Proceeding, tangentially, from the critic-thread manqué, Role of the film critic, and Flux's comment about Roger Ebert in the Kill Bill thread: who are your favourite film reviewers or critics (perhaps we might also discuss the connotative and denotative differences between the two terms)?
In South Africa, we have the rather fine Shaun de Waal, who reviews for a weekly newspaper. I also enjoy Stephanie Zacharek's reviews (I enjoyed them more when Salon.com didn't make me jump through advert hoops before granting me access -- small price, though), and those of The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw. What I admire about them all is their obvious and extensive film knowledge (with occasionally a light touch of film theory, not enough to desiccate the review) and their ability to enhance my understanding or appreciation of a movie by contextualising it, while leaving me in no doubt regarding their opinion of the film -- without resorting to the simplistic, brow-beating, "I think this movie is good/bad; everyone should watch/avoid it" template that seems to be favoured by so many other reviewers.
Andrew Sarris is good, too, and even when he's reviewing films that I know will never see the inside of South Africa's benighted cinemas, I find myself enjoying the review on its own terms, separate and distinct from the film it's discussing.
So, who is/are your favourite film reviewer(s), and why, given particularly that the opinion of that/those reviewer(s) is unlikely to prompt you to watch films that you wouldn't ordinarily watch, and, conversely, will not prevent you from watching those that you would? Or would they? |
