The trick is to find a critic whose tastes are more or less in line with yours. I’m lucky enought that Ken Hanke, the film critic for my local rag, has tastes very similar to mine–we both appreciate good writing, good characters, and films that try something out of the ordinary. He has little patience with gross-out comedies or your typical romantic comedy. If he likes a movie, I can generally be sure that I’ll enjoy it, and if he gives a movie a bad review, I avoid it, despite what other critics say. And, yeah, he’s biased toward the unusual and the thoughtful, but so am I.
I think that a lot of reviewers don’t have the capacity to appreciate a film as camp. I also think that many critics expect too much out of a movie on an intellectual level.Thus, Sony’s Godzilla was panned by a lotta critics, but me, I loved it. Big lizard, big city, big property damage. What more could you want from a film? Actually, Godzilla was another movie that I liked as camp, as did my mother (it’s very rare that we agree on a film). I also liked the univesally hated Battlefield Earth- as camp. My appetite for camp is instatiable.
That said, I think ID4 was too long and drawn out to work as camp. I saw it on a free PPV weekend promotion, and wished that I was watching it on tape so I could fast forward through the lame dialogue to the next explosion. The movie just sucked. I couldn’t believe that such a complete waste of celluloid was the blockbuster of the year. Doesn’t say much for the intelligence of the average moviegoer.
I go to see movies to be entertained. If a movie makes me think as well, that’s a nice bonus.
Back in the days of Silkel and Ebert, my rule of thumb when selecting a movie was, when Siskel and Ebert disagree, go with Siskel. I have a copy of Ebert’s I Hated, Hated, Hated this Movie. He shredded some of my favorite films in that book, including Eric the Viking.
When I got the DVD, I went immediately to the 45-minute mark - that’s where the aliens start blowing stuff up.
I also fast forward through the “Dawson’s Creek In Space” bits of Attack of the Clones.
Which leaves you with… the CGI Yoda fight and the credits? 
Yeah, there are two good solutions to the film critic thing. One is to learn a crapload about movies and how they’re made, learn which producers have the Touch of Death, which directors used to be mere costume designers, which actors used be football players, etc. Then follow the preproduction buzz you’ll find in lots of trade rags that say stuff like “the rewritten rewrite of the revision of the Green Arrow script has been pawned off onto Joel Schumacher and Hack X. Writer. Michael Jackson is slated to play the title character.” Then you’ll have as good an idea as anyone what films will be bad. (Given its long pre-production nightmare so far, I have bad vibes about the Superman remake, f’rinstance, if it ever gets off the ground.)
Or find a film critic you pretty much agree with most of the time. Most film critics, I wager, follow the pre-release buzz of various movies to see what they’re in for.
I like my movie critics to refer to other movies. Really. If they say, “This movie was like watching Aliens with Jim Carrey as Hicks,” then I sort of know what to expect. I can decide for myself if I’d like something like that. I’ve seen Aliens and I know Jim Carrey, after all. I don’t need the reviewer to tell me I’ll like the film, I just need him to give me enough information to make up my own mind.
Or if a reviewer says “this movie was like The Game meets House of Cards.” Hey, I’d like to see that! “This movie is a cross between Pitch Black and Pretty Woman.” Umm… I’ll give that one a miss.
You thought it would be funny to post that because you know that’s what I do, right? 
To the OP: I maintain (or used to maintain, until I got burned out) a movie review website. On this site, I’ve got a four page essay explaining why I do what I do and what my approach is. A couple of choice excerpts relevant to what you’re talking about:
If you’re interested, check it out here. I apologize for not having any new reviews up in a year or so; it’s something I keep intending to get back to, but I find other stuff to occupy my time. In any event, you can find the long essay from which the quoted excerpts above are taken by clicking my About link. Hope you find it interesting.
Except it’s not always so simple. Film, like every other creative venture out there, doesn’t exist in a vacuum. In a perfect world, every movie, TV show, book, album, play, or painting could exist completely independently of each other and could be judged solely on its own merits. Unfortunately, each work of artistic expression is based on what came before it, and is in turn the basis for other works. By looking backwards at what an artist’s inspirations were, the reviewer can evaluate where the genre might be heading in the future, among other things. I don’t think a reviewer, in seeing Matrix: Revolutions allusions to Seven Samurai is trying to be a know-it-all blowhard, but is expressing that one served as the inspiration for the other.
On the other hand, many people go to movies simply as an escape; to have a cloak thrown over them and leave their own world behind in favor of one on screen. One approach isn’t better than the other; it’s all dependent on what one wants to get out of the experience.
I’ll add a recommend for Ebert as a level-headed writer, though generally I find critics to be useless. Mainstream critics just aren’t close enough to where I’m at to be useful. Most would not even recognize the NAME of my favorite genre: hentai. Fortunately, there are a lot of folks on the Web who do.
Moving this to Cafe Society.
I think that collectively, the reviews tend to represent an accurate picture. I find that the tomatoe meter works as a pretty good rating on a scale of 1 to 100.
Ebert can go really off the rails sometimes, especilally when it comes to giving raves to terrible movies. He loved The Phantom Menace, for instance and gave thumbs up to crap like Tomb Raider 2 and Charlie’s Angels 2. He also has a self-righteous streak when it comes to violence. He loves to tell everybody how outraged he is by stuff like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and claims he can’t fathom why anyone would like it.
One pet peeve I have is when reviewers want to tell us how the movie should have been made and where the story should have gone. I really have no interest in haering their creative brainstorms. If they could write and direct movies, they’d be doing it.
Ebert is one of the two critics I have bookmarked in my favourites folder, (The other is the Teen Movie Critic II who I read only for the head slappingly stupid fun of it.) I think you need to know one things to understand the Tomb Raider & Charlies Angels reviews - He’s a boob man (How do you think he and Russ Meyer hooked up?)
As for the violence? Who knows, sometimes stuff can just hit you the wrong way. Hell, I’ve seen and enjoyed stuff like Audition, Braindead, Cannibal Holocaust etc but was so disgusted by a relatively tame killing in 52 Pick-Up that it put me off the rest of the film. (For those whove seen the film, it’s the bit where Scheider’s sent the video of the girl)
I still have no idea about his love of the Star Wars prequels, so I attribute it to the madness of “personal taste”
I can understand the violence aversion to a certain extent. How it’s done can change the effect. One think that I have a visceral revulsion to is rape scenes. I can’t stand them and I will generally stop watching a movie if I see one. I understand the movie Irreversable has an almost unwatchable rape scene that goes on forever. Ebert loved that movie. I could never watch it. I find that kind of scene far more offensive than the absurdist violence of the texas Chainsaw movies.
Roger Ebert wrote the sequel to The Valley of the Dolls. That’s why he’s the onyl movie reviewer I trust.
Might it have been Carnosaur?
The Flick Filosopher (a.k.a. Mary-Ann Johansen) is the only movie critic I read consistently. I find her reviews smart, witty, and interesting even when I totally disagree with what she’s saying. She has a knack for using very clever formats to present reviews for movies that struck her as either particularly good or particularly terrible, as well (examples: Tomb Raider, A.I., League of Extraordinary Gentlemen).
I don’t know how a reviewer would be “right” – they would either agree with my taste, or not. And if they agree with mine, they obviously won’t agree with my wife’s, or yours, or the guy in the next row, etc.
I don’t like looking to reviewers to see if a movie is good or bad. The reviews I’ve read never correlate enough with mine – not even negatively. (That is, not only can I not find a reviewer that likes all the movies I like, I also can’t find one that dislikes all the movies I like – that would work almost as well.)
However, I like reading reviews with enough details about the movie to make up my own mind. Tell me the genre, how much action is in it, if the dialogue is clever, who the actors and characters are, how the story starts (but not how it ends!), how consistent the plot is. Scenery, location, costumes, whatever. Details, man, details!
With enough information, I can figure out a movie I’ll like even if the review didn’t, and vice versa.
IIRC, he liked Seven, so I guess hes ok, really.
But generally, reviewers don’t have a clue.
I agree with NE Texan. The purpose of the review is to to tell you whether the movie is good or bad. It is to give you enough information to decide whether to spend your time or money on it.
One phrase that catches my eye is “too confusing” 'cuz I never find it too confusing and often enjoy an intricate plot.
Watch out for “measured” because that means “slow”.
I rely on Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune. He gives a good feel for the movie. Oh, and if it is based on a book, he reads the book, as well.
By the way, I don’t regard the Korean movie “Nowhere to Hide” as particularly obscure. I believe our local neighborhood video store has it. I feel Korea is the new Hong Kong. Some of the best movies are from there. Many stories, such as “My Wife is a Gangster” have been sold to American studios for remakes.
Could’ve been. The look on Ebert’s face was priceless. You’d have thought Gene had just stomped on Ebert’s cat.
I enjoy Rollingstone’s Peter Travers’ movie reviews.
Ebert is a close second.
I think movie critiquing is an art. As has been said in this thread, it’s all about how to dissect the movie interestingly and provide enough info to people to allow them to decide whether or not to go see it.
If there’s a movie with bad acting, or bad writing, or bad effects, etc. then it’s pointed out to the reader. Like Gigli, or Madonna’s last movie.
A good critic will recognize whether the bad acting, etc. is purposefully done (as in camp films) and can then say it’s a good film.
Formuleic movies usually get bad reviews because they are…formuleic. ID4 and Armeggedon got bad reviews because they were too formuleic and did not go into campiness. (ID4 tried a little, but still took itself too seriously to make it)
Films like The Fifth Element are formuleic, but the campiness is obvious and enjoyable (plus 5th Element had an interesting look).
The good critics will also point the reader to those films that the current reviewed film stole things from.
IIRC, Siskel once reviewed Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and panned it on the air right in frontof Ebert. I always liked Siskel better than Ebert.