Wh do you trust?

Ebert.  Sometimes I like Kenny Turan.  I don't read reviews before I see a movie unless it's one I'm sure I don't want to see and think will be bad.  After I see a movie, I always read Ebert first, then Kenny Turan and the New Yorker.

Ebert and folks around here.  I never would've seen Let The Right One In if not for CHUD.

Devin Faraci, Drew McWeeney and Renn Brown. Also my mate Dan.

anyname, The only person, in regards to film reviews that I trust fully is...me!  I do not usually consider another's review, as that is how he or she felt about the film.  I do read...CHUD.COM reviews, and sometimes I take a chance on a film, but not often.  CHUD.COM, changed my not seeing...Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol, and I not only...Loved the film, I saw it twice, once on the most...IMAXimum screen possible!

Devin isn't anywhere near my favorite critic (He has his moments, but I consider him mostly just okay as a writer), but he's the one I trust the most because he's the one whose tastes and opinions most closely hew to my own. If he likes a movie, the odds are good that I'll like it, and if not, then I probably won't.

My favorite critic right now is unquestionably Film Crit Hulk. That guy's smart as hell and extremely likable. Besides that, in no particular order, there's James Rocchi, Beaks, Drew McWeeny, Nathan Rabin, Damon, Scott Tobias, Matt Seitz, and Tasha Robinson. And I read even more than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whiteboy Jones 

 

My favorite critic right now is unquestionably Film Crit Hulk. That guy's smart as hell and extremely likable.

Amen to that.

Siskel used to be my guy. Absolutely. 10 times out of 10 his sensibilities mirrored my own to a T. Ebert used to be wildly uneven but, over the past decade, he seems to have shaken loose much of his obnoxiously subjective sentimentality. Nowadays, McWeeny is my guy. His TDK review blew me away & his opinions are generally consistent with my own.

I'm also beginning to warm to Renn. He was one of the few voices to look past their own geek excitement & call out the obstructive laziness inherent in Captain America.  

Drew McWeeny is infuriating because he's not a bad writer, but he lets his ego get in the way. He falls into the trap that a lot of writers without serious journalism training do, falling into pundrity and a sense that their opinion is very! important! Which is how we get pieces like his open letter to Twilight fans, or his recent anti-rape piece. But when he scales it back, and manages to get through an entire piece without talking about his kids, he's insightful and pointed. 

As I get older, the more I've come to appreciate the guys who have been doing it a while -- Dana Stevens at Slate, Matt Zoller Seitz (though he's a TV guy now). 

I don't tend to read reviews anymore, but the opinions of the good folk on this site carry a lot of weight for me.

This year they've been responsible for me seeing Chronicle and Mission Impossible IV, neither of which I had any interest in seeing based on the trailers.  They also confirmed my decision to see Hugo.

I enjoyed all three immensely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonard 

Drew McWeeny is infuriating because he's not a bad writer, but he lets his ego get in the way. He falls into the trap that a lot of writers without serious journalism training do, falling into pundrity and a sense that their opinion is very! important! Which is how we get pieces like his open letter to Twilight fans, or his recent anti-rape piece. But when he scales it back, and manages to get through an entire piece without talking about his kids, he's insightful and pointed.

A lot of these net guys commit these types of mistakes. They mostly make it about THEM, but they lack the courage of their convictions, so instead of "This is what it is," it's along the lines of "This is what I think it is based on my life experiences." I understand injecting yourself into these reviews, but you have to have a personality, you have to come across like you've lived a full life. And as ocassionally lively as someone like McWeeny can be on the page, he just doesn't sound like a very interesting person.

I trust A.O. Scott more than most critics, he seems to have a good grasp on getting to the bottom of what a movie is, but also injecting a few aw-shucks average guy observations - shades of Ebert. Zoeller Seitz is great, J. Hoberman is awesome. And there are a whole lot of guys that I read because I always disagree with their opinions, but I find their insight always interesting and, more importantly, surprising, guys like Armond White, Walter Chaw and that knobhead Jeff Wells. The mark of a good critic is that he'll say things that you won't hear from any other critic.

I've really been enjoying Mark Kermode lately. Walter Chaw I like a lot, and on the homefront, Brown has been upping his game. I know this is a thread about people you trust, so in keeping with that, I'll say that I will always trust that I will continue to absolutely loathe David Edelstein, even when I agree with him.

Ebert, no question. I don't always agree with him, sure, but I trust that he comes to a movie from an honest place pretty much every time.

And pretty much everyone at the AV Club is awesome.

I don't trust anyone who gets paid to give their opinion on movies to lead me towards a masterpiece or save me from a pile of shit. Although I do enjoy a number of reviews on CHUD, I only read them after I've seen the film, or if I don't care to see it and just want to see someone like Nick or Renn trash on it (most of the time, that's what happens to films I'm not interested in).

I suppose you could chalk this up to the fact that there's a handful of films that I love, and would've avoided if I'd listened to just about anyone, not just critics, before heading to the theater. Biggest example: Ang Lee's Hulk. I don't think there's any movie that I've seen and enjoyed so immensely that is more universally shit on by everyone. I will never understand how the one with Edward Norton manages to not earn such hate. Did that one feature Nick Nolte absolutely nailing a role like it was a drunken supermodel? Fuck no.

It's awful to reduce film criticism to consumer advice. AWFUL.

I tend to treat it less as consumer advice, more as "Will this person write a review I am interested in reading?" Sometimes that influences my choices, sometimes not.

Also, a strong shout-out to Outlaw Vern. Always gold.

Despite Drew's mistakes, I trust him, as my tastes seem to coincide quite closely with his. I also trust Renn pretty well. I enjoy Devin's reviews, but as often as they don't, my tastes diverge from his. 

Other than that, I sort go by critical mass from Chewers. There are several whose opinions carry more weight, but I really look for consensus. Of course, there are some glaring exceptions, but overall the crowd here has steered me pretty well.

Although I loved reading Devin, Ebert and Russ Fischer, more of than not I find myself in agreement with Eric D. Snider.

Mark Kermode is pretty in synch with me.  I usually dont rely on critics when deciding about movies though, I stick with general word of mouth on sites like this and facebook and I never rely on ONE person's opinion, that's ridiculous.