We Need to Talk About Film Criticism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 авг 2024
- Links to pieces mentioned here:
Douglas Martin, “Roger Ebert Dies at 70, a Critic for the Common Man” www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/mov...
Roger Ebert, “Death to Film Critics! Hail to the Celebcult!” www.rogerebert.com/rogers-jou...
Matt Zoller Seitz, “Please, Critics, Write About the Filmmaking” www.rogerebert.com/mzs/please...
Richard Brody, “What the Seven Star Wars Films Reveal About George Lucas” www.newyorker.com/culture/cul...
Help us make these videos: / patrickhwillems
MY VIDEO GEAR tinyurl.com/z9kb5ow
TWITTER: / patrickhwillems
FACEBOOK: / patrickhwillems
TUMBLR: / patrickhwillems
INSTAGRAM: / patrickhwillems
Music by Epidemic Sound
______________________________________
SEND ME SOME MAIL:
Patrick Willems
P.O. Box 380333
Brooklyn, NY 11238 
Развлечения
Yes, I know there's a typo and it should say "Yes, so am I"
Patrick (H) Willems Does Christ Stuckmann count as a film critic? I would have thought so.
Patrick (H) Willems CinimaSins shouldnt be watched as film review, but what about as a way to pass the time between your videos?
Patrick (H) Willems You know I only know about one RUclips that meets basically all of the criteria you specified - Brows Held High. But he doesn't really review anything too recent
I don’t know; I thought “Yes, so I am” sounded fancy. :-P
Why do you become racist throughout this? It would be a good video without it?
"A lot of people just want to hear people articulate what they already think"
yessss this! THI- wait a minute
Irony. XD
It´s sad how offended some people get when a critic doesn´t like everything they like. Like every time Ebert gets mentioned horror fans come out the woodwork and call him an idiot for not liking Friday the 13th. Gamers have a particularly strong hatred for Ebert because he said games are not art.
Pretty much every atheist channel on youtube.
@@eetuhalonen9902
Indeed. I am a huge fan of Ebert and I too was angry and hurt he could say that about video games. But then I read what he had to say, and it makes sense. At the heart of it is the simple fact that video games are interactive and movies are not. I would say that video games definitely have artistic elements to them, but they aren't art in the same way a film or a painting or a sculpture is.
@@eetuhalonen9902 Ebert was a talentless hack but I do agree Friday the 13th was overrated, obscenely generic and lacked characterization, still a fun movie to veg out to though, I'd probably rate it a 6/10 or 7/10, not sure.
I can't remember who said it, but it's a sentiment which has always stuck with me:
"A good critic is someone whose opinion you like hearing, _even when you don't agree with it_ "
In other words, quality criticism is the stuff which makes you think deeply about the experience of responding to works of art, rather than just regurgitating your own opinion back at you in order to validate it. Critics should help you think about things in new ways and highlight things within a work you wouldn't have otherwise noticed.
Mark Kermode sums that up (and occasionally expresses it) very nicely for me.
The list of film critics he recommends:
Roger Ebert
Matt Zoller Seitz
Matt Singer
Amy Nicholson
Jen Yamato
David SIms
Drew McWeeny (
RIP Ebert
There's no Kermode, so that's a no from me. Also, McWeeny and SlashFilmCast? Yikes.
David Ehrlich kinda sucks sometimes
Thank you! This list should have been in the video description
I just realized that even with such a long list, he omitted A.O. Scott.
Not sure if that’s an oversight or a grudge, haha
If critics don't influence the views a movie gets, then why do you let critics influence the movies you go to see Patrick?
I don't know what Patrick would say because I am not him but I think there's a big gap between him and the average moviegoer. Patrick is a filmmaker that knows the nuts and bolts of film theory, history, and (like most of us in this comment section, I assume you too since you're on this channel) dedicated his life to watching movies. Most people don't go in that deep so the relationship we have with cinema is different than people who consume it on a passive level.
The majority of people don't read, they're not going to watch a certain movie because the critic they liked said it was good. As Patrick said, the bad reviews on Suicide Squad did jack shit because that movie was a massive hit, even though that movie is a huge turd.
Dude just admit this guy is a hypocrite and you failed to see that. Simp.
It should probably not be surprising that surveying people who follow a RUclips video essayist skew towards watching RUclips rather than traditional film reviews.
Robert Baillargeon He's not talking about video essayists, he explicitly said that. He's talking about film critics on RUclips, people who stare at a camera and ramble about movies they saw without any sort of insight or depth (something most video essays actually provide, although much less frequently and while focusing on a certain artist, genre, tool, etc).
He's talking about this channel. People who follow someone that makes video essays will tend to get their reviews from youtube too. So making a poll for your audience is probably not a good idea unless you're only going to use it for your audience.
Right, the sample is not true to the population.
I mean traditional film reviews are TERRIBLE so why would I waste my time with them?
And who is this magical Arbiter of "Traditional Film Reviewers", I mean Patrick talks about how plot holes don't matter and here he cites Roger Ebert who always talked about plot holes being immersion breaking in his reviews, that Patrick idolizes. He's a walking talking contradiction.
People on RUclips are just as valid in their reviews as anyone else. Just because you write for a paper, or publish articles or went to film school, doesn't mean my valid points of a film with my criticism are somehow invalidated.
Around the 8-9 minute mark you hit on a really good piece of advice without quite saying it outright - possibly without even realizing it yourself:
One should seek out reviews that are worth reading and/or watching even AFTER you've watched the movie.
YES! Actually thats the only time I read reviews. I started doing that with Ebert when I was in high school. Its like having an internal dialog with the critic instead of just digesting someone elses opinion.
Except for many, the movies they want to see exceed the time/money they have and so reviews can act as a filter for the ones really worth it.
Source: I’m one of those people.
Absolutely. I do that a lot. Whether I liked the movie or not, I'll read reviews afterward to help myself think about it a different way, then watch the movie again with that new perspective. It's a good exercise.
I only look at reviews after I've seen it. I don't want my first impression of the film to be influenced by external expectations.
(Re: The Fancrafter): Sure! But the kinds of reviews that are worth reading and/or watching even after you've seen the film are likely (I'd argue likeliER) to give you solid insight into whether you should go see it. So it's still the superior type of review/reviewer to hunt down.
There's a little separation of the circles on that Venn diagram if you're in the "spoilers often/always ruin the experience of a film" camp (I'm not), since it can be hard to talk about why a shot works without describing a scene or scenario, but a lot of critics take the time to write their reviews spoiler-free or "significant spoiler free" (i.e., "Spoilers: In the third act of this romcom, the protagonist is sad. Here's how the staging and editing cleverly sets up both the protag's sadness AND the hilarious fallout that makes the joke of the scene.")
I enjoy reading "legitimate" film critics work (Mick LaSalle, Manolha Dargis, Anthony Lane) because they usually give a historical perspective to modern films. But I also like watching RUclipsr reviews because they are usually closer to the everyday person and more relateable.
They're film lovers in their own right even if they didn't earn a degree in film criticism.
I loved how he called out CinemaSins. Hilarious 😂
They used to be clever and talk about really unnoticable continuity issues. Now they only complain and sound like they really hate the movie they're watching.
@@porgherder6109 they literally never changed
GamePlayXtreme + Disney no they didn’t. You just started to notice how bad they are.
Hating on CinemaSins cliche. +1
Sins: 1
Sentence: CinemaSins based
Cinema sins makes me want to fucking kill myself
"don't tell me this film was gorgeously shot, tell me why it was shot that way and what purpose it serves"
THANK YOU! This is one of my major problems with youtube reviewers, they don't have a clue about what's the real point of the cinematography so they just throw that line out there because they don't have anything else to say.
you mean stuff like "Style over substance"
What does this even mean?
Shouldn't substance be brought to the viewer by the style of the movie?
Aren't most of the best directors of all time known for their style of movie/moviemaking?
For me, that phrase is just something thrown around by people who don't know much about movies, but want to critisize a movie, they didn't like, but had a very distinctive style.
But a lot of journalistic reviews include throwaway lines like that, too. I think many RUclips reviewers are imitating the language and tropes of journalistic criticism, which often doesn't justify or support those kinds of claims. I notice this especially when reading reviews of works from a big name director like P.T. Anderson or the Coens.
Hubert Beck Hubert Beck I think style over substance can be a valid criticism depending on the context, but I agree that the vast majority of people who use it fits that description.
Carl Swanson they are lazy journalists then, I mentioned youtube reviewers because almost every single one of them only talks about plot and characters/performances and brushes off aspects like cinematography, sound design or even the whole meaning of what they are reviewing
And I don't disagree, exactly....sometimes a journalistic critic has to edit for space and because, for instance, describing the Coens' use of wide angle lenses in shot/reverse shot set-ups (like Tony Zhou discusses in Every Frame a Painting) 1) doesn't translate well to a written or radio review, 2) requires a little more background in film aesthetics from the reader, and 3) digresses from the general purpose of the review.
My point was that the categorical distinction between professional journalistic critics and RUclips reviewers is more complex than Willems presents it, since the latter often imitates the former and, unwittingly or not, also imitates some of the limits and/or shortcomings of some journalistic criticism.
Mark Kermode is an excellent film critic, arguably the best over here in the UK, and his reviews are also available on RUclips, as they take the review segment of his radio show with Simon Mayo, and upload them separately.
Kermode was my started/salad of getting into FC. :)
Kermode is one of my go to critics. I don't always agree with him, but I understand where his perspective is coming from given his love of cult horror, and obscure genre films.
And hello to Jason Isaacs
I said Kermode when the original question was asked and I stand by him.
Off topic, that Simon Mayo is actually the best co-host ever.
"And also, CinemaSins is terrible, is absolute garbage"
I mean, I don't think that we should use race, gender, or sexual orientation as a basis for whether someone's opinion matters or not, but that's just me.
Lindsay Ellis tho shes fucking awesome and up there as one of the best film essayists.
The Flying Lion she is amazing, everyone should watch her
The Flying Lion also im glad to watch this brand new video and see someone is already praising lindsay for me, thats what i came to the comments to do
Lindsay tweeting this vid is how I got here!
Her and Brows Held High! Love 'em!
She's one of few feminists I actually take seriously and enjoy their content.
Roger Ebert was great!!! I loved him -- I am 57 and some RUclips film reviewers are okay, most are just such obsessive fan boys, they are annoying to watch. BTW, Patrick, I really like your videos.
"It's literary criticism about visual media."
THIS IS WHAT MADE ME START MY CHANNEL. I am sick and tired of hearing only plot details from guys who want movies to play out exactly how they expect. I love this video.
I have so much to learn and so much more room to grow. Thank you, thank you and thank you once again for expanding my opinions on what film criticism should be. I have to step back and take a deeper look at what I do so I can grow and inspire others to challenge their thoughts of films from their peers.
That sudden tack-on of Cinema Sins!!! I've watched a few of them and they're just absolute hate-filled screeds.
RLM is actually surprisingly in depth with some of their Half in the Bag reviews
Yes, they understand the technical aspects of movie making very well.
This guy is the VSauce for movies. He's just missing the creepy music.
Not really, he's more focused, consistent, improves over time, and doesn't click-bait.
The Action Brick nope Vsauce is actually a respectable guy.
What? no vsauce is good not like this
OH no, by far, he is not.
How much hate for patric under you comment
I think the tendency, especially for younger film enthusiasts, to seek out opinions similar to their own is more about validation than lack of effort or thought. It’s about establishing an understanding that a person does in fact know what they’re saying has merit because others see what they see. I think you’ve hit a point at which you are confident that you have an acceptable base of film knowledge and now want to challenge yourself and grow as an expert in the field.
I love this idea and your video, (and also I agree about Cinema Sins... so that validated me) I just wondered what you thought about how some viewers may take this as license to check their understanding of film as a medium before they can establish their own identity as a critic or artist.
The greatest gift you could have given any of us was to encourage us to read Roger Ebert.
Thanks for taking the last minute shot at Cinemasins. The content is shallow and unsatisfying, even more so when the inevitable "satire" defense is trotted out.
This is my favorite video in regards to film criticism as of late. When I was thirteen or fourteen, I idolized Roger Ebert. I still do. I read almost every volume of "The Great Movies", which were a series of books that were a comprehensive litany of all his reviews. I would stay up late at night, read his reviews, and ponder about his thoughts on cinema. What I loved about Ebert is that he exerted just as much passion for the movies he loved as the movies he hated. No film received a free pass. Furthermore, his ratings might not always align with his overall consensus; Ebert really wanted you to pay attention to his writing. I wish more RUclips video essayists, reviewers, and critics overall borrowed more from Ebert. In this day and age where opinions are commonly reduced to their simplest forms - you either love something or you hate it - Ebert's nuance is sorely missed. Fantastic video.
Cinema Sins can be funny to watch from time to time, but I agree that it should not be taken as serious criticism on any level.
Even then, I haven’t laughed at any of their videos since I was like 12
This video perfectly articulated what I'd always vaguely sensed in the Chris Stuckmann/Jeremy Jahns/Schmoesknow community.
Chris Stuckmann has a really broad knowledge of film history and filmmakers. Fair enough on the other two; but I seriously object to him being included alongside them. Sorry he was born a straight white man and can’t change that lol. He’s still an educated and qualified film critic.
Their reviews are usually non spoilers so that’s why it’s not so deep I wouldn’t say it makes them less of critics or anything
@@Mohamadtheman No, having toys in the background makes it hard for an adult to take them seriously.
@@xpindy
It makes it hard for YOU to take them seriously speak for yourself
I focus on what they’re saying I don’t care about the background
**cough** Jeremy Jahns **cough**.
I've come to hate the Joe schmoe **wink** supposed superiority that many people seem to endorse. They are almost universally shallow.
The whole reason i'm into film now is BECAUSE of supposed "snooty" critics, and I thank them for it. I always hear as a wrong headed rebuttal "you just want Oscar film/not everything can be an Oscar film", not really understanding that most film buffs have broad tastes and don't really consider Oscars as a genuine measure of quality, more of a glorified bingo game.
Edit:I really with you on the getting perspective after seeing a film, they can enhance or show a perspective that you didn't even consider yourself (for good or bad films)... oh, and Fuck Cinema Sins.
Mark Kermode and Alonso Duralde are my favourite critics.
I followed Alonso to What The Flick and I generally enjoy everyone there.
A review for me is “will I have fun watching this movie?” If yes great if no who cares I’ll watch another movie.
There’s millions of movies just waiting for me to watch
In respect to the issues you present, there's also the concern with "gatekeeping".
Basically, you present the assumption that critics "know more" than the moviegoer, which I agree with in very certain contexts, but that doesn't entirely mean they "know better". I feel you inadvertently (I don't want to assume) present criticism as hierarchical, which it's not. In fact, if we were going on a hierarchy of "who knows better", professionals (folks who actually work in the industry and have a wide range of first-hand experience) are the only folks I tend to view as having a "better understanding" when it comes to specific technicalities because they're fine-tuned to notice details others are not. I mostly regard this to animation because that's my professional field, but that still doesn't mean I'm more entitled to my perspective than a YT reviewer. It's objectively a different skill set because that's where I'm trained and work in.
When I lecture on film criticism, my core thesis on criticism "in an academic context" is simply: Present a point, explain it and then contextualise it with an example analysis. There is no wrong way of doing criticism - if you've read dozens and dozens of different academic critics (not journalistic critics like you present), you'll realise the only difference between them and YT reviews is the extension of research and analysis, something which doesn't cater to the broad demographic on YT. I personally don't watch Stuckmann and such because like you explained I find a lot of them rather eh, shallow, but I'm sure if they went out of their way, they could easily replicate what's being done.
The real issue that we should be debating is if "reviews" and "criticism" are two entirely different entities because that seems to be where the divide exists between "academia" "journalism" and "laypeople".
I admit my own personal fear is that people who read and analyse more feel tricked into thinking that makes them superior. It doesn't. Criticism, fundamentally and philosphically, will always be a form inherent to free-thought.
There's gatekeeping, and then there's just knowing what you're talking about. I don't think anyone is suggesting you need to have your Master's degree in Film Studies, seen the major American canon, and every Kurosawa movie to be a film critic. If anyone is suggesting that, they're wrong. But also, none of that would hurt.
It's great that aspiring film critics can just get a camera and throw something up on RUclips, rather than having to somehow break into print journalism. The more different voices there are in the arena, the better. But being an amateur is not really an acceptable defense for not honing your craft. If you want to write about film, or talk about it in a meaningful way, you need to be watching films and reading about them, as much as you can. If you don't want to watch as many movies as you can, of various genres and years and countries, then why do you want to be a critic?
No one person can see every movie. There's plenty of probably-great movies that I haven't seen, and won't get around to for a long time, if ever. But there's no excuse for not trying to see as many films as possible. There's so many movies just sitting on the Internet for you to watch. If they're not on Netflix, get Filmstruck. If they're not there, rent them on Amazon. If the movie you want to watch isn't on any of those things, fucking steal it. There's a gazillion free movies on the Internet (just don't tell anybody where you found 'em).
Watch movies, read critics. That's how you become a critic. No gatekeeping. The field is wide open, if you're willing to play the game.
Like you said, there are YT film critics that can give deeper analysis if they put their mind to it. For example, Stuckmann's reviews appear a little shallow, but if you'll see his understanding and knowledge of film in his few '*Film name* explained* videos. In his 'Driver: explained' video, he explains why certain camera angles are used and what they represent in the context of the film. Secondly, I don't always get the impression that most critics (at least the ones that I watch) think they're better than everyone else. Don't get me wrong, some do come across as that (Ralph Sepe etc.), and I'm sure I'll find them soon enough.
However, I think that most people nowadays can't sit down and watch an hour-long in-depth analysis of a film unless they're really passionate about film. People like Stuckmann are good for introducing people to film without the feeling of being overwhelmed by jargon etc.
Branelo Yeah, you just sound like someone thats very insecure about their own intelligence
Andy's Mad House agreed. Applies to most of the arts too.
We're talking about advice on watching a movie, not brain surgery. What I want is a reliable estimate of "Will I enjoy this movie". So I care if the "critic"'s tastes parallel my own. Professional movie critics are all residents of large cities, so that's not likely to happen. Which is why I check
CinemaScore.
Anecdote time!
I started following TheNeedleDrop, a channel that reviews music. I often disagree with the scores given out, That said, the reviews are some of the deepest dives into music I've ever heard, as a result I've picked up a lot of new albums, and thought more critically of bands I've been listening to for years.
So yeah :) I like the message here
Many of the RUclips film “critics” are what I call bro critics. It’s more like a friend telling you about a film. Kinda sucks they are replacing traditional film critics.
Otha Bojangles (JEREMY JAHNS)
HauntedM exactly
To be fair, people that like those never would have enjoyed traditional critcism. Which is still easy to find on RUclips.
There’s more than enough traditional film critics out there, I think the “bro critic” is kinda what drew people in, in the first place
Well it's real easy. Chris Stuckmann and Jeremy Jahns are not film critics. They are fans with cameras, and RUclips accounts. Taking them as anything more is just plain silly.
I personally love cinema wins as a movie critic. I have learned a ton about movies by watching their reviews, the appreciation of various aspects and the deeper dive on movies. Not sure if they fall under the category of the movie critic, but I do appreciate the positivity it spreads.
I was always puzzled why people on RUclips use the word "review" in their reaction videos.
But what about Mr. Plinkett and his pizza rolls😢
Is Patrick (H) Willems replacing Rich Evans ?
The Joker joke aside, he really did pave the way for many talents
I also think he may done a lot of damage as well since his review while expertly made don't get me wrong is paved the way for film criticism which pretty much regurgitates your own opinion at you.
Rock Steel It's like poetry, it rhymes.
where are my pizza rolls! I sent my stuff to the web zone!
I disagreed with just about all of Roger Ebert's opinions, but still had respect for his film knowledge. Used to watch his show every Sunday.
I would add Mark Kermode to the list of good critics , although the dude sometimes gets very political and misses the point of a few films , but he is very good most of the times
Yes, i don't always agree with hims but i like that he strikes a balance of being very knowledgeable and entincing at the same time. Also he hosts screening of rare films, new durector's curso and stuff like that.
I miss the golden age of Siskel and Ebert, those two together were always a great combination, even when I totally disagreed with them.
I love your videos Patrick, but this argument was pretty reductive in my opinion. I also read written reviews myself, and I understand where you're coming from in terms of RUclips reviews lacking depth. However, you're completely neglecting the difference between criticisms and reviews. A critic analyzes a work and expounds upon it, whereas a reviewer gives a recommendation - watch or don't. I watch Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckmann's reviews before seeing a movie to get an idea of if I'll enjoy it, then dig into written ones once I've seen it (one thing you neglected to mention is written critics are much more cavalier about spoiling things). That way I go in with a good idea of what I'm getting, and afterwards have some deeper written material to dig in to. They serve different purposes, which I don't feel you bothered addressing that well.
that's an really important difference. I think that many would consider what Patrick wants from a moviecritic spoilers for the movie. And reviewers work really hard to avoid those.
Agreed. Different sources for different needs and most movie fans don't even care about criticism. I like Wisecrack podcast for that. More literrary and video essays for specific film dissection.
Thank you. This method seems to be the best working for me. Written reviews are much more thorough and, as a result, much more spoiler heavy than a 4-minute RUclips reviewer saying if they liked the film or not.
Thank you! I couldn't figure out why I was having such a mixed reaction to this video. I absolutely love Stuckmann (I don't think of him as a god, I mostly just like seeing what he has to say). I've watched his reviews for awhile, so I know his trends. If he says a Superhero film is an A+, it's probably an A- in my book, and he goes easier on most comedies than I would. Since I know that I think it gives me a good compass about myself. By and large, if Stuckmann loved it, I will most likely find some enjoyment from it.
Here's an example: I know that Tomb Raider won't change film. I know that Tomb Raider is not going to present dramatic societal messages. I'm probably still going to watch it at the cheap theater though, and not read criticism of it because I just want to have a good time and Stuckmann seemed to like it, and he and I think similarly on action films.
Maybe this is me dumbing down the reviewing industry, but if I do that because I don't want to take the time to stroke my intellectualism, then it's something I'll live with.
+
Roger Ebert will always be my first port of call for anything released during his career,just love the guy's writing...
Yes! There is a twofold pleasure to his reviews. I revisit them for his opinions and insights on the one hand, and for the excellent writing on the other 😊
Lol, I stopped watching cinema sins years ago...
Omg Taran 🤩
Although I enjoy watching Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckmann, I think of them as movie *reviewers*, not *critics*. It seems like there is some conflation of the two.
You made some interesting and useful points and I will try to incorporate them into my own movie reviews. I started a channel last year and I always try to draw attention to thematic elements and how I interpreted them to deepen my viewers’ understanding. You’re right ... simply stating whether a movie is good or bad is not enough. You have to say why and what it means.
I also checkout reviews from critics that I don’t usually agree with. Really helps seeing things from a different perspective.
I paused this video with all your recs on the screen and have now followed each of those critics on Twitter :)
Thank you for this.
I must say, thank you Patrick for your recent shift to all types of different content. Your videos inspire me to create more .
I'm French and I feel like most of film critics on youtube in my country (famous or not) are more like what you want them to be. They also put things in perspective and I learnt a lot about cinema in general thanks to them. I'm glad we don't have that much people who are just telling if they liked the movie or not.
(sorry for my english)
Don’t worry, it’s still understandable.
Thanks so much for showing me that Star Wars article! It articulated for me a lot of feelings I have about Star Wars but was afraid to express.
I think video reviews work better than written reviews for films and TV shows since you can have clips of the movie/show in the review
"Critics aren't paid off."
To be fair, I do think that if I were a critic, and I were invited to the premiere of a Star Wars movie, I'd probably give it a better review then it deserves so that I can go to the premiere of the next Star Wars movie. So, who's to say other critics wouldn't do the same.
In other words: I'm extremely fallible.
Critics get invited to every movie. They don’t buy tickets to movies. They get paid to go to festivals and premieres.
Hmm... a bunch of straight white guys in their 20s-30s... I wonder if he’s includ-
“I’m not talking about Bob Chipman.”
Cool. :-P
Site-42: SCP Foundation Fanworks Why no love for Bob Chipman?
frank wolftown Oh, no worries man, I enjoy Bob a bunch. It just sounded like Bob could fit into his stereotype of “RUclips Critics” (in a derogatory way) and I was glad when Bob was an exception.
I get ya. I love his RUclips channel as well. Sometimes I see the occasional response video where have some aort of beef with him. I nevexr bothered to watch them since they seem like professional trolls.
Bobs definitely not in his 20's lol
Ti My 20s-30s tho: I don’t know if Bob is over 40, I assumed mid-30s.
Thank you for uploading today it made my day a lot better
The analysis on RLM’s Re:View series has really changed the way I look at certain movies
And it completely debunks the surface level ("I only watched the Plinkett prequel series") opinion that RLM just hates everything.
You mean the 40 year old white man-children? I love RLM.
I completely understand what you're saying, and you're kind of right.
But I do think that these "RUclips reviews" are good enough as they are to get an understanding on whether you may or may not like a film beforehand, and THEN go looking for the more in-depth and "traditional" reviews that are much more essay-focused and afterwards.
Before seeing a film, I do enjoy watching a few of my favourite "RUclipsrs" to get a basic understanding, and I think that's fine...
Another great video, as always though! I love how well thought out you make these.
I lean towards the fact that time is limited, and if a review isn't going to add anything to your movie experience, you can skip it and do something else. If you want to watch the reviews, you do you. I generally wait to see what the general opinion is among friends before deciding on watching new movies and shows, and so have little use for opinion pieces.
Ideally, the time saved not watching reviews would be used for something productive, unlike what I do with it. ;)
New video series: "Patrick Reads Lots Of Stuff On His iPhone Out Loud"
I'm just rewatching this video after seeing it when you first uploaded it and it still rings true. I think your comments about black panther are especially interesting. I remember going to one of the sort of "bro reviewers" on youtube that I occasionally watched to see his perspective on the film and one of his criticisms is that the use of rap music was "dumb and distracting." and people in the comments agreed with him!! this is the danger of not making an effort to look at a film from a different perspective from you own.
I’m a film critic and I really want to thank you.
I’ve found myself in every single words of yours.
We struggle everyday to watch Movies and analyse them under a social, historical and technical point of view. Our aim is not just suggesting or not a movie, but to educate our readers in an easiest way possibile.
So yeah. Thank you.
I have been binging your videos and each one gets better and better. Thank you
This was a great vid! My whole life I’ve gotten flak from friends and family for reading reviews. They would say that I can’t think for myself and that I just take the word of critics on whether or not I should like a film. And my whole life I would respond to this criticism with the fact that I didn’t base my opinions off of critical reviews, but I would use them to gain further insight by listening to what professionals with more understanding and knowledge of the medium and combining those insights with what I already felt about the film in order to have a more complete picture of the picture. If it’s not obvious by the size of this rant, this has bugged me for a LONG time lol. It’s funny that these people would constantly tell me that I don’t think for myself because I read reviews, when in reality I thought a lot more about the film in question than the person accusing me of not thinking for myself ever would. And this came up almost always over them asking why I didn’t enjoy a garbage movie that every critic had panned, and I could never understand why they thought I was incapable of coming to the conclusion that an obviously garbage movie was garbage. I’ve noticed that ppl with awful taste really hate crocs and dislike anyone that even reads reviews. I think reviews make them feel dumb for liking things they like, and so they get offended and lash out. But you’re not dumb if you like a movie that has poor reviews, or one that is just objectively bad. I do think you’re dumb, however, if you shut out other viewpoints just because they are critical, and if the reason you like this bad movie is because you aren’t trying to really watch it you’re just letting it happen. I’ve always referred to this as “passive viewing”, which is when you just watch a film without thinking about it or engaging in any way shape or form. When viewed this way, nearly everything that isn’t personally offensive to you is a good movie. “Active viewing” requires you to engage with and think about a film, which requires work on the part of the viewer. I find that the vast majority of ppl are passive viewers, and these are the ppl that don’t understand or become offended by film criticism. This is something I absolutely hold against ppl, because it shows a closed mindedness that I just can’t abide.
So when a relative or friend tells me I’m closed minded or too lazy to think for myself because I read reviews, it’s particularly galling because the reality is that I’m really thinking a lot about the movie in question and they haven’t bothered to think on any deeper level than, “was it offensive to me? No? Great film!” I believe Patrick would say these ppl are “watching movies wrong”, and I’m so glad to hear someone say that since I’ve had a lifetime of hearing ppl yell me you can’t watch a movie wrong, but you totally can and most ppl do.
I’m so glad to hear someone try to clarify the point of film criticism, but the types of ppl that need to hear this are the types that wouldn’t listen. Unfortunately, it’s hard to fight closed mindedness because you have to open your mind to have your views swayed by even the most compelling of arguments. But at least you’re trying, so thanks for fighting the good fight l, Patrick!
A good film critic doesn't just provide general colours on films to watch, but also makes you look at films in different ways and highlight different lenses to view and appreciate film. I think we're in agreement in that.
So what about that ostracises RUclips, exactly? I want ways to think about film, that's it - and many a 20-something year old white guy on RUclips can teach me exactly that.
People think anyone with a camera and a youtube account can be a film critic, yet a vast preponderance of those content creators don't review movies - they review their *reaction* to movies. There is a distinct difference, and the content-creation nature of youtube and the allure of personality over an analysis of substance serves only to exacerbate the problem with the rising popularity of non-critics, who themselves are more interested in views and ad revenue than actually explaining why a movie does or does not work in a fundamental way. Make no mistake, when you watch a youtube film critic's review, you will learn more about the creator of the video than the film they are discussing. Actual criticism has become secondary at best and incidental at worst.
When it comes to movies, I find just watching it without reading or seeing anything (not even a synopsis) is always the most fun. Ignorance is usually bliss.
Fav critics, Chris Stuckman, Bob, Ebert, Roeper, Siskel
Haha yes, love the jab at CinemaSins at the end there :)
Yes, I agree with you about how the second part gets overlooked. I don't have a formal education in film, but I do watch the messages and see how every element from music, motifs, symbolism, acting, costumes, makeup, acting, camera angles, shots, pacing, and location all can serve to tell the story in a meaningful and artistic way.
As far as shallow reviews go, agree too. I do think Film Theory is a good one that goes deeper in a weird and interesting way that is anything but thoughtless.
I think the biggest problem with cinema sins is that it's comedy marketing it self as critisism
It is almost eerie how many of these same arguments we've had in the comics world, almost word for word. Though I do stand by my argument that I think critics should try to make their own comic as a learning exercise. No, you don't NEED to be a professional comics creator to be a critic, but the best way to learn the difficulties and the decisions that a creator has to make with every line they apply to paper or their digital canvas is to try it for themselves. You don't need to show it to anyone. You don't even need to finish it. But the amount you'll learn from attempting the craft is huge. But, then, yes, still read all the instructional books, read the interviews with professionals, and watch the video critiques, too. It's a never ending process, isn't it?
I think the world of movies criticism would benefit from that, too. Hey, even Ebert wrote a movie....
Say that Cinemasins is, in some way, film criticism is like saying HISHE is film criticism. They're not. They're just entertainment channels, they make comedy.
Except he didn't say CinemaSins is film criticism, he said it's bad for film criticism and it actively hurts film criticism
He was talking about the people who watch it as criticism, not entertainment.
Except only one of those channels is actually entertaining
ruclips.net/video/ELEAsGoP-5I/видео.html
Directed by Charlie Bell Then perhaps he should of cleared that out. But to call them out like that was not cool. But even so, I dont believe one youtuber should call out another unless they are truly actively hurting other. People may misinterpret Cinemasin and other RUclipsrs as critics but that's not the faults of the content makers. Content makers are doing what they love or enjoy doing.
Where are the best resources online to find out about why scenes are shot certain ways and other film critism stuff?
Basically all critics not named Rex Reed or Armond White are worth investing in somewhat.
Didn't Disney ban a Los Angeles newspaper because of bad reviews? They unbanned them eventually after getting a lot of flack. The idea that the film company doesn't care about reviews is laughable. Critics know if they go too harsh on certain movies they suddenly aren't invited to early screenings. Then they don't have time to create a review. Reviews after first day of release are worth substantially less.
Just because someone is black doesn't mean they know "the cultural and historical aspects of the movie."
Disney banned the LA times from getting into an early screening of Thor: Ragnarok because they published an article condemning Disney for how they've treated the city of Anaheim, where Disneyland is located.
Here's the two part article: www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-disney-anaheim-deals/
www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-disney-anaheim-city-council/
There was a major backlash from film critics, who threatened disqualify all Disney films from award consideration until Disney ended the ban: variety.com/2017/film/news/disney-los-angeles-times-ban-backlash-1202609094/
Love the burn on Cinema Sins. Totally agree. I follow a channel called Cinema Wins which, while sometimes a bit simple, does delve deeper into how movies operate. Definitely worth a watch.
Yassss I needed this in my life. My two favorite film critics are Christy Lemire and Alonso Duralde, but after seeing this I really want to broaden my circle of critics, and I'll definitely check out some of the people you've suggested.
So I made a rotten tomatoes account assuming they had a 'favorite critics' thing where I could add critics that I like and then see them for a given movie. It seems they have something like that with the critics list, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to add a critic to the list. WHY IS THERE NO 'ADD TO MY CRITICS LIST' BUTTON ON SAID CRITICS PAGE? Will someone help me out here? Is there a different site that does this better?
"Disney doesn't pay critics to give DC films bad reviews"
No, but they did blacklist a publication (think it was LA Times) that criticised their practices in bullying the town Disneyland's built on.
Burkhart 4192 That sounds like a completely different can of worms.
And other publications refused to go watch screening and they were forced to remove the ban.
public domain film Where/when was that?
@Little1Cave money.cnn.com/2017/11/06/media/disney-la-times-boycott/index.html
Why would you give a shit about the race of a reviewer? Race isn't a monolith.
The format in which the film critic critiques movies has no bearing in whether the critics is a "good critic" or not.
Absolutely, positively right fucking on. I love that he’s reading the Cahiers du Cinema compilation of essays at the beginning (there are a few volumes). It’s required reading for anyone who really loves movies.
"I'm shocked that my followers who found me on RUclips would tend to prefer critics on the same website"
Two notes:
1: LINDSEY ELLIS
2: Why is your milk just sitting out on your desk? What are you, some kind of savage?
... shes 30 though! and awesome.
Lindsey Ellis is an essayist like Patrick himself. She's not a film critic.
As someone who follows a bunch of different channels that do the kind of criticism that Patrick Willems and Bob Chipman do, one possible reason why movie reviews don't contain as much deeper analysis of those kinds of films is that those analysis videos tend to be their own thing. As in, some videos and/or channels do quick takes on whether they liked a movie or you will, versus others that just focus on analyzing cinematography, writing, or some other aspect of film technique, sometimes on a new movie and other times on an older one. So it may be that viewers are still getting both, but in different places.
I've been a film buff for about 18 years or so, I have never been a fan of reviews or critics, i don't watch trailers and i have no interest in going to a movie having ideas about it, or someone told me how to feel about it. in fact, I'm filmmaker and i still have no idea what's the use of film critics, It's rarely when i need to rely on a review AFTER not grasping the story or some movie-making aspect. Am I doing it wrong ?
Why does Patrick seem to think that all white guys in their 20s and 30s have the same outlook on life and opinions?
Read the comments on this video and you'll see he is right.
Right? Seems pretty racist & sexist if ya ask me. Could've gone without mentioning it entirely.
He doesn't. But, White guys in their 20s and 30s in the US typically have pretty similar life experiences and interests, especially given how many of the youtube reviewers are white guys in their 20s and 30s. What he meant was someone from a different demographic might be able to offer something new to your perspective.
To make a sweeping statement like that regarding demographics may be inductively supported, but to then attach a value judgement to this claim and say that a group of people at large should be REGARDED a certain way because of these statistics effectively renders everyone stereotypes. You should not approach someone's work out of recognition of their arbitrary features they had no control over. What SHOULD be esteemed is their comprehension of the medium & their ability to convey that. It would sound terribly obscene to say, for instance, most black people have pretty similar life experiences. "Life experiences" is vague, and disregards individual circumstance that makes a perspective unique and worthwhile. I take no issue engaging with someone's work if they vary in sex/race/etc. from me, as long as the worth of their work is evident regardless. It is condescending to assume this specific demographic has an issue with empathy to outside perspectives.
yeah i don't think he really represented his thoughts well with that comment
Yms is great
Other than MovieBob, who I really enjoy, who are some youtube movie critics and video essayists you would recommend?
I think the most valid reason to listen to people with similar opinions to yourself, is when you know what your opinion is but you can't work out why. Listening to others explain why they think what they think can help a person work out why they think what they think.
But then, after one's own opinion is understood, it's time to listen to the opinions of others who disagree or know more than we do, because we now have a stable platform to compare against.
Thank you for mentioning CinemaSins and how bad they are! I want to see more RUclipsrs decrying their garbage. Now I have to go read that one guy who likes the Star Wars prequels best...
I do understand your point of view, but I think it's a bit unfair to box written reviews and RUclips reviews and say that one is good and the other is bad. As you said yourself there are poorly written reviews, and there are good written reviews, the same thing applies to RUclips videos. I don't think that one should be held on a pedestal above another.
When it comes to reviews themselves (whether in written or video form) I have a very different view on what actually makes a good review. I go into a review with the mindset that I want to know whether the movie is good or bad, to hear a few points to back up why it's good or bad and to hear what the presenter/writer thinks about it; I like them to be short and simple. For me, all of the extra things (like in-depth camera angle analysis and other advanced explanations) should really be put in separate videos that are geared towards people who have already watched the film but want to learn why the lighting was the way that it was, or why the camera angles are as they are. Yes, it's good to elaborate a bit on points made, but I don't think an in-depth explanation is needed. I am personally doing media studies at uni and have also learnt a lot of filmmaking concepts from the internet. Just because I know all of that stuff doesn't mean that I should necessarily overcomplicate reviews by putting everything that I know into the same video.
I also don't know why you think the majority of the reviewers on RUclips are white guys in their 20s, there are lots of examples of people that aren't (Black Nerd Comedy, Black Critic Guy, Rachel's Reviews and Rotoscopers for example). Either way, every person has had a different life and interacts with different people so I doubt that all people of a certain age group or skin colour will be saying the same thing in their reviews.
As a movie critic myself ("Private Screening" on the Autism Channel, available for free on Roku streaming devices) I find that when film critics get too in-depth and "professional" they tend to lose sight of that cinematic magic. They become more jaded, bitter, and critical (no duh there) demanding more "art" and "realism" while bashing movies that don't go out of their way to meet their high standards. They become long-winded in their reviews and forget the wit that is brevity. They lose the magic and feel like they have to tear down the magicians.
I NEVER want to become pretentious like that. I can notice the color palette layouts in films like "Shape of Water" and "Baby Driver", interpret cerebral films like "Inception" and "mother!" in one go, and still be able to just enjoy dumb popcorn flicks like "Jurassic World" and the Bayformer flicks.
To paraphrase my main critic idol, Jeremy Jahns; I'm here to be the reviewer I never had; The one people can trust if they've ever wanted to tell off a critic; "Just admit you enjoyed "Die Hard" more than "2001: A Space Odyssey"!
Loved this video, Patrick. Amazing work.
I used to like Cinema Sins years ago, now they are sludge that I do my best to avoid.
After that last bit before the end (the Cinemasins-thing), I am interested what your opinion on channels like CinemaWins is. I personally adore the sheer positivity he brings to most of the movies he talks about. I am also aware that such a subjective take on movies, like forcing yourself to like stuff about them, is not film criticism it is just entertainment. I am only curious whether you think that this, in some cases, forced positive outlook is hurting the way people perceive movies?
Thanks in advance and Greetings from Germany
Loris Bauer I don’t like the channel. It’s great to have some positivity but the channel’s gimmick is to basically like everything just like cinemasins’ is to hate everything. Which is bullshit
Being a Brit, I only learned about Roger Ebert after his passing. I have now got into the habit of reading his review of any old film that I am watching or rewatching.
Although He wasn't always right, his writings in criticisms have been influential for film enthusiasts and critics all over the world. He was wrong on many of the classic films(or great or really good films from the past) he reviewed. Movies like Brazil, The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, Edward Scissorhands, A Clockwork Orange were actually disliked by ebert on the first time, although i believe he might have viewed them a second time and loved them. BUT, Art is Subjective(he himself has said that many times) so it always is, as it exists for generations to come.
That's it.
So much of this is applicable to comics criticism too! I’m curious what would be some recommendations for actual “good comics critics” that look at form and story rather than Easter eggs or origin stories
Hey Patrick I just wanted to thank you for your videos, they are really entertaining and have their own identity. You sometimes even put a narrative on them. You are a great inspiration.
major issues i have with critics is they give synopsis. there no reason to watch if they dont talk about specific stuff that happened in the movie.
Some of this, in the first 3:30 minutes, gets at my problems with the critic industry.
1. Criticism is not a objective rankings of 'quality'. It's one person expressing their opinion on a subject (movie, video game, whatever). Just cause one person considers a movie good, doesn't mean another person will (critic or otherwise) agree, and doesn't mean they "should" agree, or that they're "wrong" if they disagree. Art is subjective. Being critical is not the same as being objective, as there's very little objective here.
2. A big one, and what motivated me to write this: there are no "experts" in this industry. One person's opinion is no more or less important than another's, even if one person's watched more movies or has a greater age. I can disagree with Ebert (and I do, on many movies), and that doesn't make my opinion any more or less valid, as these are all based on feelings, not facts. Similarly, there are no "qualifications".
3. Related to previous, criticism has, for a long time, had a very worrying element of thought control and group-think, and that's been increasing as the internet creates a greater amount of anonymity and makes it easier for mob mentalities (like group-think) to set in. There's a very strong subtext of, because these people are "authorities" that they're right and everyone should agree with them. Everyone should think a movie or a game or w/e is good because some "authority" says so, and your own feelings aren't important. Do as they say, think as they say. And that's bullshit.
The importance of any critic comes down purely to if a person finds that their tastes seem to frequently align with one or more critics. And even then it's no replacement for having the experience yourself. There's always a chance you might disagree with your favourite critic, and there are other, better ways to get an idea of something before you see/play it. Your individual opinion is, ultimately, what's most important, and you shouldn't be afraid to express it, and you shouldn't be dissuaded from forming one.
You know, I was just thinking about film critics and film criticism before clicking on this video. Just what I needed. Great content.
I think Chris Stuckman is a good YT critic.
Sunset Rider I used to like the guy but he's too nit picky lately I rather see Jeremy Jahns
Cinema Wins on the other hand!!!
What is your opinion on Redlettermedia - aside from their meme stuff, only their movie criticism?
Another valuable film criticism question: what good texts are there as primers for how to watch and write about film?