5 Excellent Critical Film Voices To Follow If You’re Into That Sort Of Thing

Now, I know if you’re reading this that means you come to We Got This Covered for the breadth and depth of coverage this site and its talented writers and reviewers offer any movie fan. Well done! You have excellent taste. But the greatest beauty and usefulness of our internet age is the seemingly limitless number of perspectives at one’s fingertips, and so there’s always more to read, watch and listen to if you want to expand your own perspective and learn and think and all of that. With the sad passing of Roger Ebert, many avid film viewers have one fewer perspective with which they are able to enrich their movie experience. Ebert was terrific at balancing expert analysis with engaging exposition. There are lots of others who may not do so with the authority of Ebert, but continue in a valuable way: folks like AO Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune (the two who filled Siskel and Ebert’s chair most suitably), as well as plenty of other old pros. I tend to favor the less traditional critics whose work is geared less towards straight up reviews and summaries and focus on serving up interesting and new ideas and approaches. Which I’m sure everyone else does too, in their own way. These are just my own faves. Here are 5 film critics that I turn to when I want to read about movies I’ve seen. Continue reading on the next page... 1) Film Crit Hulk I’m not sure what it says about the state of film criticism, but the widely agreed upon opinion that much of the most thoughtful, interesting and bold writing about movies right now comes from a guy who cloaks his real identity by writing in the character of a comic book monster is somehow noteworthy. The issues I have with him writing in all caps in third-person Incredible Hulk-speak are overshadowed (JUST BARELY) by his general approach to viewing movies and the way he likes to talk about them, which is in-depth but not emotionally detached, genuinely curious but not overly theoretical, occasionally a tad pedantic but usually just terrifically informative and smart. Once you sort of get past the feeling that a person is yelling at you, which he seemingly refuses to ever change because he wants to invert your expectations and not take himself seriously or something, his essays are terrific, long reads. He cites time and again his philosophy about not hating a movie, a fresh and wonderful perspective that too many reviewers and commenters couldn’t be bothered to consider: that even movies we think are bad are valuable learning experiences about movies and about ourselves, taste, culture and so on. I would go a step further and argue that even movies we’re convinced are bad may not be, that while our own impression of a movie is important but it’s ultimately incomplete—hence reading and talking about them further. Whoever this Hulk guy is, his perspective is one desperately needed in movie discussion today, even if the all-caps gimmick, although it may have more meaning to him and readers than being a mere gimmick, is still a really annoying gimmick. He is excellent in spite of the Hulk persona. Continue reading on the next page... 2) Matt Zoller Seitz One trend in the field of writing about motion pictures is that very few individuals stick to just movies or just television anymore, participating in both mediums which used to be far more separated than they are today. Matt Zoller Seitz writes on TV for Vulture, but has done tremendous work on the films of Terrence Malick and Wes Anderson. Much of his work consists of writing reviews, which lean towards being charmingly contrarian. Like most critics, his best efforts are found when he’s championing something like Mad Men or Arrested Development rather than tearing something apart. Another reason I find Seitz to be a great contributor to the conversation around cinema is his range of interests; he’s not only a writer but a filmmaker, and combines the worlds of film criticism with filmmaking itself, helping to bring the form of the critical video essay to the mainstream of our current YouTube age. This is a format that allows the critic or essayist to focus on audio-visual examples taken directly from the source material rather than relying on their own descriptive abilities. It lets the viewer get a greater sense of the image itself rather than the writer’s impression of that image. And this in turn puts more of the focus on the filmmaking rather than the criticism. He’s also really funny on Twitter. Continue reading on the next page... 3) Dana Stevens If there’s one person I trust to cut through the pretentious BS and simply give the clearest, most enjoyable, insightful and incisive assessments of a movie I either want to see or have already seen, it’s Dana Stevens, who writes and podcasts over at Slate. Her voice, written and spoken, has a matter-of-factness to it that captures the tone of my generation’s style of discussion more than any other critic I’m aware of. She doesn’t speak as though she has claims to any sort of authority on matters of taste or film language, which is more refreshing than I can say; the airs many reviewers try to put on in an effort to essentially plead with us to listen to them is tiresome, sometimes nauseating. For me, she picks up the Ebert mantle rather well. She mirrors the honest style that Mr. Ebert became famous for, staying true to the principle that a reviewer must be honest to the point of embarrassment when it comes to communicating their impression of a movie viewing experience. Where she differs with Ebert, and I consider this a terrific strength, is her understanding that she is part of a conversation rather than a single voice swaying the masses. Listening to her speak either on her podcasts or being interviewed by people like Charlie Rose is a welcome departure from pushier voices that don’t allow the type of give and take discussions require. She’s also really funny on Twitter. Continue reading on the next page... 4) Glenn Kenny I’m not even sure why I enjoy Glenn Kenny so much, but the trend among the people I’ve listed so far is that they aren’t afraid to break away from the hive mind that can often envelop movie critics and they also write really engagingly. On those terms, and also in the field of delightful Twitter snark, Glenn Kenny may be the most talented in the area of sheer writing. He writes reviews for MSN but the stuff I like the best of his is found on his blog, his personal musings on controversies and current topics that are dominating the minds of the critical community at any given moment, such as editing in The Dark Knight or The Master’s use of 70mm. And then there’s his essays that tackle various topics and trends spanning across a vast number of movies, including his recent one on the depiction of sex and orgasms in movies. This is the stuff that fascinates me, even more than individual reviews. And I wish there was much more of it. Continue reading on the next page... 5) David Poland Marc Maron’s WTF podcast is a bit of a revelation when it comes to in-depth interviews with fascinating people who create work that we adore. I always wondered why something that’s specifically about movies rather than stand-up comedy didn’t really exist. And then I discovered David Poland’s DP/30 series. He is a film industry analyst and movie critic, and founder of the website Movie City News. His blogging is good, but his bread and butter is the DP/30 video interview series. In it, he sits down with a filmmaker or filmmakers, actors, directors, writers, producers, or technical crew members, and chats for half an hour. The tone is casual, but the result that comes out of this casual, lengthy, often meandering discussion is insight and perspective into the craft of filmmaking that goes far deeper than any material I’ve come across anywhere else. It’s quite incredible the troves of information and ideas that can be uncovered simply by creating an atmosphere of comfort and safety and respect for what the other person has to say. Poland is probably the best film interviewer I know of, and even though he knows his guest is the one people are interested in hearing from, his selection of questions and occasional insertions of his own thoughts show a keen sense of why movies so deeply interest audiences and creators alike. Do you have any writers or critics that you think offer unique perspectives on movies? Who have perhaps changed the way you watch? Share any of your own thoughts in the comments section below.