What makes a film critic, one has to wonder. Nowadays, anyone with a blog who sees movies is called a “critic.” I really think that should be amended to use the term “blogger” or “industry columnist.” Not everyone is an actual film critic. I feel like I’m the only person in the known universe who cares about the difference but that’s because I come from a time when there was a difference; not just anyone could write about movies and be called a “critic.” Indiewire has a rundown of grades from the Toronto Film Fest and calls it a “Critics Poll”. In truth, it is a columnist/critic/blogger poll. I’m not dissing these guys at all. I’m just making the point that the line is invisible if no one notices it’s there. At any rate, you’ll find the grades of people like Anne Thompson (not a film critic), Jeff Wells (not a film critic), Peter Sciretta (not a film critic), etc. These opinions made by them are made as industry columnists and bloggers. I think it’s important to remember that (thus, the main difference between Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes).
Anyway, here are their grades for some of the Toronto films.
A Serious Man
Peter Sciretta, /Film: A+
David Fear, Time Out New York: A+
Joshua Rothkopf, Time Out New York: A
Thelma Adams, Us Weekly: A
Lou Lumenick, The New York Post: A
Mark Olsen, LA Times: A
James Rocchi, MSN Movies: A
Anne Thompson, Thompson on Hollywood: A
Joe Leydon, Variety: A
Eric Kohn, indieWIRE: A
Jeffrey Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere: A
Michael Tully, Hammer To Nail: A
Sean Means, The Salt Lake Tribune: A
Sam Adams, Philadelphia City Paper: A-
Ben Kenigsberg, Time Out Chicago: A-
Eric Lavallee, IonCinema: A-
Noel Murray, A.V. Club: A-
Peter Knegt, indieWIRE: A-
Gregory Ellwood, HitFix: B+
Scott Tobias, A.V. Club: B+
David Ansen, Newsweek: B-
Current Average: A-
A Single Man
Anne Thompson, Thompson on Hollywood: A
Gregory Ellwood, HitFix: A
Marjorie Baumgarten, The Austin Chronicle: A-
Mark Olsen, LA Times: A-
Peter Knegt, indieWIRE: A-
Eric Kohn, indieWIRE: A-
Karina Longworth, SpoutBlog: A-
Lou Lumenick, The New York Post: B+
David Ansen, Newsweek: B
Eric Lavallee, IonCinema: B-
Joshua Rothkopf, Time Out New York: C+
Ben Kenigsberg, Time Out Chicago: C-
Current Average: B+
Up In The Air (Film Page)
[indieWIRE review]
Joe Leydon, Variety: A+
Lou Lumenick, The New York Post: A+
James Rocchi, MSN Movies: A+
Thelma Adams, Us Weekly: A
Peter Sciretta, /Film: A
David Ansen, Newsweek: A
Anne Thompson, Thompson on Hollywood: A
Jeffrey Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere: A
Eric Kohn, indieWIRE: A-
Sam Adams, Philadelphia City Paper: A-
Gregory Ellwood, HitFix: A-
Scott Tobias, A.V. Club: B+
Noel Murray, A.V. Club: B+
Peter Knegt, indieWIRE: B
Eric Lavallee, IonCinema: B
Joshua Rothkopf, Time Out New York: B
David Fear, Time Out New York: B
Ben Kenigsberg, Time Out Chicago: B-
Karina Longworth, SpoutBlog: C
Current Average: A-
23 Responses for "“Critics” Poll"
Holy Butterballs Batman! My interest for A Serious Man has just piqued. I hope it’s that good.
I do remember them filming it here at the Keys Cafe near where I live. I wish I was there the day they were filming.
Not to sound rude, but why does it really matter to make distinctions?
I mean when someone simply says a film is “good” or “bad” they obviously haven’t put in enough thought to be considered any kind of critic, but if someone is thoughtful and writes thoughtful comments on a film shouldn’t they be considered a “film critic”?
except for Lisa Schwarzbaum and Owen Gleiberman, they shouldn’t be allowed near movies any longer.
I think to qualify as a critic, you have to be able to hold up at least one hardcover book full of your reviews.
or, have your rave posted on an ad for the movie (i’m looking at you and your quote on the hurt locker stand mr. adams!)
haha, thanks Jason. Maybe I can develop those 6 words into a pop-up book.
Why isn’t Precious on this list?
I’m surprised that Capitalism: A Love Story isn’t that high. Up in the Air is good, though.
Only a “B” for The Road irks me slightly…this seems like a movie that’s going to have to be loved across the board to have a chance at many noms.
We decided only to include movies that did not debut at Sundance or Cannes, such as Precious, An Education, A Prophet, Fish Tank, etc.
I’m in a HURT LOCKER ad? I had no idea.
Yipee. It seems like another ‘great’ one from the Coen brothers. Aint it funny how ‘just the way it is’
in this industry/business? There were movies in the past, unseen by critics, and yet they were already beginnin to spread positive things or makin hype about the movie (you know it’s true – no excuses – no ifs and buts – and you people, not necessarily be a critic, here at awardsdaily.com are guilty too!). But you have this great American filmmaker/artist, the Coen brothers, who still dont get the same fair play, even after winnin the OSCARS (much more deserved to win for FARGO though).
well maybe it works out fine for them. ha! look at the high praise – JUSTIFIED! – now
FARGO IS STILL THE COEN BROTHERS’ GREATEST MOVIE. OH HECK, IT’S THE GREATEST MOVIE!
Ryan: Would you accept a softcover collection of film essays?
That’ll work, Joe.
(wait… mass market or trade paperback?)
Well, you can get it at WalMart…
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=2627951
Thanks, Joe.
Only 3 left in stock at Amazon!
let’s sell those puppies!
Hugh Jackman’s opening song for this year’s Oscarcast just won…. an Emmy Award!!!
a film critic is someone who analyzes film. there’s nothing else to it. some people are better at doing it, but anyone can claim the title. being a film critic does not make you an expert in film. some film critics are experts, but it’s not necessarily the case that being a film critic makes you an expert. people get too caught up into labels these days.
…also, this is a worthless conversation. if you love film, and have something to say about the movies you watch, then by all means. if people respect your opinion regarding film, then you’ve accomplished something.
Keith – it isn’t a worthless conversation to me. I was interested in the topic and I don’t think anyone can be a critic because I don’t think anyone can be a journalist. First you have to decide the ethics involved — movie fandom is different than film criticism. I write about movies but I wouldn’t expect anyone to call me a film critic.
we can also distinguish journalistic criticism from academic criticism. but who gives a fuck really.
if you’re able to elaborate on why movie X is good or bad, and you use history and the elements of filmmaking to back your claim, then you’re a critic in my book. those who are more knowledgeable about history and production will churn out more insightful and informative reviews.
Years ago, when my son was about five years old, he had a sudden epiphany at bedtime. As I tucked him in, he looked up at me and said, sounding at once amazed and confused, “Dad – you get paid to go to the movies.” I replied: “That’s right son. That’s why my father left Ireland and came to this land of opportunity – so his son could get a scam like that going. And son, that is what I recommend to you: Find something you love doing, and figure out a way to make a buck at it. And you, too, will be happy.” That may explain why, today, my son’s greatest ambition is to become… a professional poker player. Which, frankly, makes a lot more sense than wanting to become a film critic these days.
Sasha – thanks for responding. I agree, movie fandom is different from film criticism. however, the definition of film criticism is expansive. anyone can talk about why movies are good* or bad*. what they include in their analysis is what separates the decent critics from the not so decent critics. if you’re able to fuse in history with elements of film making, and actually make it engaging, then you can probably make a career out of dissecting film.
it’s like any craft or skill. take basketball for example. i consider myself a basketball player. im not good enough to play in the NBA, but i still understand the game more so than you’re average person. i play it and love it. i think the same approach should be taken to film critics. most people can write about film and critique, but some are just better at doing it.
please elaborate the statement, “you don’t think anyone can be a journalist.”
[...] Stone over at Awards Daily posted the list for her readers, but prefaced it with a remark which made clear her distaste at the method [...]
“movie fandom is different than film criticism”
I’m so tired of this canard. In terms of deep analysis and fresh perspective, most of the bloggers I read put print critics to shame. True, print critics tend to be better prose stylists than bloggers. The average critic has a facile pen – yet even the best of them is somewhat facile in the other sense as well. One must be at least moderately superficial and cautious in order to survive as a professional critic, particularly in this economy. So most critics give us a healthy dose of received wisdom, timidity, and intellectual conformity. Frankly, it’s not only for technological reasons that I think the future of “criticism” lies in the hands of the amateurs.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.