Mine, I think, is still Roger Ebert. I occasionally go back and revisit his reviews and I'm always struck by how smart and funny he often is. I didn't always agree with the guy -- like his two star review of "Die Hard" -- but even when I felt he missed the boat on a movie I still reveled in his wordsmanship. The film reviewing community just isn't the same without him.
shareI agree with you AngularTurnip, Roger Ebert was my very favorite but there are others I like. A.O. Scott is a good writer and I usually like what he recommends. Pauline Kael was good but I felt she could be mean spirited at times just for the sake of contrariness. She really championed some important filmmakers. Roger Ebert didn't have any pretense to him; I liked that. Although, I agree with the others that he was not a big horror fan and I love that genre too, but it is hard to find a good horror movie. I don't want just blood and jump scares. I want a good story too. I check out the IMDb ratings too, to see what the audience thinks.
shareI don't think movie critics should be followed, rather that the good ones will share their sensibility about viewing a particular movie and will put it in a larger movie history or broader context (cultural, historucal, aesthetic, etc...)... this is often interesting in and of itself, but also enriches our understanding of other movies and of film as art, entertainment and as part of a culture.,,
Kael was interesting... I find Armond White interesting as his reviews are less about a yay-or-nay consumer reports assessment and more of a cultural commentary with a bit of comparisons with film history (also, loads of attitude and the iconic annual "better than" list is a must read and provocative). White currently writes for both National Review as well as for Out magazine. I like Bret Easton Ellis as well. He has written lots of great articles on movies (his blog and various publications) and has an excellent movie oriented podcast. David Foster Wallace, the iconic writer of Infinite Jest, had some interesting writings on film, in particular on David Lynch. David Foster Wallace hated TV... David Denby's articles in the New Yorker were good too...
So of those living and active... Bret Easton Ellis, Armond White and David Denby are among the more thoughtful and interesting to read... The thing is with these guys you won't always know what they'll say about a particular movie before reading their articles, nor will you know what other films they'll refer to as comparisons or references... That alone sets them apart from most critics who are stuck in consumer reports style reviewing or in some ideological paradigm...
Bret Easton Ellis and David Foster Wallace have the better writing styles of the ones I've mentioned. But they are actually writers...
I read critics reviews of movies usually after I've already seen a movie, rarely before, so will end up reading a few random ones from metacritic or from rotten tomatoes... This exposes me to new critics all the time...
Back when people could still comment on reviews posted on Rotten Tomatoes I remember how hostile the comments left by the Nolanites were for Armond White when he was one of the handful of critics brave enough not to fawn all over Nolan's latest.
shareI agree, Armond White is iconoclast in some ways... As he seems very faithful to his own voice, which is a key thing in a critic... Probably as important as having something worthwhile about movies to say π
I liked both his and Richard Brody's reviews of Dunkirk, incidentally they were both critical of it, even though I liked the movie a lot... So much so, that it is one of my favourites of last year... But then again, I don't read criticism just to hear people who agree with me π
Dan Schneider from Cosmoetica. He is the most objective and was actually praised by Roger Ebert himself for this very reason shortly before Roger Ebert died.
share
I second that motion. For me it will always be Roger Ebert. When I check External Reviews on IMDB, I always check out his first if there is one. And often that is the only one I'll read. I really miss him, and Siskel also.
π
Siskel wasn't the writer that Roger was but he still excelled at what he did. And he was half of one of the greatest duos of the twentieth century. I loved watching Siskel and Ebert discuss film -- and especially got a kick out of their arguments which were often pretty funny.
shareI'm my favourite film critic. I don't always agree with the rating on every occasion but I do find me to be thoughtful and informative with my critiques of cinema.
shareMark Kermode and Barry Norman RIP
shareEbert as well
share