Do you think professional movie critics come to each movie with a blank slate?

What I mean is this. Saw the BBC Mark Kermode again and he reviews many different genres; maybe others share this, but for me, some movies are ‘tainted’ by previous partners. Therefore I could review movies with a neutral starting stance.

Thoughts?

Don't spoil what you have with what you wish for!

Original Post

I don't really understand what you mean. I would want a critic to have strong opinions and a point of view, and to be able to put a film in context technically and culturally. So I suspect I would not want a critic to have a blank slate, whatever that means. A blank piece of paper to write on - yes.

I agree with Dozey. The best reviewers, and most interesting reviews, place the film (or music) in context and if that references previous work or perhaps statements by the director etc then fine. That is not the same as pre-judging how good or bad a movie may be but I think it is also honest and acceptable to for a reviewer to say they may have loved or hated previous work and recognise this does create expectations when seeing a new work. We all do that after all.

The best reviews are informative and interesting. I want a lot more than just a star rating.

I think Kermode is excellent. I love the R5 podcast with Simon Mayo. He is honest, he does have strong opinions but does not hide them. He comments on craft and technique not just 'good/bad'. Don't always agree but I think his reviews have intellectual and personal integrity.

Bruce

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×