I was listening to the podcast of Ebert and Roeper on the way to work today and I realized that while Roger Ebert has veered to the bizarre (he likes some crappy movies and dislikes movies for odd reasons), I generally always agree with Richard Roeper.
I don’t believe Roeper was a movie critic prior to getting hired to replace Gene Siskell, but he was a worthy replacement.
While not a true movie snob, he seems to like more sophisticated films and tends to always give thumbs down to films that tend toward cheddar. Yet, instead of being snooty about how low the film is, he seems utterly amused. I kind of like that.
Only once can I remember strongly disagreeing with him (War of the Worlds) and for the most part, even if he disagrees with me on a film, he generally nails what I liked/disliked about the film as a positive/negative. So I figure I share similar movie tastes with Roeper.
He seems like a reasonable, middle of the road movie fan who likes solid films and steers clear of the formulaic.
What do you think of Roeper and what critic’s reviews do you feel are comparable to your tastes?
I have to admit I’m not too familiar with Roeper. I tend to not pay attention to critics, but I do think Ebert is a great writer, whether I agree with him or not.
Actually, the only critic who usually influences my movie choices is Selkie, a Straight Doper. We tend to have pretty similar tastes most of the time (although I think I have more tolerance for comedy, and she likes highbrow stuff more than I do), but I definitely pay attention to her thoughts on movies.
Roeper? Augh… One of the worst offenders in the ‘arrogant ass’ category. There aren’t any major critics I’m aware of with whom I consistently share a taste in movies, but Roeper’s attitude is a prime example of why I don’t bother looking for one.
Roeper is a grade-A moron, completely inarticulate about cinematic devices, incoherent in coming up with sound arguments, and too often relegating things to Me Like/Me No Like. Ebert’s so far off his A-game that he had to hire someone like Roeper (who he can dismiss handily) in order to look good on TV. Most other real critics would eat him alive.
My gauge for a critic isn’t how often I agree with him, but whether he makes a convincing argument when I don’t. Someone who can discuss cinema as an art form (in all it forms, permutations, and frustrating inconsistencies) is much more valuable than a Two-thumbs up opinion. Corliss & Schickel, Rosenbaum & Kauffman all know their stuff quite well, regardless of whether I agree or not.
I personally refer to Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune, who took over as the main film critic after Gene Siskel died. If he likes any given film, I almost certainly will.
My favorite is Anthony Lane of the New Yorker - sure, he is snooty as all hell and steeped in film lore - but he is a truly great writer. His stuff is punny and hilarious in an arch, intellectual-critic sort of way, but it is clear (IMHO) that he is “in on the joke” and gets just how pretentious he can be. And while he is pretentious, he is very clear - you understand exactly what he likes and doesn’t like and don’t end up tangled in fancy words.
My point is: I enjoy his writing, find him funny and most importantly, find him articulate and clear - so even as he bashes, say, Spider-Man 2 or something, I get a sense for where the movie is coming from and can choose to see it anyway and enjoy it on my own terms…
I second Anthony Lane for enjoying his writing, but the reviewer I trust almost without reservation is Lance Goldberg of the Weekly Planet, Tampa’s main weekly entertainment paper. Everything gets fair and balanced treatment, even the cheese, reviewed for what it’s supposed to be, not what it “should” be.
How 'bout all of 'em? I think the Tomato-Meter at “Rotten Tomatoes” is a fairly good indicator if I’m likely to enjoy a movie or not. Sure, it’s not always accurate…but I figure if enough critics call a movie ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ it’s gotta be somewhat reliable.
Roger Ebert and James Berardinelli. Even when I disagree they make it clear why they liked or disliked a particular movie so I still find it useful. And Ebert’s reviews are often more entertaining to read than the movie was/would be to watch.
I used to read the flickfilosopher website but after every single one of her news posts started becoming whines that she wasn’t being payed and people weren’t donating enough I stopped.
I use the Tomato-meter, with various ad-hoc modifications. For example:
Independent movies will usually get a somewhat higher % than they deserve. If the movie has Catherine Keener (and some others), it’ll be way higher. So I need about 80% for an Indy film, 90% for a Keener film.
Foreign films will also get better than they deserve. It gets tricky because some countries put out better films than others, but critics seem to fail to notice the difference. So I take into account the country of origin. 70% is good enough to get me to go to a Chinese movie; even at 95%, a Scandinavian movie is likely to be crap.
Horror movies will generally be rated low as well. 60% probably means it’s a pretty good movie.
Romantic comedies score higher than they deserve. Kate Hudson seems to have the same effect on critics that Keener has in the indy realm. So again, I need 80% for a romantic comedy; at this point I don’t think 100% would get me into another Hudson movie.
Action/Adventure films will generally be rated a lower than they deserve, often a lot lower. Best to ignore the critics altogether, or maybe go with Ebert. He knows that stuff (i.e., he seems to have the same taste as me). Same holds true for Sci-Fi.
I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve read anyone’s review before watching a film. I will use star ratings as a guide to rentals, but I don’t want to know what others have thought until I decide what I think.
Afterwards I have found that Ebert’s views are important in making my decision as to whether to recommend a movie to others, and I always find things he has said to add to my overall understanding of a movie. But he has missed badly on enough movies that I wouldn’t want his opinion beforehand. I like movies enough that I’d prefer to watch pure trash than to miss a jewel he disliked or reviewed as poor.
The Tomatometer is helpful in similar ways, and it’s unusual (less than 30% of the time) that I will totally disagree with the meter’s take on something. I can accept things that rate as low as 40% on the scale, where their cutoff is more like 60% for something being “good” (“fresh” they call it), but it’s rare that I will disagree on the other end of the scale although that has happened, too.
As for other critics, there are so few that I trust that I don’t bother with them any longer. And I refuse to watch Ebert-Roeper if they’re reviewing things I haven’t seen yet. The thumbs thing is annoying and their snapshot reviews hardly worth the time it takes to see them. I confess that there have been times when I’ve been renting things that I would go ahead and rent one on the basis of “two thumbs up” with nothing better to go on, but after having several of them bite me in the ass, I have dispensed with that gimmick, too.
In short, I prefer the adventure of deciding for myself.
Not to mention completely ignorant of cinema history. My jaw dropped when he said Costner’s Open Range was one of the best Westerns he’s ever seen. I mean, it’s not a bad movie, but one of the best ever? It could be the best Western in the last twenty-five years and still not crack the top hundred.
I actually find I like Jack Garner at the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle. He’s a bit too impressed by art films for my taste, but he’s also aware of his tastes, and explains why he likes or dislikes in a given film without spoiling the story. I don’t always agree with his reviews, but I can tell after reading his reviews whether I think I’ll enjoy a given film.
Hell, it’s not even the best western of the last 15 years. That honour goes to Unforgiven (which, by the way, I think is the best western since The Wild Bunch (which I still think isn’t as good as Peckinpah’s earlier Ride the High Country, but I digress)).
I still like Ebert although, as stated above, more for his writing than for his taste and critical skills (I still haven’t forgiven him for trashing Peter Jackson’s The Frighteners). James Berardinelli is another favourite. He’s clear and concise and definitely knows his stuff. His extensive coverage of the Toronto Film Festival alone makes him a must-read.
Other than that, I usually just scan the tomato-meter. Sadly, this is all pretty much theoretical as I can count on one hand the movies I’ve been interested in seeing since springtime. This has been the suckiest year for movies I can remember in a long time.
