirited Away
7. Talk to Her
8. 24 Hour Party People
9. What Time is it There?
10. Y Tu Mama Mambien

I haven't read him in a while. But I was always of the opinion that he was a good writer and a terrible critic -- very impetuous and hotheaded, and his theories on race were either honest and incisive or paranoid and overreaching, depending on how willing I was to go along with him. The other regular New York Press film critic, Matt Zoller Seitz, is often very good (haven't read him in a while either -- I've kinda given up on the Press because the conservatism over there is getting really out of control).

For comedic value, I like these guys. Ever wonder what the 'moral rating' of the film you were watching was?

The others are far, far too pretentious... (I'm looking at you Michael Atkinson of the Village Voice, IM LOOKING AT YOU)

Ebert can be useful to me occasionally as a buying guide but I generally don't read him for his prose. And Roeper...good god, man, how did that guy get his job?

1. SPIRITED AWAY
2. ABOUT SCHMIDT
3. TALK TO HER
4. PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE
5. TME OUT
6. IN PRAISE OF LOVE
7. I'M GOING HOME
8. MAHAGONNY
9. WINDTALKERS
10. WARM WATER UNDER A RED BRIDGE

I'm realizing, though, that in some cases, I tend to trust publications more than I trust individual critics. When I'm looking for reviews on MRQE or Rotten Tomatoes, I'll click on any critic at the New York Times, Village Voice, New Yorker, Salon, or the Chicago Reader (which is mostly Rosenbaum but sometimes J.R. Jones). Beyond that, I also read Ebert and David Edelstein (Slate), both of whom are the only critics their publications employ.

In most cases, Ebert is the first critic I'll check. Last night, looking for reviews of The Company, I read (in order) Ebert, Charles Taylor, and Elvis Mitchell.

I like many internet pseudo-critics. And reading Armond White is usually a good time, though more so after seeing the movie. Actually, to my taste in criticism-reading, the best critics are the ones to be read after seeing the movie rather than before. Maybe this is why I don't like reading Ebert so much.

Agreed. I never read full-length reviews before I see a movie -- only capsules. This, of course, is what makes Rosenbaum such a compelling critic -- if a part of the movie that would ordinarily be considered a "spoiler" is worth discussing, he'll discuss it without apology.

I don't pay much attention to actual reviews until after I see a film. I'm more interested in seeing how my thoughts compared to Zacharek, the NY Times and VVoice people, the Washington Post, Chris Vognar of the Dallas Morning News (my professor one semester) and a few others (though not all of them for every film I see).

I like reviewers who are willing to judge movies on their own merits rather than against some perceived 'greatness' standard. Zacharek, especially, is good at this, and Ebert.

Rosenbaum, I feel mixed. The moralistic tone he takes on some films (Mystic River comes to mind) bothers me. It's too simplistic and black and white for me.

usually, the more I read of a critic's work, the less interesting I find them, eventually. even a lot of Pauline Kael's stuff doesn't hold up as well as I'd like it to - good as the writing is, a lot of her reactions to movies seem flaky and ill-thought-out.

(I think for the time being it should only be applied to food, at least until everyone straightens their heads out)

Peter Travers must be destroyed, along with the rest of the RS staff.

Scott Tobias has always been and always will be among my favorite on the internet. Up there with Steve Erickson.

I'd just like to recognise the great opening shot from N., which was exactly my reaction to the title.

Yeah and indeed .

Even if this were possible it would be a bad idea, but it isn't, so it is. SZ might well be the worst critic to have an international profile. I'm no Kael fan but SZ isn't fit to polish PK's glasses.

Oh Paul pic.twitter.com/iBlRvd2Qsc

— Conor (@sadfilmcritic) January 18, 2024

I need a proofreader here; he needs a proofreader there.

pic.twitter.com/lkLKuhKbRs

— Cinema Scope (@CinemaScopeMag) January 24, 2024

As Peter Labuza pointed out on Twitter, there are now exactly zero North American magazines devoted to film as an art

(I suppose one could count Film Quarterly yet, but still)

(Ope, Cineaste is still around too)

I had two pieces in there early on. They seemed to become all about festivals and films no one had yet seen at some point, and I lost interest in them and they lost interest in me at exactly the same moment.

That’s unfortunate. In general the EIC seems a little insufferable but he did create a magazine as good as if. Or better than Film Comment imo