(Above: Mike D'Angelo)

Tonight we have Mike D'Angelo, whose claim to fame is that he was one of the first online movie reviewers.  Kudos to that.

The one film we shared viewing that was most recent was Odd Thomas.  I should mention here that Mike watches 280 hours of movies a day, and I had not even heard of many of the ones he had watched.
I'll admit, I did not want to read a review of a film I had seen, but I could find no easily accessible movie that I could watch after reading his review list.

So here is my review of Mikes review of Odd Thomas.

We are given a smidgen of history regarding the creative talents behind this film: Dean Koontz and Stephen Sommers.  Already I am losing interest since comparing the lack of success for Koontz's previous adaptations seems somehow disingenuous, seeing as his readers are also very polarized about the books he writes.
Also Mike is doubting a sequel and he hasn't really told us anything aside from the frenetic nature of the book is apparently in the movie.
Comparing film narration to other films with narration falls into my "compared it to another film", and he's already doing this in the second paragraph.  I know whats coming; he is going to tell me the plot of the movie.  I still don't know why this is part of a critique.  This is a synopsis I'm being given.  I'm not being told the rules of the universe and how well they do or do not play out, as I would prefer.  Mike complains about a narrating voiceover done for the benefit of "complete idiots, a la Dexter", and then is telling me everything I'm already going to be able to figure out on my own when I see the film for myself.  I don't have a problem with film narration, and I don't find it cheap, since most of the stories we tell each other are in the past/present tense and fed through the lens of hindsight.

Having read the book and seen the film, I view the film as it's own entity independent from, yet inspired by, the book.  He complains about the fast pace of the movie, when the book was just as frenetic, having Odd thrust into quick action.  That's not a critique, that's a complaint that the movie moved faster than you.  A critique would be more along the lines of "Sommers tries to convey a feeling of jet skiing but leaves us flopping in shallow waters.  The effect could have worked better had a contrast been shown of a normal persons existence in Odds world, and then the pressured fate Odd suffers".  Film is a communication, and a true critic should tell us if the communication was successful, and then offer how it could have been done differently.  Also, a film should be judged on the "rules" it establishes, and if those rules are cheated.  Maybe that's just me.
Does he tell you if you should see it?  No.  There is a mention that if a sequel gets made someone else should direct it.
I at least gave reasons why you should or should not see the movie.  People who have read the books should not go see the movie, people who like whimsical fast paced movies should.  There.  Easy.  Like my mom.

-4 out of a +5 (because I doubted that Mike ever read the book).  Should you read him?  No.  He follows the same cookie cutter recipe as all the others.

Tomorrow: Todd McCarthy of Variety

(Above: Wesely Morris, Pulitzer Prize winner for Criticism, film critic.)
Sigh.

I hate to defend terrible movies.  Wesely Morris reviewed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (a film that I also reviewed).  While he and I may agree that it was a movie with plot-holes and dumb, Morris COMPLETELY missed key elements.  His complaints about plot are actually big glaring signs that he wasn't paying attention.  He even mixed up character names.

He has a Pulitzer for Criticism.... An award that I think is akin to getting an Emmy for Bitching.  While bitching can be entertaining, a Pulitzer is supposed to be for CONTRIBUTIONS, not detraction's.

Here is the review of his review.  It has a spoiler or two.

It starts off actually very interesting, revealing the cliche of reporter movies (and according to him, cop movies).  Okay Morris, you have me.  I mean, TMNT actually made a running gag about this as April tries to get people to believe her but they react as though she is crazy to very funny effect, but you've brought up an interesting film cliche.  Tell me more.
Apparently Whoopi Goldberg understood the cliche and its humor by playing it straight, but Morris did not.  He does not expand on his humorous beginning.

Then he gets the plot completely wrong.  Don't misunderstand me, there is very little plot.  My wife had to leave the theater twice to complain about another patron, and even she was able to tell me two weeks later WHY Shredder was teaming up with (and here Morris didn't even know the characters name, he simply put the actors name) "Fichnter".  To quote: "Why the Turtles’ samurai nemesis, Shredder (Tohoru Masamune), and his multitude of heavily armed goons care about making Fichtner rich is unclear..."
He must have been dozing during the entire five minute scene where SACKS (Fichtner's character) explains how he was pretty much raised by Shredder.  That's the plot.  Shredder wants to destroy the city, and he's using his disciple, not the other way around.  How did that slip past a Yale graduate/Pulitzer prize winner?

He then starts off a paragraph with "Anyway".  Pulitzer stuff here.  (It's fine if I do it, I didn't go to Yale).  But if you are going to include that you went to Yale in your biography, you sure as hell aren't "representing".  With this "anyway", he segues into how Raphael hits on April the whole movie....
Yeah, that was Michelangelo.  So glad you could complain about something you didn't even watch.
The icing on the cake is Morris complaining about how old Megan Fox looks.  Wow, real sensitive Morris.  In a day and age where girls are committing suicide because of online comments about how Maxim Magazine and Cosmo tell them how to look, you really held your ground and said "NO!  Anyone over twenty is ugly and only pretty people should be on screen!"  Perhaps you would have preferred some sixteen-year-old spreading her ass-cheeks for an anatomically correct turtle to plow her?  I know the movie is about teenagers, and teenagers are hormonal.  But how old are you to complain that Fox looks like Morticia Addams?
People give Fox a lot of flak for her acting, but after Seeing Jennifer's Body and ignoring the politics surrounding her, I saw that she is actually very capable (despite the poor material).  We all seem to have this predisposed idea that she's dumb/pretty and can't act, so there is a higher standard for her.  Oh, well.
I'll skip all the Michael Bay trash talk he does (hey, I did it too.  But even I knew that Bay simply threw money at the project not directed it, and I don't care about the politics surrounding the movie.  I don't care if Mel Gibson hates Jews, I still like Braveheart.  I don't care if Fox and Bay had a tiff and how it plays into the movie.  That's just stuff for trolls to lap at).
The ending is a snob slap at anyone who was excited to see this movie, and the fateful "This other movie is better" comparison.
Should you see TMNT?  Morris, I guess in his condescending way tells you not to.  Would I read any of his other reviews?  No.  He didn't watch the movie he reviewed.

-4 out of +5.

(Picture above: Kim Newman)

Kim Newman has made a career out of championing the more esoteric of horror shlock (a genre I love and hate), as well as being a novelist (who isn't these days?).  He studied at the University of Sussex, which is some kind of school, I gather.

The most recent film we have both viewed is Star Trek: Into Darkness.  I admit I was interested in reading a review from an Bram Stoker Award recipient and author of alternate history fiction, but after reading Kim's review I was disappointed.  Not for positive or negative review, but for its general banality.  Perhaps I should read a review and then watch a movie to change things up, see how the review affects my viewing as opposed to Siskel&Ebert-ing it.
On to the review of the review.

First is a reference to the Doctor Who universe, where Kim has written licensed fan fiction for, and then a comment on franchised universes.
Of course there is the obligatory explanation/backstory for those that haven't seen the first film, that extends into a television reference to prove he's watched the original series as a way to juxtapose his knowledge of the Trek universe against Abrahms "fanboyish" method.
It's mostly ignored that the Star Trek (2009) film exists in a universe that has a history and its future is being altered .  Let us think about that word "history".  That means all the elements that Kirk and co. could face will happen in different ways.  Khan isn't just going to disappear, he's going to show up in a different way.  Telling us how he shows up in contrast to the original sucks up all the fun, Kim.  You act like "boldly going where no one has gone before" isn't happening.  Imagine if you went back to the house you had grown up in and new owners had renovated: you would get a mix of old memories in a new environment.  But that's just me.
The fun sucking continues with a further comparison to the original films, and a comment on mixed races.
A few quotes from the original series are pulled out and trotted alongside the new movie, and how it doesn't follow the rules of the Star Trek universe (a giant hint I got out of the first movie was "pay no attention to the little series that started this".  I was apparently the only one who got it).
What Kim never gets to is if the film works.  He's too busy commenting on the politics surrounding the film, and the "fan-pleasing" concerns to say anything more than the movie is more fun than the original movies.  That's like comparing Tim Burtons "Planet of the Apes" to "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" and saying "Well, at least there were more jokes."  There is no basis of comparison since both versions drew drastically different conclusions and inspirations based on the novel by Pierre Boulles.  They are completely different universes.  As is the original Star Trek film series and the new version.
Kim asks for changes, but offers no alternatives.  Odd, since Kim Newman is known for writing alternate history books of fantasy and fiction.
I give this a -2 out of a +5
Should you read his reviews?  They don't offer any wit or greater understanding of what you are going to see, so it's up to you.  I wouldn't.

(Above: David Edelstein, Film Critic)

There are many movie critics (and I've done a few of my own).  Yet I have always felt that criticism is false participation, and that the film critic input barely helps the average movie goer in appreciating a film, and does virtually nothing in helping the people that create films in getting better.
In a democracy based on capitalism, the success of a director is more financial than artistic.  Nowhere is that more apparent than Lucas and Spielberg's contributions to film culture...that is to say they have created a culture that enjoys spectacle and 'splosions over great storytelling.  great storytelling that companies like Pixar are overturning by using special effect of CG to actually further the story.
In all of this I have noticed a certain lack.  There is no accountability for a critic, really.  We as movie-goers have to assume that people like Ebert know what they are talking about simply because they can put their thoughts in such a way that makes us agree with them even when they have missed the point.  They hide behind academic claims, they make comparisons between films that shouldn't even be connected in drawing contrast....the problems go on and on.
So I'm going to criticise the critics.  Since what they do is akin to intellectual masturbation, I view my critiquing of them as creating a circle jerk; nothing will be accomplished and hopefully we'll all be so ashamed that we will just stop, and a new resurgence of film will grow.
I found a "Top 25" best critics list, and from this I will start.
First up is David Edelstein.
I admit, I have no idea who this is.  Apparently he worked at the New Yorker (already I find this smug and self serving), and he wrote two whole plays ALL BY HIMSELF!  He entered journalism after graduating from Harvard.  
The uni-bomber also went to Harvard.
His greatest contribution to film has been the creation of the phrase "torture porn", it's genesis coming from watching Saw and Hostel.
*clap clap clap*
Bravo.  In thirty+ years your only contribution that Goodreads, Wikipedia, and Complex.com have to say about you is you came up with "torture porn".
They used to call them "snuff films", but I guess "torture porn" really made you feel like the smug bastard you are.
I read one review of a movie we've both seen.  Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
Like every review I've ever read from any critic it's a breakdown of the plot (or a retelling of the trailer).  
He starts off insulting the comicbook-movie genre and references 9/11.
Then he spells out Captain Americas feelings about the post 9/11 world, in case no one could figure that out.  There's a subtle dig at America (the country), and Captain America's idealism with a movie quote used to prop up his smug feelings.
Then he tries to appeal to the "common man" by using a cliched colloquialisms and a look-down-my-nose-at-you sarcasm.
Of course there is the obligatory complaint about the action to make it seem like they don't ever watch demolition videos or Americas Funniest Home Video (now called Tosh.0).
Then he goes back to complaining about the effects in another paragraph.
He attempts to critique the actors, going so far as to mock Chris Evans body (apparently a biologically enhanced super-being should have the body of Woody Allen?  Chris is all natural and you made fun of his body.  Isn't that a shaming technique, or even bullying?), and further compounds looking like a chump by making it seem like he and Chris agree that Captain America is boring.  He goes on to suck cock for that self serving Robert Redford (quick aside here: I've never seen a Redford movie where he portrayed anything but a smug, self serving I-Know-More-Than-You character.  Watch Out of Africa, The Winter Soldier and see if he isn't the Sundance Kid all over again.)  Comparing a movie to another movie is like comparing a Where's Waldo to Sherlock Holmes.  Sure, they are both books, but complaining that Waldo doesn't have the same political intrigue as Holmes just makes you an elitist snob. 
He finishes off the article by making a dig (rightfully or wrongfully) at Fox News, instantly polarizing the readers for no good reason aside from muck raking.

In summation this critic would not have prevented me from seeing, or encouraged me to see, any movie.  I would be hard pressed to read anything he's done after this.  Not because of bad writing, or even our differing views on the same film.  I wouldn't read more by him simply because he didn't create anything new.  He didn't offer alternatives, or say what might have worked better.  He merely told us what he did and didn't like, and we accepted that as valid because...
?
I give Davy Wavey here a -3 our of 5 for usefulness.

Next up: Kim Newman (whoever that is).

http://www.vulture.com/2014/04/review-captain-america-the-winter-soldier.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Edelstein