If you want to get a sense of the zeitgeist but can only read one review, you might prefer Rene Rodriguez, whose low standard deviation from the mean review score makes him very nearly a living critical average. If you are interested in an alternative perspective, Mick LaSalle's high standard deviation places him further from the critical pack than any of these peers. Reviews from both Michael Wilmington and Marc Savlov are so regularly and respectively positive and negative that they should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt.
The source article, which contains much more information, is here. You'll find a visual representation of the critics's stances here. Hat tip goes to Eric Barker.
If you're wondering, I don't have a "favorite movie critic." I judge movies by the preview, the director, and by mentally aggregating the first five reviews I happen to read. This works well for me. If I had to go by a single source, by far it would be Variety magazine, which offers separate assessments of a movie's goodness and of its popularity with various demographics, a luxury which non-insider publications do not always have.
What I want is a clone to sent to the movie and come back and tell me “meh.” The only problem is he might think I’m his clone, but I can probably convince him that having to post on MR is a drag.
Savlov’s reviews should be taken as a mechanism for signaling that he is a high status socialite who is smarter than you. His stuff is still the best of the lot at the ol’ Chronicle, however.
Rotten tomatoes gives the consensus of all movie critics. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/
All movie reviews walk a fine line between revealing too much of the plot and not revealing enough to give you an idea of whether you want to see it. The problem is, they all walk a different fine line. So, reading too many reviews often means you can piece together fairly major spoilers.
As others have suggested, Rotten Tomatoes gives you a snapshot of critics’ consensus without revealing any plot points (unless you click through the links and read the individual reviews).
Do you understand how ridiculous this statement is:
“I judge movies by the preview, the director, and by mentally aggregating the first five reviews I happen to read.”
I judge theater plays by the sources of finance, the cleverness of the title, and the attire of those leaving the venue.
Tyler is talking about judging which movies to see.
I quite agree with Tyler. As a movie reviewer, I don’t see my function as attempting to impose my tastes on readers, but as doing the work necessary to add value to their relationship with movies, to help them get more intellectually out of movies. This requires me to do a fair amount of research.
For example, what were the recent movies “District 9,” “Inglourious Basterds,” and “Disgrace” actually about? Reading interviews with Blomkamp and Tarantino, it was obvious that the press was misinterpreting their main intentions. With the adaptation of J.M. Coetzee’s Nobel-prize winning novel “Disgrace,” other critics shied away from actually explaining what the book and film showed in the starkest terms, which my quoting from the novel rectified.
“Tyler is talking about judging which movies to see.”
Of course, but his phrasing was a bit awkward, and I couldn’t resist.
The only review column I ever bothered to read with any regularity. Exploding head fu.
Mine is Roger Ebert. I track with him about 90% of the time. Of course, I’m very concerned about placebo effects, as I love this man.
Before my time became extremely valuable, the only movies I stopped in the middle of were Batman 3 and Transformers. Now I just don’t view anything I don’t know I will like, unless I have nothing better to do and view it as an educational experience. God knows education isn’t supposed to be enjoyable.
I feel physically sick when I think about Transformers II. Micheal Bay should be prosecuted for a crime against humanity. I find myself thinking there should be some form of intellectual property that protects it from the owners.
The problem with screening based on director is how do you find a new one? You have to wait for popularity. That’s a big problem.
All Bay Area readers of Mick LaSalle will find the study amusing. He is a very widely-read critic but also one most people say they both totally agree with on some picks and vehemently disagree with on others.
Also, oddly, once I read his reviews for the quality of his writing rather than as a gauge of whether I should see the movie or not, I started to become more and more persuaded by his reviews. If Mick liked it, I likely would too.
Comments on this entry are closed.