Fair and unbiased film critic wanted. . .

[Stephen Pruitt]

Hi all. . .

. . . this is probably one of the stranger requests on here, but I'm interested in finding out the name and contact info of a recognized film critic to give me their unbiased opinion about our film. I'm particularly interested in finding one that has an appreciation of romantic comedies. We are looking for this person to help us make some decisions.

Please PM rather than publicly-post any suggestions.

Thanks.

Stephen

 

[Peter Strietmann]

Never trust a critic. If they knew anything they would be doing it instead of writing about it.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

Film critics usually come from the film studies (film history and theory) realm so they often have no intention of making films themselves. I know quite a few people who are perfectly content with just writing about film. Nothing wrong with that. Never think there opinions are worthless just because they don't make films. You can learn quite a lot from film studies, things that can help you to make better films yourself.

 

[Stephen Brock]

Tomas Gallucci (aka ProfessorTom). Writes about politics and film on two seperate blogs. I've known him for years and he is by far the most well-rounded unbiased critic I've ever read. Best critic you'll get.

Email: professortom@gmail.com

 

[Jay Drose]

Hyper-defensive people are afraid of critics (and rarely so when the critic appreciates their work) IE: Kevin Smith's success with 'Clerks' and his latest bomb) Critics are generally seeing the film from a normal VIEWERS standpoint, IE: not the subjective filmmaker. They are more likely to represent the non-technical filmgoer and are paid to provide substantial arguments to back up their opinions. Obviously, some are better than others. Whether you agree or disagree, a good one will support their arguments clearly.

 

[rod bradley]

I would not say "never trust a critic" -- but rather trust yourself and the right critic that seems to understand the spirit of what you're doing or trying to do, and provides you with fresh insight and perspective that rings true to you.

And of course remember critics are human too, and just as prone to foible and prejudice as many film creators are. So it is possible for a critic (or anyone) to just not get it -- or bring an unnatural dose of personal prejudice to a film. But the best mitigate that and take the work in the spirit of its ambition and intent.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

I watched an interview quite recently, which the divide between the filmmaker is often alarming. This interview between Bela Tarr and Howard Feinstein is a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K104Srbj7h0. And, Feinstein is easily one of the best critics out there today.

Now, of course, if you are gunning for an audience rather than artistic expression (realistically, it is a combination of two, and that is enough) you could try a critic. Their opinion could be useful. I find the best critics these days are not the professional ones but the ones with the blogs, columns etc. They will take some time to get their reviews out, but they seem to digest and contemplate the film. Critics more often than not give out rash opinion without quite understanding the film. That is why safe and formulaic films like Star Trek garner most acclaim whereas something like The Assassination of Jesse James is panned.

A critic, for example, who criticizes the time-lapses in Jesse James as a "waste of time" and declares "it needs to be edited ruthlessly" has obviously got no grasp of the film and is better ignored.

 

[joshua csehak]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/24/

 

[Joe Carney]

The type of critics to ignore are ones that have ideological agendas to push.
Otherwise...it's part of the game.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

film critics are lame...
its better to do a focus group