Assignment #3: Three Critics

The three critics:


#1: Roger Ebert

Since I began getting into film seriously maybe eight or nine years ago, Roger Ebert has to me always been the man when it comes to film criticism.  Over the years, he's written some of the most masterful reviews and breakdowns of film that I've ever read, and has consistently kept pace in bringing to the forefront unknown films that deserve more recognition.

The thing I love most about Ebert's reviews is how he is able to simplistically breakdown even the most complicated film into what makes it work and why, and to go into major detail in some of his longer form critique on why or why not certain films walk the edge of masterpiece.  Two reviews really stand out in my mind when I think of Ebert.

The first is his amazing analysis and attempt to understand Michael Haneke's puzzling film Cache, which he approaches to the extent of even breaking down individual shots.  He also is willing to ask new questions in his review, rather than try to answer the simple ones a viewer would most likely have about the film.  While many of his reviews seem simple on the surface, it's only a facade for one of the best in the business at film breakdown.

The second review of his I love is simply because of one line in it.  In his review for Robert Rodriguez's Predators, he talks about how one character is able to with limited knowledge discern the major plot point that the main cast of characters are part of a Most Dangerous Game style hunt with aliens.  Ebert makes one simple comment:  "It would be more interesting if the characters never did figure this out."  This comment struck me then, and still does today as it shows how looking at one's own work as a critic can bring about questions and valuable information towards the creative process.

You can find Ebert at:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

#2: Armond White

Yes, Armond White.  Probably the internet's go-to critic to hate and lambast because of his tendency to berate and attack critically successful films while contrastingly lauding critically hated films.  This is the guy that gave a thumbs up to Jack & Jill, but gave Django Unchained a thumbs down.

So why do I like Armond White?  If anything, his reviews are something different entirely.  He tends to either attack or laud elements of a film that will rarely if ever make an appearance in a single other review.  He's been called a troll in the film criticism world, but his reviews are far from mindless blathering but incredibly eloquent and put together.  In Armond's case, I'll take an interesting review any day over a generic one.

Read more of Armond's Reviews at:

cityarts.info

#3:  Red Letter Media (Mike Stoklasa and Jay Bauman)

As the third and final critic, I'm going for something unconventional.  The website redlettermedia.com ran by Mike Stoklasa is one of my favorite, and one of the most comprehensive film review sites on the internet.  All of the reviews are presented in a video essay format, and films reviewed as part of the Half in The Bag series are presented more in the style of a podcast with video elements.

The reason this website works is humor mixed with a blunt breakdown of films that so many other critics seem to miss.  The website first came into the internet's spotlight after they published a 70 minute video review of Star Wars: A Phantom Menace which broke down every aspect of the film and deconstructed many plot and story elements which had been negated by almost every other reviewer.  In doing so, they also managed to implant their review with a ton of humor, most of which was simply a humorous take on how poorly constructed the film is.

These guys are some of the best, and show that a critical analysis of a film no longer has to be a written document, but that a video essay can be just as powerful.

Check them out at:

redlettermedia.com