Entertainment For Lively Minds
Favourite critics
Some recent entries on this forum got me to thinking about the critics I most trust to point me in the right direction for new stuff, particularly films. Whilst I'd love to think that I'd find great new product all on my own, inevitably, with film at least where otherwise you'd rely on trailers or word of mouth, there are some critics I really trust.
For me, I look for a consensus between the BBC's Mark Kermode and Peter Bradshaw from the Guardian - both guilty occasionally of putting me off films I ended up enjoying or encouraging me to see stuff I didn't care for, but I usually find if both like something there's a strong chance I will too. Individually, if one really loves something I will probably give it a go. I also like Roger Ebert (although he has recommended some real drivel, he at least talks authoritively and with passion when he does), and historically the late, great Pauline Kael.
With that in mind, who are the critics you trust the most in the field of movies, TV, music and/or books?
- More from KDH.
- Login or register to post comments









I trust...
The collective wisdom of the Word Massive.
The musical taste of Radcliffe & Maconie.
The TV-eye of Charlie Brooker.
The cinematic leanings of Andrew Harrison.
My judgement.
Clive James
on everything, including life and how to live it
Fine question, KD.
I don't watch a lot of film but I have found that, as the years pass, I agree more and more with Dr K. I also find that if Jonathon Ross or The News Of The World critics like a film it is best ignored.
Music-wise is difficult. Few critics have my ear but I'd agree with prezbo about Stuart Maconie and Mark Radcliffe. Applying the same logic as above.. which music journalists' positive views do I use as pointers for stuff to avoid? Oohh..
All of them.
I prefer to trust my own ears. I listen to the radio.
Book-wise, there seem to be so many reviewers. All are writers by profession and know so much more about the art of writing than I ever will that their opinions go over my head. I may have lofty and pompous ideals as regards music but I don't as regards literature.
I tend to judge books by their covers, even though I've heard it's a bad idea.
Thanks Lenny
I thought it was about time I got around to my first blog entry after well over a year of replying to others.
Agree with you on Jonathan Ross - I've been a big fan of his for over 20 years and love his radio & TV shows, but can't stand him as a movie critic.
Ross as a film critic
totally lost me when he reviewed Kevin Smith's Clerks II. He didn't like it, but wasn't content to say that; no, he decided to put the boot into the man's entire career. Fair enough, he didn't like the film, but the review just sounded petty and vindictive.
No critic gets it right all the time...
David Thomson slagged off Fellini's La Strada and that is just plain wrong.
Ah Patrick...
but that is why I love Thomson. "Biographical Dictionary of Film" and "Have You Seen.." are indispensable even if you don't agree with a lot of what he says. His entry on Kubrick is priceless.
I read his flawed appraisal of Fellini...
in 'Have You Seen'. He is a very good writer, that's why I mentioned him, but there are some things I hold so sacred (such as the brilliance of 'La Strada') that critics who disagree get my goat!
Kermode...
What's interesting is how many of his reviews don't come down conclusively saying that a film is 'good' or 'bad', but instead explain why it's interesting/ important etc. I think there's a case to be made that with the internet/blogging etc the way it is, that kind of traditional reviewing is fairly redundant - everyone's got 'an equally valid opinion', and saying 'this is good/bad' and then arbitrarily rating it is fairly pointless (I assume this is one of the reasons why Word doesn't do star reviews).
I think what MK's grasped better than most is that if professional criticism is going to survive, it's more important to contextualise the work - explain why it was made in the way it was, the technical details, the cultural trends and industry developments behind it (it's interesting how much he references things like the BBFC judgements, the budgets, how releases tie in with the marketing, etc etc). Mark Lawson's TV writing is very good on this, as are the TV and book reviews in Private Eye, Alexis Petridis' Guardian writing and Jay Rayner's restaurant reviews. Perhaps the strangest one is Ally Ross' TV column in the Sun which I think is as good as Brooker and seems to bear no relation to anything else in The Sun (and frequently goes to town on Sky shows). I nearly always come away from their writing feeling like I've really learned something not just about the album or film or tv show, but about the industry as a whole.
I know David Hepworth has frequently mentioned how few people can write informatively about 'music' - the technical details, as opposed to that sort of impressionistic drivel which too often gets waved through by editors and papers who don't take culture seriously. The amount of interest in books like Perfecting Sound Forever suggest that there is an appetite for this more informed stuff.
I don't trust Kermode in the
I don't trust Kermode in the slightest when it comes to films. Entertainment wise he's brilliant and he's good for good for Horror and Sci Fi, but he hates Comedies, Tarintino, Wes Anderson, Blockbusters (mostly for good reason, but how could he really slate Iron Man? )and High School Musical 3 was one of his favoite films of 2008. (He also spent 25 minutes last year talking about Jonas Brothers 3D).
I personally are the /film podcast for film criticism, and I barely read any music criticism these day. My mate Paul downloads very album known to man and tells me what's good.
HSM3
Is a very, very good film. This century's "Grease", "Fame" or whatever.
It has a storyline with a defined beginning middle and end, very good acting (Tisdale in particular) and killer songs.
I appreciate that it is not a film that would appeal to a certain demographic but I don't believe it can be dismissed as a "bad film".
Kermode reviews on its own merits and is much the better for it.
90 minutes with HSM on the DVD is more life affirming and plain watchable than Eyes Wide Shut or Inglorious Basterds.
None
but I love reading them. I like to make up my own mind.
I'm often swayed into buying a CD or DVD, but I rarely remember the critic or previewer's name.
I know what I like and I take it from there.
Iain MacDonald
Sadly missed. I trusted his judgement almost religiously.
Seconded...
I'd add Nick Kent, CSM and Tony Tyler to that list. Predictable I know but worth saying.
Not sure Mick Farren counts as a reviewer as such but his music/underground press writing was always entertaining.
thirded
i dip into revolution in the head and the dark stuff regularly. I also miss Steven Wells
Philip French
is the best film critic I've read.
The New Yorker has the best critics in the world
Anthony Lane on film, James Wood on books, Alex Ross on music. Even when I don't agree with them, I agree with them.
Ian McDonald was good, but I can never truly love someone who thought A Day In The Life was the Beatles' greatest moment*, because it suggests to me that they mistake misery for profundity .
(*it was actually I Wanna Hold Your Hand).
I have just re-read Ian MacDonald's
piece on ADITL in Revolution In The Head and... well, he convinced me.
He wrote beautifully, and did full justice to the the music he described and deconstructed.
But... I Wanna Hold Your Hand is good.
What is a good critic?
Someone with the same taste as you who you trust to sift out all the shite and save you from wasting time and money. And also to turn up a few unexpected gems.
I still think the film critic does the most important job. Good film is one of life's great delights but a trip to the cinema for those whose leisure time is brief and valuable is a huge commitment. To waste it makes you feel doubly robbed. The film critic you trust is a valued person.
Good point
(just wanted to say)
Not at all
A good critic is someone whose views you respect because when they state their preferences for a particular book / album / film / play / exhibition their choice is backed up with a coherent argument. It may be selective in building its premises, but at the end you feel you have some understanding for that critic's position regarding the object of criticism.