Film criticism
Film criticism is the analysis and evaluation of
films, individually and collectively. In general this can be divided into journalistic criticism that appears regularly in
newspapers and other popular, mass-media outlets and academic criticism by film scholars that is informed by
film theory and published in journals.
Film critics working for
newspapers,
magazines,
broadcast media, and online publications mainly review new releases. Normally they only see any given film once and have only a day or two to formulate opinions. Despite this, critics have an important impact on films, especially those of certain
genres. The popularity of mass-marketed
action,
horror, and
comedy films tend not to be greatly affected by a critic's overall judgment of a film. The plot summary and description of a film that makes up the majority of any film review can have an important impact on whether people decide to see a film. For prestige films with a limited release, such as independent
dramas, the influence of reviews is extremely important. Poor reviews will often doom a film to obscurity and financial loss.
Reviews and film marketing
The impact of reviews on a film's
box office performance and DVD rentals/sales is a matter of debate. Some claim that
movie marketing is now so intense and well financed that reviewers cannot make an impact against it. However, the failure of some heavily-promoted movies (such as
Alexander) that were harshly reviewed, as well as the unexpected success of critically praised independent movies (such as
Pulp Fiction) indicates that extreme critical reactions can have considerable influence. Others note that positive film reviews have been shown to spark interest in little-known films. Major box-office analysis websites like Box Office Prophets and Box Office Guru regularly factor in general film review opinions in their projections of a film's earnings.
Studios respect the clout of reviewers. There have been several films in which film companies have so little confidence that they refuse to give reviewers an advanced viewing to avoid widespread panning of the film (such as
The Avengers). However, this usually backfires as reviewers are wise to the tactic and warn the public that the film may not be worth seeing. Such films often do poorly as a result.
Since so much money is riding on positive reviews, studios often work to woo film critics. Any major release is accompanied by mailings to film critics
press kits containing background information, many photos for use in a publication, and often small gifts. Film reviewers who appear on television are given clips from the movie which they may use.
"Quote whoring"
Almost all films, no matter how badly panned they are by other critics, can find some reviewers to praise them. These praises often appear in the ads for the movies. Often used are stock phrases such as "spectacular," "edge-of-the-seat," "thrilling," "joy ride," "triumph," "tour de force."
These reviews are sometimes obtained by the studio offering to fly a group of critics from cities across the United States to either
New York or
Los Angeles. Added to this "free vacation" are often elaborate gifts. After the screening the studios ask the critics to write a small review, often only a few sentences.From these reviews they draw advertising blurbs.
One reviewer who was widely labeled a "
quote whore" was
David Manning, whose quotes often appeared on promotional posters for
Columbia Pictures. In early June 2001, the company admitted that Manning was an entirely fictional creation of their
marketing department. In 2005, the studio reached a $1.5 million settlement and agreed to refund the ticket price for viewers who attended certain movies, including
A Knight's Tale and
Hollow Man.
In the
United Kingdom this same accusation was levelled at the
News of the World critic,
Paul Ross, whose quotes frequently appeared on film posters there. The magazine
Total Film in 2003 published a list of a number of films released that year which Ross had called 'excellent' or 'the best' in their genres, and pointed out that he often appeared to contradict himself in order to get his review quoted. Unlike Manning, however, Ross is a real journalist, and the brother of
Jonathan Ross, also a film critic.
See also: Earl DittmanOnline film reviews
Some websites seek to improve the usefulness of film reviews by compiling them and assigning a score to each in order to gauge the general reception a film receives.
Rotten Tomatoes and
Metacritic are two such examples. The
Online Film Critics Society, an international professional association of Internet-based cinema reviewers, consists of writers from all over the world.
Some websites specialize in narrow aspects of film reviewing. For instance, there are sites that focus on specific content advisories for parents to judge a film's suitability for children (e.g.
Screen it!). Others focus on a religious perspective (e.g.
CAP Alert). Still others highlight more esoteric subjects such as the depiction of
science in fiction films. One such example is
Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics by
Intuitor.
One unique website,
Everyone's a Critic, allows anyone to publish film reviews and comment on them.
Criticism of Criticism
Some people actively oppose criticism of any kind, noting that films are entertainment which is by definition entertaining. The inability to enjoy a form of entertainment must then fall on the viewer, not the creator or the product itself. This is viewed as logical because one can find someone who hates any particular film deeply and someone who loves that same film passionately. Rather, the criticism should be left up to the individual viewer and not to the opinions of others who may have their own agendas.
Notable journalistic critics
*
James Agee*
Rona Barrett*
James Berardinelli*
Peter Bradshaw (
The Guardian)
*
Ty Burr (
The Boston Globe)
*
Ernest Callenbach*
Vincent Canby (
The New York Times)
*
Bosley Crowther*
Roger Ebert (
Chicago Sun-Times Siskel & Ebert)
*
David Edelstein (
New York Magazine,
NPR's
Fresh Air,
CBS Sunday Morning)
*
Manny Farber*
The Filthy Critic*
Daniel Garrett (
Offscreen.com, TheCompulsiveReader.com, Cinetext.Philo.at)
*
Graham Greene*
Leslie Halliwell*
Molly Haskell*
Pauline Kael (
The New Yorker)
*
Stanley Kauffmann (
The New Republic)
*
Mark Kermode*
Harry Knowles (
Ain't It Cool News)
*
Anthony Lane (
The New Yorker)
*
Tim Lucas (
Video Watchdog)
*
Derek Malcolm (the
Manchester Guardian)
*
Leonard Maltin (
Entertainment Tonight,
Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide)
*
Janet Maslin (
The New York Times)
*
Michael Medved*
Elvis Mitchell*
Joe Morgenstern (
The Wall Street Journal)
*
Wesley Morris (
The Boston Globe)
*
Khalid Mohammed (Bollywood films, previously for The Times of India and Midday)
*
Barry Norman*
Robert Osborne*
Rex Reed (
New York Observer)
*
Frank Rich*
Richard Roeper (
Ebert & Roeper)
*
Jonathan Rosenbaum (
Chicago Reader)
*
Jonathan Ross*
Andrew Sarris*
A. O. Scott (
New York Times)
*
Gene Shalit (
NBC's Today Show*
Joel Siegel*
John Ivan Simon*
Gene Siskel (
Chicago Tribune,
Siskel & Ebert)
*
David Stratton*
Peter Travers (
Rolling Stone)
*
Kenneth Turan (
Los Angeles Times)
*
Parker Tyler (
Film Culture)
*
Alexander Walker (
London Evening Standard and others)
*
John Maguire (The
Irish Independent)
*
David Walsh (
World Socialist Web Site)
*
Armond WhiteSome claim that journalist film critics should only be known as film reviewers, and that true film critics are those who take a more academic approach to films. This work is more often known as
film theory or
film studies. These film critics try to come to understand why film works, how it works, what it means, and what effects it has on people. Rather than write for mass-market publications their articles are published in scholarly journals, or sometimes in up-market magazines. They also tend to be affiliated with universities.
Notable academic critics
*
Rudolf Arnheim*
Béla Balázs*
André Bazin*
Jean-Louis Beaudry*
Peter Bogdanovich*
David Bordwell*
Ernest Callenbach*
Ray Carney*
Serge Daney*
Maya Deren*
Mary Ann Doane*
Sergei Eisenstein*
Manny Farber*
Siegfried Kracauer*
Christian Metz*
Laura Mulvey*
William Rothman*
Andrew Sarris*
Kaja Silverman*
Kristin Thompson*
François Truffaut*
Slavoj Žižek*
Film journals and magazines*Jonathan Rosenbaum,
Movie Wars: How Hollywood and the Media Conspire to Limit What Films We Can See, A Cappella Books 2000
*Slavoj Žižek,
The Žižek Reader (edited by Elizabeth Wright and Edmond Wright), Blackwell Publishing 1999
*Maya Deren,
Essential Deren: Collected Writings on Film by Maya Deren (edited by Bruce R. McPherson), Documentext 2005
*Raúl Ruiz,
Poetics of Cinema (translated by Brian Holmes) Dis Voir 2005
*Raymond J. Haberski, Jr.,
It's Only A Movie!: Film and Critics in American Culture, University Press of Kentucky, 2001
Sorted by domain name.
*
Alternate Takes*
Banana Peel: Film Reviews in Conveniet Renga Form*
Big Picture Big Sound Movie Reviews *
Bright Lights Film Journal *
Confessions of a Film Critic*
Classic Film Guide*
Family Movie Reviews*
eFilmCritic*
Everyone's A Critic*
Film Dramas*
Film-Flam - A Wiki for Movie Reviews*
Filmsite.org*
Film Threat*
Movie Reviews*
Independent Critics*
Internet Movie Database*
Kamera*
Elvis Mitchell's The Treatment*
Screening the Past*
Metacritic*
Movie Review Query Engine*
Offscreen*
Roger Ebert*
Rotten Tomatoes*
The Online Film Critics Society*
Senses of Cinema*
The Film Journal*
Interview with Philip Lopate, editor of the anthology, American Movie Critics: From the Silents Until Now â€" on the public-radio program,
The Sound of Young America.
