Anthony Lane
Anthony is a film critic and from what I’ve read, he seems to go for more of the drama based films. I really like his insight on films. He is also very good at describing what he means through illustrating a specific scene. Ironically, this brings about the only problem I have with his style as well. Although he shows what he is saying by giving direct examples by the movie, he tends to get a little carried away with the descriptiveness of the scene. I had to reread a couple of his paragraphs due to losing interest in what he was saying or what he was trying to prove. Other than that I found his work very relatable. The articles I read of movies I actually saw had many of the same thought on them that I had with the film. Anthony speaks more from an average viewers standpoint rather than a stuffy critic who only looks for the negative of films.
Anthony Quinn
I gave two examples of this critic because I love how he gets straight to the point. He doesn’t overstate what he is trying to say at all. He simply says what the movie’s about, what he liked about it, and what he didn’t like about it. Period. There are no digressions or overly descriptive details. At the most, Quinn will give a quote from the movie as far as describing anything from the film. If you don’t like critics spoiling the plot or ending of a film for you, this is the critic for you. There is no word on the plot other than what is already stated from previews. What you will get from this critic is strictly his opinion on the film and that is it. Plus you don’t have to read through pages of a review to get the opinion.
Simon Abrams
The main reason I picked this critic is because I have a very similar style of thinking when watching movies. Reviews of films that I’ve seen have very similar thoughts to what I usually have. Some of the reviews have caused me to think of a concept in the film a different way. Abrams has a very observatory way of looking at films from multiple angles. If a film isn’t very good from a story telling perspective, Simon will acknowledge and appreciate a film from a cinematography perspective. He is capable of looking at a film from literally every angle for both critique purposes and enjoyment purposes. This critics only flaw is dragging out a review wayyyyyyy to long! I could barely finish reading his review on Tron: Legacy. He made very good points, I just wish he would have made them faster… A lot faster.
I agree that critics who can bring multiple perspectives into play are the best. Do you think you lost interest in Lane's review because you hadn't seen the movie and so weren't familiar with what he was describing? Regarding your binary oppositions of "the average viewer's standpoint vs. the stuffy critic who only looks for negatives"-well, being a Media Bitch myself (I've got a sign on my office door that really says that!)--but I'm not stuffy--let's be clear about the terms we're talking about. I think a lot depends on who the intended audience for the review is.
ReplyDeleteI only lost interest in it because he literally described the whole movie. Posting a few details about a storyline is ok, but honestly, sometimes it feels like this guy summarizes a direct copy of the script itself. haha. The only reason I'm harsh on the terms for overly analytical critics is because they spend too much time describing the bad and not enough time appreciating the good. Most films have at least one or two good things about them. I'll be more considerate when they start being more considerate.
ReplyDelete