I hate it when it adds "shares" before I can correct it B|

dumb feature, Plurk.

IN WHICH-- I give my definition of the purposes and provinces of criticism.

and finally type up that shiny five-star scale that I now want to use on everything like a dork with a label-maker

ooh, I'll have to check that out a

8D /never stops talking ever

I will pretend this is practice for more succinct academic writing.

May I ask if there are any particular critics you admire and find inspiring?

You know, I think you answered some of my questions from freshman and sophomore year. It was satisfying to read.

(And now I'm curious to see what your rating scale would be for written works.)

selhai: there is a lot of historically highly-regarded criticism that I have NOT read. I'm definitely internet-generation in this respect..

but one of the first critics whose writing really caught my attention (possibly THE first) is MaryAnn Johanson of flickfilosopher.com

she is one of the few who brings a consistently female perspective to themes/movies that other people take for granted as acceptable

she is also an outspoken atheist, so I probably found her words fun to mentally spar with. BUT.... eh. In recent years she tends a little

toward outright crazy, sometimes.

sometimes it feels like she is letting a narrowing ideology define all of her reviews, and they can get very political .

her reviews of "Agora", "Easy A", and "The Tree of Life" I found particularly disagreeable.

In recent years, I've also come to really, deeply admire Roger Ebert. I disagree with him a lot, but he is such a beautiful writer, even

now that he can't physically speak.

he is a god of Twitter, and manages to be right on the edge of relevant, no matter how old he gets.

I also mentioned Armond White, one of the most loathed critics on Rotten Tomatoes. He hates Pixar, and Ebert was once convinced he was

trolling the world. But.... then I read a tone of his stuff, back to back. And the man has a perspective that is as

interesting and consistent as it can be infuriating. He embraces elitism... but that's because he KNOWS his stuff. His comments on racism

can be especially incisive. So I read him even when he makes me angry, because he is so refreshingly his own thinker.

And, actually, the reviewers at TWGTG-- esp the Nostalgia Critic, in his serious videos, are all so full of joy and intelligence.

I would love to build the kind of credibility they have. >_>;; But regardless, Doug's top 25 movies-list is a great example of everything

that makes him so engaging to watch, whether he's being silly or serious. A lot of those movies I watched because of him.

Wow, thanks for that informative answer! I realise I really know very little about film reviewing/critiqueing

haha XD I really don't know much about it, either-- it's an interest, but I have a lot to learn about the academic end of things