I used to read Ebert's and other critics review some time ago, then things changed - Rotten Tomatoes modified its policies and almost everyone became a critic over night, then imdb closed its boards, it looks like film reviews are now mostly a marketing tool by the studios and there aren't many real film critics anymore or even an interest from the general public in true film criticism and analysis.
shareAmateur film critics are relevant. I'm not talking about shills or the ones who give a one-sentence "review," but rather the ones who are decent writers and take the time to honestly offer what they like or don't like about a film. If they do it in an entertaining or informative way, all the better. These are the "film critics" you can trust because they're just giving their genuine take on the movie in question and are not motivated by money, popularity or whatever.
shareAgreed. IMDb amateur critics are usually reliable. I usually ignore the critics on there that give the movie a 1, 2 or 10; unless it's a really horrible movie or a masterpiece. They are usually biased in one form or another. But a lot of the critics on there are real knowledgeable movie fans who give genuine reviews, and are pretty good writers as well. I am one by the way.
shareEbert was just a big commercial for every studio blockbuster.
He would always find something to thumbs up about.
He was a critic when Sneak Previews first began with Gene Siskel,
but it quickly devolved into a full blown trailer preview commercial
show.
You must not be too familiar with Roger. He had no qualms telling it as he saw it, regardless of how popular the movie was or how much of a blockbuster. Some examples include: The Usual Suspects, Armageddon, Thor, Dead Poets Society, The Flintstones, Batman, Batman Returns, Fight Club and A Clockwork Orange. The list goes on and on.
Ebert was an effective critic in that, even if he didn't like the movie, he was entertaining and informative, not to mention you'd be able to discern if you wanted to see it.
Your last sentence is what a professional critic does. Thes amateurs just give their opinions which is not criticism.
shareMy initial post on this thread delineated what kind of amateur film critics are relevant today, the ones who can skillfully articulate what's positive or negative about a movie while -- ideally -- entertaining and educating at the same time. Obviously not all amateur reviewers are like this, so you have to weed through the useless ones. Of course you have to weed out the lesser professional critics as well, at least the ones who are worthless to you and definitely the ones who are basically bought shills.
Since quality amateur critics aren't motivated by money, popularity or the favor of certain studios, they're the ones most profitable to a person's time.
Wuchak is right--Ebert had no qualms about panning a movie, if he thought it was bad. I've got two thick books of his called "Your Movie Sucks" and "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie" that are nothing but bad reviews of movies he didn't like.
shareThere are Youtube reviewers who got their own fandoms. From Your Movie sucks to Jeremy Jahns, Chris Stuckman & Redlettermedia
Even Pitch Meetings counts as a review of sorts.
But do they actually have power to tell people to avoid a certain film? Well yeah, a bit.
Not like the critics of old though. Whose reviews were "a big deal" to film goers & filmmakers alike
It's not the same market. There was little choice in which critics one had access to back in the Siskel and Ebert days. Now, there are so many that one can cater to his or her own taste. That's why independent critics are interesting as they are not in the mainstream bubble, but their own.
shareEbert was unusual because he would analyze everything in depth and would add so much more in his review than others. Today on his website, we are reading reviews from other people. I am not sure if he were here today he would share the same opinion.
I always look for film reviews by certain people as I generally agree with them. NY Times, The New Yorker, SF Chronicle, Rolling Stone, LA Times, Washington Post, Variety, Reeling Reviews with Laura Clifford. But there are a lot of people I have never heard of and their reviews are just poorly written, inaccurate, misspelled words. Like a lot of stuff on the internet and this website actually.
I still read critic reviews to get a sense of a film to help me decide if it's my thing or not. I don't really care what rating a reviewer gives a film, I just read through the review to get an idea of the film. Does that make them relevant? For me, yes. Overall? Hard to say.
shareIt's a noble profession that fell into disrepute well before the internet because it so often fell into the hands of elitists and snobs. In the internet era, everyone is a movie critic but few are very good at it. Most "reviews" are mostly plot synopses, which is neither challenging nor, to get at your initial question, relevant. It isn't, as I see it, the job of a critic to tell you the plot of the movie; that's what the movie is for. A critic should have something to say about what the movie has to say, or its place in our world or about questions it raises. Sometimes, there's something worth saying, sometimes there isn't. When Roger Ebert was trashing movies like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE because of the reactions to it by people in the audience with which he watched it, when he trashed THOR because it failed to explain things it actually had explained but he'd missed because he wasn't paying attention, he was being a very bad critic.
shareEbert gave a positive review of "Night of the Living Dead" (3.5/4 Stars), as observed here: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-night-of-the-living-dead-1968
Also, he was open enough to reconsider his initial evaluations of certain films and change them later on.
Lastly, even when he didn't like a movie, he usually offered enough info for readers (or viewers) to determine if they would be interested in seeing it.
Ebert gave NOTLD zero stars--none--in 1969. That 3.5 was retroactive (there's even a note about it on the page to which you linked).
I have a love/hate relationship with Ebert and Gene Siskel. Some of the development of my love of movies came from them but they could be insufferable at times.
Okay, thanks. (I guess I should've actually read it, huh?) But at least it shows that Roger would honestly reconsider his evaluation of a movie with later viewings. There are many flicks that I didn't like on my first watch for one reason or another, but I changed my mind on additional viewings and openly admitted being wrong.
You could say that a person's original view of a film is a snapshot in time, not something set in stone. That's the case with Ebert's original review.