We Need to Talk About Film Criticism

[@patrickhwillems]

Yes, I know there's a typo and it should say "Yes, so am I"

[@fionnmcglacken35]

Patrick (H) Willems Does Christ Stuckmann count as a film critic? I would have thought so.

[@thezenlu]

Patrick (H) Willems CinimaSins shouldnt be watched as film review, but what about as a way to pass the time between your videos?

[@no_thank_you_]

Patrick (H) Willems You know I only know about one KZbin that meets basically all of the criteria you specified - Brows Held High. But he doesn't really review anything too recent

[@Site_42]

I don’t know; I thought “Yes, so I am” sounded fancy. :-P

[@gearsolidsnake8668]

Why do you become racist throughout this? It would be a good video without it?

[@voltairinekropotkin5581]

I can't remember who said it, but it's a sentiment which has always stuck with me: "A good critic is someone whose opinion you like hearing, _even when you don't agree with it_ " In other words, quality criticism is the stuff which makes you think deeply about the experience of responding to works of art, rather than just regurgitating your own opinion back at you in order to validate it. Critics should help you think about things in new ways and highlight things within a work you wouldn't have otherwise noticed.

[@blokey8]

Mark Kermode sums that up (and occasionally expresses it) very nicely for me.

[@ignacio3460]

"A lot of people just want to hear people articulate what they already think" yessss this! THI- wait a minute

[@User-xw6kd]

Irony. XD

[@eetuhalonen9902]

It´s sad how offended some people get when a critic doesn´t like everything they like. Like every time Ebert gets mentioned horror fans come out the woodwork and call him an idiot for not liking Friday the 13th. Gamers have a particularly strong hatred for Ebert because he said games are not art.

[@Thagomizer]

Pretty much every atheist channel on youtube.

[@wet-read]

​​@@eetuhalonen9902 Indeed. I am a huge fan of Ebert and I too was angry and hurt he could say that about video games. But then I read what he had to say, and it makes sense. At the heart of it is the simple fact that video games are interactive and movies are not. I would say that video games definitely have artistic elements to them, but they aren't art in the same way a film or a painting or a sculpture is.

[@AbrasiousProductions]

@@eetuhalonen9902 Ebert was a talentless hack but I do agree Friday the 13th was overrated, obscenely generic and lacked characterization, still a fun movie to veg out to though, I'd probably rate it a 6/10 or 7/10, not sure.

[@Asummersdaydreamer14]

The list of film critics he recommends: Roger Ebert Matt Zoller Seitz Matt Singer Amy Nicholson Jen Yamato David SIms Drew McWeeny (

[@Jesus_Zendejas]

RIP Ebert

[@antona.8659]

There's no Kermode, so that's a no from me. Also, McWeeny and SlashFilmCast? Yikes.

[@directorforplastic7929]

David Ehrlich kinda sucks sometimes

[@robertpetrie3605]

Thank you! This list should have been in the video description

[@Nathanatos22]

I just realized that even with such a long list, he omitted A.O. Scott. Not sure if that’s an oversight or a grudge, haha

[@El_oh7199]

I enjoy reading "legitimate" film critics work (Mick LaSalle, Manolha Dargis, Anthony Lane) because they usually give a historical perspective to modern films. But I also like watching KZbinr reviews because they are usually closer to the everyday person and more relateable. They're film lovers in their own right even if they didn't earn a degree in film criticism.

[@senseweaver01]

If critics don't influence the views a movie gets, then why do you let critics influence the movies you go to see Patrick?

[@sanitorz232]

I don't know what Patrick would say because I am not him but I think there's a big gap between him and the average moviegoer. Patrick is a filmmaker that knows the nuts and bolts of film theory, history, and (like most of us in this comment section, I assume you too since you're on this channel) dedicated his life to watching movies. Most people don't go in that deep so the relationship we have with cinema is different than people who consume it on a passive level. The majority of people don't read, they're not going to watch a certain movie because the critic they liked said it was good. As Patrick said, the bad reviews on Suicide Squad did jack shit because that movie was a massive hit, even though that movie is a huge turd.

[@MysteriousStranger50]

Dude just admit this guy is a hypocrite and you failed to see that. Simp.

[@robertbaillargeon3683]

It should probably not be surprising that surveying people who follow a KZbin video essayist skew towards watching KZbin rather than traditional film reviews.

[@switchingtime]

Robert Baillargeon He's not talking about video essayists, he explicitly said that. He's talking about film critics on KZbin, people who stare at a camera and ramble about movies they saw without any sort of insight or depth (something most video essays actually provide, although much less frequently and while focusing on a certain artist, genre, tool, etc).

[@bagandtag4391]

He's talking about this channel. People who follow someone that makes video essays will tend to get their reviews from youtube too. So making a poll for your audience is probably not a good idea unless you're only going to use it for your audience.

[@laurenbi]

Right, the sample is not true to the population.

[@tyrantsmisery]

I mean traditional film reviews are TERRIBLE so why would I waste my time with them?

[@souleater4242564kodd]

And who is this magical Arbiter of "Traditional Film Reviewers", I mean Patrick talks about how plot holes don't matter and here he cites Roger Ebert who always talked about plot holes being immersion breaking in his reviews, that Patrick idolizes. He's a walking talking contradiction. People on KZbin are just as valid in their reviews as anyone else. Just because you write for a paper, or publish articles or went to film school, doesn't mean my valid points of a film with my criticism are somehow invalidated.

[@acnbk]

"don't tell me this film was gorgeously shot, tell me why it was shot that way and what purpose it serves" THANK YOU! This is one of my major problems with youtube reviewers, they don't have a clue about what's the real point of the cinematography so they just throw that line out there because they don't have anything else to say.

[@beckobert]

you mean stuff like "Style over substance" What does this even mean? Shouldn't substance be brought to the viewer by the style of the movie? Aren't most of the best directors of all time known for their style of movie/moviemaking? For me, that phrase is just something thrown around by people who don't know much about movies, but want to critisize a movie, they didn't like, but had a very distinctive style.

[@MonkeyFarmFrankenstein]

But a lot of journalistic reviews include throwaway lines like that, too. I think many KZbin reviewers are imitating the language and tropes of journalistic criticism, which often doesn't justify or support those kinds of claims. I notice this especially when reading reviews of works from a big name director like P.T. Anderson or the Coens.

[@acnbk]

Hubert Beck Hubert Beck I think style over substance can be a valid criticism depending on the context, but I agree that the vast majority of people who use it fits that description.

[@acnbk]

Carl Swanson they are lazy journalists then, I mentioned youtube reviewers because almost every single one of them only talks about plot and characters/performances and brushes off aspects like cinematography, sound design or even the whole meaning of what they are reviewing

[@MonkeyFarmFrankenstein]

And I don't disagree, exactly....sometimes a journalistic critic has to edit for space and because, for instance, describing the Coens' use of wide angle lenses in shot/reverse shot set-ups (like Tony Zhou discusses in Every Frame a Painting) 1) doesn't translate well to a written or radio review, 2) requires a little more background in film aesthetics from the reader, and 3) digresses from the general purpose of the review. My point was that the categorical distinction between professional journalistic critics and KZbin reviewers is more complex than Willems presents it, since the latter often imitates the former and, unwittingly or not, also imitates some of the limits and/or shortcomings of some journalistic criticism.

[@TheKarishi]

Around the 8-9 minute mark you hit on a really good piece of advice without quite saying it outright - possibly without even realizing it yourself: One should seek out reviews that are worth reading and/or watching even AFTER you've watched the movie.

[@objectivelyawesome]

YES! Actually thats the only time I read reviews. I started doing that with Ebert when I was in high school. Its like having an internal dialog with the critic instead of just digesting someone elses opinion.

[@thefancrafter7488]

Except for many, the movies they want to see exceed the time/money they have and so reviews can act as a filter for the ones really worth it. Source: I’m one of those people.

[@jjsmith706]

Absolutely. I do that a lot. Whether I liked the movie or not, I'll read reviews afterward to help myself think about it a different way, then watch the movie again with that new perspective. It's a good exercise.

[@AbjectPermanence]

I only look at reviews after I've seen it. I don't want my first impression of the film to be influenced by external expectations.

[@TheKarishi]

(Re: The Fancrafter): Sure! But the kinds of reviews that are worth reading and/or watching even after you've seen the film are likely (I'd argue likeliER) to give you solid insight into whether you should go see it. So it's still the superior type of review/reviewer to hunt down. There's a little separation of the circles on that Venn diagram if you're in the "spoilers often/always ruin the experience of a film" camp (I'm not), since it can be hard to talk about why a shot works without describing a scene or scenario, but a lot of critics take the time to write their reviews spoiler-free or "significant spoiler free" (i.e., "Spoilers: In the third act of this romcom, the protagonist is sad. Here's how the staging and editing cleverly sets up both the protag's sadness AND the hilarious fallout that makes the joke of the scene.")

[@1homeward_bound]

"And also, CinemaSins is terrible, is absolute garbage"

[@nickbarrera]

I loved how he called out CinemaSins. Hilarious 😂

[@GPXBrent]

They used to be clever and talk about really unnoticable continuity issues. Now they only complain and sound like they really hate the movie they're watching.

[@khrinalekill-thebloodspira2531]

@@porgherder6109 they literally never changed

[@xant8344]

GamePlayXtreme + Disney no they didn’t. You just started to notice how bad they are.

[@namelastnamefirst4520]

Hating on CinemaSins cliche. +1 Sins: 1 Sentence: CinemaSins based

[@charlesburns7391]

Cinema sins makes me want to fucking kill myself

[@dr_jamie_ranger]

Mark Kermode is an excellent film critic, arguably the best over here in the UK, and his reviews are also available on KZbin, as they take the review segment of his radio show with Simon Mayo, and upload them separately.

[@tomboz777]

Kermode was my started/salad of getting into FC. :)

[@Vidiot-Savant]

Kermode is one of my go to critics. I don't always agree with him, but I understand where his perspective is coming from given his love of cult horror, and obscure genre films.

[@7677890]

And hello to Jason Isaacs

[@kevinmorice2]

I said Kermode when the original question was asked and I stand by him.

[@hoganholo99]

Off topic, that Simon Mayo is actually the best co-host ever.

[@RyanHollinger]

In respect to the issues you present, there's also the concern with "gatekeeping". Basically, you present the assumption that critics "know more" than the moviegoer, which I agree with in very certain contexts, but that doesn't entirely mean they "know better". I feel you inadvertently (I don't want to assume) present criticism as hierarchical, which it's not. In fact, if we were going on a hierarchy of "who knows better", professionals (folks who actually work in the industry and have a wide range of first-hand experience) are the only folks I tend to view as having a "better understanding" when it comes to specific technicalities because they're fine-tuned to notice details others are not. I mostly regard this to animation because that's my professional field, but that still doesn't mean I'm more entitled to my perspective than a YT reviewer. It's objectively a different skill set because that's where I'm trained and work in. When I lecture on film criticism, my core thesis on criticism "in an academic context" is simply: Present a point, explain it and then contextualise it with an example analysis. There is no wrong way of doing criticism - if you've read dozens and dozens of different academic critics (not journalistic critics like you present), you'll realise the only difference between them and YT reviews is the extension of research and analysis, something which doesn't cater to the broad demographic on YT. I personally don't watch Stuckmann and such because like you explained I find a lot of them rather eh, shallow, but I'm sure if they went out of their way, they could easily replicate what's being done. The real issue that we should be debating is if "reviews" and "criticism" are two entirely different entities because that seems to be where the divide exists between "academia" "journalism" and "laypeople". I admit my own personal fear is that people who read and analyse more feel tricked into thinking that makes them superior. It doesn't. Criticism, fundamentally and philosphically, will always be a form inherent to free-thought.

[@mikefrollo]

There's gatekeeping, and then there's just knowing what you're talking about. I don't think anyone is suggesting you need to have your Master's degree in Film Studies, seen the major American canon, and every Kurosawa movie to be a film critic. If anyone is suggesting that, they're wrong. But also, none of that would hurt. It's great that aspiring film critics can just get a camera and throw something up on KZbin, rather than having to somehow break into print journalism. The more different voices there are in the arena, the better. But being an amateur is not really an acceptable defense for not honing your craft. If you want to write about film, or talk about it in a meaningful way, you need to be watching films and reading about them, as much as you can. If you don't want to watch as many movies as you can, of various genres and years and countries, then why do you want to be a critic? No one person can see every movie. There's plenty of probably-great movies that I haven't seen, and won't get around to for a long time, if ever. But there's no excuse for not trying to see as many films as possible. There's so many movies just sitting on the Internet for you to watch. If they're not on Netflix, get Filmstruck. If they're not there, rent them on Amazon. If the movie you want to watch isn't on any of those things, fucking steal it. There's a gazillion free movies on the Internet (just don't tell anybody where you found 'em). Watch movies, read critics. That's how you become a critic. No gatekeeping. The field is wide open, if you're willing to play the game.

[@Susanoo7108]

Like you said, there are YT film critics that can give deeper analysis if they put their mind to it. For example, Stuckmann's reviews appear a little shallow, but if you'll see his understanding and knowledge of film in his few '*Film name* explained* videos. In his 'Driver: explained' video, he explains why certain camera angles are used and what they represent in the context of the film. Secondly, I don't always get the impression that most critics (at least the ones that I watch) think they're better than everyone else. Don't get me wrong, some do come across as that (Ralph Sepe etc.), and I'm sure I'll find them soon enough. However, I think that most people nowadays can't sit down and watch an hour-long in-depth analysis of a film unless they're really passionate about film. People like Stuckmann are good for introducing people to film without the feeling of being overwhelmed by jargon etc.

[@josetato]

Branelo Yeah, you just sound like someone thats very insecure about their own intelligence

[@josetato]

Andy's Mad House agreed. Applies to most of the arts too.

[@larrydavison8298]

We're talking about advice on watching a movie, not brain surgery. What I want is a reliable estimate of "Will I enjoy this movie". So I care if the "critic"'s tastes parallel my own. Professional movie critics are all residents of large cities, so that's not likely to happen. Which is why I check CinemaScore.

[@Rob-fi2pe]

"It's literary criticism about visual media." THIS IS WHAT MADE ME START MY CHANNEL. I am sick and tired of hearing only plot details from guys who want movies to play out exactly how they expect. I love this video. I have so much to learn and so much more room to grow. Thank you, thank you and thank you once again for expanding my opinions on what film criticism should be. I have to step back and take a deeper look at what I do so I can grow and inspire others to challenge their thoughts of films from their peers.

[@delfin7461]

Roger Ebert was great!!! I loved him -- I am 57 and some KZbin film reviewers are okay, most are just such obsessive fan boys, they are annoying to watch. BTW, Patrick, I really like your videos.

[@Cellidor]

I mean, I don't think that we should use race, gender, or sexual orientation as a basis for whether someone's opinion matters or not, but that's just me.

[@JurassicLion2049]

Lindsay Ellis tho shes fucking awesome and up there as one of the best film essayists.

[@CoffeeCakeNation]

The Flying Lion she is amazing, everyone should watch her

[@CoffeeCakeNation]

The Flying Lion also im glad to watch this brand new video and see someone is already praising lindsay for me, thats what i came to the comments to do

[@mitchellhorton9382]

Lindsay tweeting this vid is how I got here!

[@anibunnynunni]

Her and Brows Held High! Love 'em!

[@jed52]

She's one of few feminists I actually take seriously and enjoy their content.

[@YouFightLikeACow]

RLM is actually surprisingly in depth with some of their Half in the Bag reviews

[@eetuhalonen9902]

Yes, they understand the technical aspects of movie making very well.

[@a_level_70_elite_raccoon]

That sudden tack-on of Cinema Sins!!! I've watched a few of them and they're just absolute hate-filled screeds.

[@TheActionBrick]

This guy is the VSauce for movies. He's just missing the creepy music.

[@1fareast14]

Not really, he's more focused, consistent, improves over time, and doesn't click-bait.

[@lostliberty9913]

The Action Brick nope Vsauce is actually a respectable guy.

[@karolisdervinis4236]

What? no vsauce is good not like this

[@knamedisme]

OH no, by far, he is not.

[@kostajovanovic3711]

How much hate for patric under you comment

[@lemonoreo5762]

Thanks for taking the last minute shot at Cinemasins. The content is shallow and unsatisfying, even more so when the inevitable "satire" defense is trotted out.

[@tomboz777]

**cough** Jeremy Jahns **cough**. I've come to hate the Joe schmoe **wink** supposed superiority that many people seem to endorse. They are almost universally shallow. The whole reason i'm into film now is BECAUSE of supposed "snooty" critics, and I thank them for it. I always hear as a wrong headed rebuttal "you just want Oscar film/not everything can be an Oscar film", not really understanding that most film buffs have broad tastes and don't really consider Oscars as a genuine measure of quality, more of a glorified bingo game. Edit:I really with you on the getting perspective after seeing a film, they can enhance or show a perspective that you didn't even consider yourself (for good or bad films)... oh, and Fuck Cinema Sins.

[@HyperTensiveFilms]

This is my favorite video in regards to film criticism as of late. When I was thirteen or fourteen, I idolized Roger Ebert. I still do. I read almost every volume of "The Great Movies", which were a series of books that were a comprehensive litany of all his reviews. I would stay up late at night, read his reviews, and ponder about his thoughts on cinema. What I loved about Ebert is that he exerted just as much passion for the movies he loved as the movies he hated. No film received a free pass. Furthermore, his ratings might not always align with his overall consensus; Ebert really wanted you to pay attention to his writing. I wish more KZbin video essayists, reviewers, and critics overall borrowed more from Ebert. In this day and age where opinions are commonly reduced to their simplest forms - you either love something or you hate it - Ebert's nuance is sorely missed. Fantastic video.

[@ericlankford6495]

I think the tendency, especially for younger film enthusiasts, to seek out opinions similar to their own is more about validation than lack of effort or thought. It’s about establishing an understanding that a person does in fact know what they’re saying has merit because others see what they see. I think you’ve hit a point at which you are confident that you have an acceptable base of film knowledge and now want to challenge yourself and grow as an expert in the field. I love this idea and your video, (and also I agree about Cinema Sins... so that validated me) I just wondered what you thought about how some viewers may take this as license to check their understanding of film as a medium before they can establish their own identity as a critic or artist.

[@onebooktoofew]

The greatest gift you could have given any of us was to encourage us to read Roger Ebert.

[@SALEEM95507]

A review for me is “will I have fun watching this movie?” If yes great if no who cares I’ll watch another movie. There’s millions of movies just waiting for me to watch

[@ReviewBrew]

I disagreed with just about all of Roger Ebert's opinions, but still had respect for his film knowledge. Used to watch his show every Sunday.

[@andrewfacchiano5117]

Anecdote time! I started following TheNeedleDrop, a channel that reviews music. I often disagree with the scores given out, That said, the reviews are some of the deepest dives into music I've ever heard, as a result I've picked up a lot of new albums, and thought more critically of bands I've been listening to for years. So yeah :) I like the message here

[@AustinIuliano]

I personally love cinema wins as a movie critic. I have learned a ton about movies by watching their reviews, the appreciation of various aspects and the deeper dive on movies. Not sure if they fall under the category of the movie critic, but I do appreciate the positivity it spreads.

[@WitandFolly]

I paused this video with all your recs on the screen and have now followed each of those critics on Twitter :) Thank you for this.

[@thekinglydragon]

Cinema Sins can be funny to watch from time to time, but I agree that it should not be taken as serious criticism on any level.

[@SofaPop.]

Even then, I haven’t laughed at any of their videos since I was like 12

[@ed1rko17]

Mark Kermode and Alonso Duralde are my favourite critics.

[@janettewong9900]

I followed Alonso to What The Flick and I generally enjoy everyone there.

[@Horror-Man]

This video perfectly articulated what I'd always vaguely sensed in the Chris Stuckmann/Jeremy Jahns/Schmoesknow community.

[@jimmyboyle3543]

Chris Stuckmann has a really broad knowledge of film history and filmmakers. Fair enough on the other two; but I seriously object to him being included alongside them. Sorry he was born a straight white man and can’t change that lol. He’s still an educated and qualified film critic.

[@Mohamad-m7md]

Their reviews are usually non spoilers so that’s why it’s not so deep I wouldn’t say it makes them less of critics or anything

[@xpindy]

@@Mohamad-m7md No, having toys in the background makes it hard for an adult to take them seriously.

[@Mohamad-m7md]

@@xpindy It makes it hard for YOU to take them seriously speak for yourself I focus on what they’re saying I don’t care about the background

[@mayankgoyal727]

I would add Mark Kermode to the list of good critics , although the dude sometimes gets very political and misses the point of a few films , but he is very good most of the times

[@lamecasuelas2]

Yes, i don't always agree with hims but i like that he strikes a balance of being very knowledgeable and entincing at the same time. Also he hosts screening of rare films, new durector's curso and stuff like that.

[@nationalsarcasticsociety1312]

"Critics aren't paid off." To be fair, I do think that if I were a critic, and I were invited to the premiere of a Star Wars movie, I'd probably give it a better review then it deserves so that I can go to the premiere of the next Star Wars movie. So, who's to say other critics wouldn't do the same. In other words: I'm extremely fallible.

[@xant8344]

Critics get invited to every movie. They don’t buy tickets to movies. They get paid to go to festivals and premieres.

[@Jbabcock93]

The problem I have with critics is that to me the whole industry comes off as snobby. Why should I care what someone "educated in film" thinks about a movie? If art is truly subjective, I should like what I like, regardless of what others think about it.

[@nathandrake5544]

Although I enjoy watching Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckmann, I think of them as movie *reviewers*, not *critics*. It seems like there is some conflation of the two.

[@davidsykes6584]

I miss the golden age of Siskel and Ebert, those two together were always a great combination, even when I totally disagreed with them.

[@nathanculli]

8:30 I cannot believe he actually said that and hardly anyone is pointing it out. If white people have little to offer on Black Panther, then by that logic, black people have little to offer on movies with a predominantly white cast. Now, according to you, if you bring up Black Panther AT ALL, it is a worthless criticism/take that no one needs to take seriously. To assign quality of criticism based on race and gender is literally racist and sexist. How can you put a score on how much value someone has based purely on skin color and gender? Why not simply watch/read a critic if they bring up valid points and consistent logic? Also: “Don’t tell me something is gorgeously shot, tell me why it’s shot that way” My response to that statement would be something like this: “Don’t tell me CinemaSins is bad, tell me why CinemaSins is bad.” Don’t tell people to qualify statements and then refuse to do the same. I don’t even like CinemaSins, I’m just pointing out hypocrisy within your video. Last thing, if you don’t think critics need to be paid off, why do you mention multiple times that if enough of your favorite reviewers seem to dig a movie than you go and see it?

[@MegaAstroFan18]

Some of this, in the first 3:30 minutes, gets at my problems with the critic industry. 1. Criticism is not a objective rankings of 'quality'. It's one person expressing their opinion on a subject (movie, video game, whatever). Just cause one person considers a movie good, doesn't mean another person will (critic or otherwise) agree, and doesn't mean they "should" agree, or that they're "wrong" if they disagree. Art is subjective. Being critical is not the same as being objective, as there's very little objective here. 2. A big one, and what motivated me to write this: there are no "experts" in this industry. One person's opinion is no more or less important than another's, even if one person's watched more movies or has a greater age. I can disagree with Ebert (and I do, on many movies), and that doesn't make my opinion any more or less valid, as these are all based on feelings, not facts. Similarly, there are no "qualifications". 3. Related to previous, criticism has, for a long time, had a very worrying element of thought control and group-think, and that's been increasing as the internet creates a greater amount of anonymity and makes it easier for mob mentalities (like group-think) to set in. There's a very strong subtext of, because these people are "authorities" that they're right and everyone should agree with them. Everyone should think a movie or a game or w/e is good because some "authority" says so, and your own feelings aren't important. Do as they say, think as they say. And that's bullshit. The importance of any critic comes down purely to if a person finds that their tastes seem to frequently align with one or more critics. And even then it's no replacement for having the experience yourself. There's always a chance you might disagree with your favourite critic, and there are other, better ways to get an idea of something before you see/play it. Your individual opinion is, ultimately, what's most important, and you shouldn't be afraid to express it, and you shouldn't be dissuaded from forming one.

[@racewiththefalcons1]

People think anyone with a camera and a youtube account can be a film critic, yet a vast preponderance of those content creators don't review movies - they review their *reaction* to movies. There is a distinct difference, and the content-creation nature of youtube and the allure of personality over an analysis of substance serves only to exacerbate the problem with the rising popularity of non-critics, who themselves are more interested in views and ad revenue than actually explaining why a movie does or does not work in a fundamental way. Make no mistake, when you watch a youtube film critic's review, you will learn more about the creator of the video than the film they are discussing. Actual criticism has become secondary at best and incidental at worst.

[@MeerkatChris]

I completely understand what you're saying, and you're kind of right. But I do think that these "KZbin reviews" are good enough as they are to get an understanding on whether you may or may not like a film beforehand, and THEN go looking for the more in-depth and "traditional" reviews that are much more essay-focused and afterwards. Before seeing a film, I do enjoy watching a few of my favourite "KZbinrs" to get a basic understanding, and I think that's fine... Another great video, as always though! I love how well thought out you make these.

[@vincentmuyo]

I lean towards the fact that time is limited, and if a review isn't going to add anything to your movie experience, you can skip it and do something else. If you want to watch the reviews, you do you. I generally wait to see what the general opinion is among friends before deciding on watching new movies and shows, and so have little use for opinion pieces. Ideally, the time saved not watching reviews would be used for something productive, unlike what I do with it. ;)

[@ianrobinson4200]

Roger Ebert will always be my first port of call for anything released during his career,just love the guy's writing...

[@wet-read]

Yes! There is a twofold pleasure to his reviews. I revisit them for his opinions and insights on the one hand, and for the excellent writing on the other 😊

[@emmav3833]

I'm French and I feel like most of film critics on youtube in my country (famous or not) are more like what you want them to be. They also put things in perspective and I learnt a lot about cinema in general thanks to them. I'm glad we don't have that much people who are just telling if they liked the movie or not. (sorry for my english)

[@koichidignitythief7429]

Don’t worry, it’s still understandable.

[@ipod9771]

I think the truest KZbin film critic has to be Stuckmann. No his work is not traditional, but I really trust and admire his genuine opinion. Hes like our modern roger ebert. Well my version anyway. I do wish he would also write film reviews. But he is also an up & coming film maker. He has other priorities. But I respect his work the way I respect traditional film criticism.

[@PutingPinoy]

Yes, I agree with you about how the second part gets overlooked. I don't have a formal education in film, but I do watch the messages and see how every element from music, motifs, symbolism, acting, costumes, makeup, acting, camera angles, shots, pacing, and location all can serve to tell the story in a meaningful and artistic way. As far as shallow reviews go, agree too. I do think Film Theory is a good one that goes deeper in a weird and interesting way that is anything but thoughtless.

[@staffmitchellart]

How does the race, sex, or sexual preference of a person factor into the quality of their criticism? I'm black and Asian, does this mean that I can't learn much by listening to other black or Asian critics? Or does this logic only apply to white males? If so, why? Also how would you know that and what evidence would you use to suggest that it's true?

[@TheMovieslingers]

You made some interesting and useful points and I will try to incorporate them into my own movie reviews. I started a channel last year and I always try to draw attention to thematic elements and how I interpreted them to deepen my viewers’ understanding. You’re right ... simply stating whether a movie is good or bad is not enough. You have to say why and what it means. I also checkout reviews from critics that I don’t usually agree with. Really helps seeing things from a different perspective.

[@rhaenyrareigns2200]

I was always puzzled why people on KZbin use the word "review" in their reaction videos.

[@AG-vk5or]

I have been binging your videos and each one gets better and better. Thank you

[@nando3689]

I think the biggest problem with cinema sins is that it's comedy marketing it self as critisism

[@augiedb]

It is almost eerie how many of these same arguments we've had in the comics world, almost word for word. Though I do stand by my argument that I think critics should try to make their own comic as a learning exercise. No, you don't NEED to be a professional comics creator to be a critic, but the best way to learn the difficulties and the decisions that a creator has to make with every line they apply to paper or their digital canvas is to try it for themselves. You don't need to show it to anyone. You don't even need to finish it. But the amount you'll learn from attempting the craft is huge. But, then, yes, still read all the instructional books, read the interviews with professionals, and watch the video critiques, too. It's a never ending process, isn't it? I think the world of movies criticism would benefit from that, too. Hey, even Ebert wrote a movie....

[@princessjellyfish98]

I'm just rewatching this video after seeing it when you first uploaded it and it still rings true. I think your comments about black panther are especially interesting. I remember going to one of the sort of "bro reviewers" on youtube that I occasionally watched to see his perspective on the film and one of his criticisms is that the use of rap music was "dumb and distracting." and people in the comments agreed with him!! this is the danger of not making an effort to look at a film from a different perspective from you own.

[@TaranVH]

Lol, I stopped watching cinema sins years ago...

[@ixbreakxaway]

Omg Taran 🤩

[@razriri1467]

I'm really glad you included that post-video note about Cinema Sins. People will always be quick to spring up and say "the videos are a joke" or "they're not serious, in depth reviews they're just fun" but i don't think these people realize how CinemaSins has cultivated an entire following of kids, teens, youtubers, and critics who think the acknowledgement of a film cliche is enough for the film to lose points as opposed to judging how that cliche or trope is employed within the film. CinemaSins has helped popularize the "unique = good" and "same = bad" mentality that has helped DESTROY criticism among casual film discussion and certain subsets of KZbin criticism such as the animation community.

[@TheKersey475]

As a movie critic myself ("Private Screening" on the Autism Channel, available for free on Roku streaming devices) I find that when film critics get too in-depth and "professional" they tend to lose sight of that cinematic magic. They become more jaded, bitter, and critical (no duh there) demanding more "art" and "realism" while bashing movies that don't go out of their way to meet their high standards. They become long-winded in their reviews and forget the wit that is brevity. They lose the magic and feel like they have to tear down the magicians. I NEVER want to become pretentious like that. I can notice the color palette layouts in films like "Shape of Water" and "Baby Driver", interpret cerebral films like "Inception" and "mother!" in one go, and still be able to just enjoy dumb popcorn flicks like "Jurassic World" and the Bayformer flicks. To paraphrase my main critic idol, Jeremy Jahns; I'm here to be the reviewer I never had; The one people can trust if they've ever wanted to tell off a critic; "Just admit you enjoyed "Die Hard" more than "2001: A Space Odyssey"!

[@nickzardiashvili624]

Why does Patrick seem to think that all white guys in their 20s and 30s have the same outlook on life and opinions?

[@razriri1467]

Read the comments on this video and you'll see he is right.

[@danielrauch643]

Right? Seems pretty racist & sexist if ya ask me. Could've gone without mentioning it entirely.

[@theautisticguitarist7560]

He doesn't. But, White guys in their 20s and 30s in the US typically have pretty similar life experiences and interests, especially given how many of the youtube reviewers are white guys in their 20s and 30s. What he meant was someone from a different demographic might be able to offer something new to your perspective.

[@danielrauch643]

To make a sweeping statement like that regarding demographics may be inductively supported, but to then attach a value judgement to this claim and say that a group of people at large should be REGARDED a certain way because of these statistics effectively renders everyone stereotypes. You should not approach someone's work out of recognition of their arbitrary features they had no control over. What SHOULD be esteemed is their comprehension of the medium & their ability to convey that. It would sound terribly obscene to say, for instance, most black people have pretty similar life experiences. "Life experiences" is vague, and disregards individual circumstance that makes a perspective unique and worthwhile. I take no issue engaging with someone's work if they vary in sex/race/etc. from me, as long as the worth of their work is evident regardless. It is condescending to assume this specific demographic has an issue with empathy to outside perspectives.

[@NVRND_ARCHIVE]

yeah i don't think he really represented his thoughts well with that comment

[@Everyone1995]

A good film critic doesn't just provide general colours on films to watch, but also makes you look at films in different ways and highlight different lenses to view and appreciate film. I think we're in agreement in that. So what about that ostracises KZbin, exactly? I want ways to think about film, that's it - and many a 20-something year old white guy on KZbin can teach me exactly that.

[@Malkav65]

The analysis on RLM’s Re:View series has really changed the way I look at certain movies

[@Zooropa_Station]

And it completely debunks the surface level ("I only watched the Plinkett prequel series") opinion that RLM just hates everything.

[@bk83082]

You mean the 40 year old white man-children? I love RLM.

[@FullFatVideos]

This is absolutely fantastic. So spot on. I love how being a 'critic' is as simple as setting up a Yelp account. It's really difficult to tell between 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' criticism because the lines are blurring more and more.

[@souleater4242564kodd]

If the things they talk about and point out are valid, that's kinda all that matters mate. Not if they went to school, directed, or wrote a script. Nor is what genitals you have, what you want to sleep with, age or skin color factor into what you say being valid or not.

[@eduardocampos5739]

Third guy to like your comment

[@doriecameron4397]

Sorry friend. I was with you right up until your very first criticism of KZbinr film reviewers, being that they are “predominantly straight white males.”

[@iiiiitsmagreta1240]

Thanks so much for showing me that Star Wars article! It articulated for me a lot of feelings I have about Star Wars but was afraid to express.

[@Burkhart4192]

"Disney doesn't pay critics to give DC films bad reviews" No, but they did blacklist a publication (think it was LA Times) that criticised their practices in bullying the town Disneyland's built on.

[@Little1Cave]

Burkhart 4192 That sounds like a completely different can of worms.

[@specialistbrief2787]

And other publications refused to go watch screening and they were forced to remove the ban.

[@Little1Cave]

public domain film Where/when was that?

[@specialistbrief2787]

@Little1Cave money.cnn.com/2017/11/06/media/disney-la-times-boycott/index.html

[@yoboijam140]

Even when this came out is was already bad, but as the years go by, it gets worse and worse. “Movie reviewers are not paid off” is now in addition to these horrible takes, back then we already knew they were wink wink, nudge nudge with the fact that they paid them and paid for their fly(s) out to see it with everything paid for including food, bedding, etc. And it’s even worse now that rotten tomatoes blatantly admitted that they paid each good review 50 bucks in PayPal. Apparently 50 bucks is all you need to pay to make someone a talking puppet 😆

[@Uncuepa]

The bit about CinemaSins at the end is amazing - CinemaSins flaunts as film snarking, but many take it as real criticism - they do so little to change this view on their videos, it's a shame... their Star Wars series in which they failed to understand standardisation in context to R2 really pissed me off. We live in a world in which you can put a movie onto a USB drive, fly around the world, sit at a computer and plug in the same USB and yet the idea that a droid can't do the same from ship to ship is sin worthy? And people then take that as real criticism of the films writing.

[@my88110]

When it comes to movies, I find just watching it without reading or seeing anything (not even a synopsis) is always the most fun. Ignorance is usually bliss.

[@hardworker424]

Didn't Disney ban a Los Angeles newspaper because of bad reviews? They unbanned them eventually after getting a lot of flack. The idea that the film company doesn't care about reviews is laughable. Critics know if they go too harsh on certain movies they suddenly aren't invited to early screenings. Then they don't have time to create a review. Reviews after first day of release are worth substantially less. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they know "the cultural and historical aspects of the movie."

[@rmcavoy415]

Disney banned the LA times from getting into an early screening of Thor: Ragnarok because they published an article condemning Disney for how they've treated the city of Anaheim, where Disneyland is located. Here's the two part article: www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-disney-anaheim-deals/ www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-disney-anaheim-city-council/ There was a major backlash from film critics, who threatened disqualify all Disney films from award consideration until Disney ended the ban: variety.com/2017/film/news/disney-los-angeles-times-ban-backlash-1202609094/

[@Xanderall]

New video series: "Patrick Reads Lots Of Stuff On His iPhone Out Loud"

[@mysterymastermind175]

"A white male's review of black panther will have nothing to offer, whereas a black person is educated enough to provide insight" If I were to reverse the races on this quote and replace panther with wagner it's something the alt-right would say. Social justice when applied consistently, becomes the alt-right.

[@MovieMation]

I do understand your point of view, but I think it's a bit unfair to box written reviews and KZbin reviews and say that one is good and the other is bad. As you said yourself there are poorly written reviews, and there are good written reviews, the same thing applies to KZbin videos. I don't think that one should be held on a pedestal above another. When it comes to reviews themselves (whether in written or video form) I have a very different view on what actually makes a good review. I go into a review with the mindset that I want to know whether the movie is good or bad, to hear a few points to back up why it's good or bad and to hear what the presenter/writer thinks about it; I like them to be short and simple. For me, all of the extra things (like in-depth camera angle analysis and other advanced explanations) should really be put in separate videos that are geared towards people who have already watched the film but want to learn why the lighting was the way that it was, or why the camera angles are as they are. Yes, it's good to elaborate a bit on points made, but I don't think an in-depth explanation is needed. I am personally doing media studies at uni and have also learnt a lot of filmmaking concepts from the internet. Just because I know all of that stuff doesn't mean that I should necessarily overcomplicate reviews by putting everything that I know into the same video. I also don't know why you think the majority of the reviewers on KZbin are white guys in their 20s, there are lots of examples of people that aren't (Black Nerd Comedy, Black Critic Guy, Rachel's Reviews and Rotoscopers for example). Either way, every person has had a different life and interacts with different people so I doubt that all people of a certain age group or skin colour will be saying the same thing in their reviews.

[@paranormal17]

What's up with the white knighting in this video? "We can't just listen to white guys about Black Panther we gotta listen to PoC too" isn't that actually endorsing the whole echo chamber about Black Panther being some magnificent achievement in social progress ?

[@Simon-ow6td]

No white knighting in sight in this video, and no it isn't an echo-chamber effect unless you already only/mostly consume PoC content/critics. He is saying; broaden your horizons and take in a broader spectrum of perspectives. The Black Panther is just an easy example as it is kind of obvious that African-American critics could have a valuable imput and point of view, given that the movie deals with racially charged topics and integrates a lot of black history and themes into its narrative. Something the average white critic more than likely knows much less about on average.

[@l.tc.5032]

Your perspective is yet another reason why I actually agree with Brie Larson's efforts to widen her press demographic. She's absolutely right we need more perspectives cause honestly right now they're pretty homogeneous.

[@Dougurasufilm]

@@eidolon1426 Upbringing and culture has plenty of perspective that is interesting and that can differ in people ethnicities. Thinking critically isn't everything. Experience and perspective is. I'm going to assume you're white and male, so correct me if I'm wrong (I'm also white and male). But you don't know what it is to be a woman, you have no idea what it's like to be asian, black, indian, or european. It doesn't impact their ability to think critically, that is hardly the point. It gives perspective, and perspective makes your world bigger and your understanding broader.

[@Dougurasufilm]

​@@eidolon1426 I still don't agree with you. And yeah, I told you that I was assuming and that if I was wrong you should correct me. You... didn't really correct me, other than say I was wrong, but that's fine. You have really not heard what Patrick is saying, I think. Films aren't JUST "the problem with the eagles" or prop placement and flaws. Movie critcism ISN'T about pointing out flaws or plotholes. That's surface level. You're right, you don't have to have a specific ethnicity to point things like that out. Talking about what feeling a film gives you, or talking about cultural rammifications a film has and then explaining how the film handles it IS linked to the person you are. There's a broader way to criticisize and experience movies than pointing out surface level flaws. A good example of a flaw/plothole that doesn't really matter is the T-rex ambushing the group in the finale of Jurassic Park. Usually the T-rex creates minor earthquakes so there's no way he could've ambushed them like he did. But it doesn't matter. You can point it out, but if it bothers you to the extent that it ruins that scene for you, then I don't think you'll enjoy a lot of films.

[@Dougurasufilm]

@@eidolon1426 I still fundementally disagree on many things you're saying (not all though) :o I will agree with you that the bribing critics thing is something I didn't really buy. I also agree that telling someone their music is perfect when it isn't, it will hurt that artist in the long run. Something I do not agree on is that box-office constitutes a good movie. That people liking a movie constitutes a good movie. Marvel films score super high, but they aren't good movies per se. The Shining IS a good movie (let's be real here, though, that's of course still an opinion, but I think I can assume that that's kind of a consensus), but it's really not an audience pleaser. Then you have The Room. LOTS of people watch that and lots of people enjoy it, but you won't hear many people say that it was a GOOD movie. Quality and audience reception do not always go hand in hand. I also would like to state that objectively different people can still come to different conclusions. You can say that something is a plothole of course, but not everyone has to agree that it is. If we go back to the Jurassic Park example, because it's a good example, you can say "it's a plothole, cause I didn't hear the footsteps and neither did they!". Or you could say "with so much going on, the footsteps didn't register with both the audience and the characters". Both are legit and have enough points that they can be argued. Objectivity isn't necessarily clear-cut. Sometimes people feel that conforming to what's good (say in composition of a shot) makes a film better, but others say that diverging from the norm can be better and more refreshing (say a composition that's ugly to say something about what's happening in the shot, for example to say that a certain character is off-kilter mentally, to make up an example on the spot). And this is the stuff that's filled in with experience and perspective. To say that there is one true film truth is just not true. Also, a film can absolutely be commended and lauded on visuals alone. Writing ISN'T the end all, be all. Especially in movies that are told visually. That has pretty much nothing to do with actual writing. For example, the story and writing of Mad Max Fury Road isn't super great. However it's shot and edited VERY well. It's a movie that was written in storyboards, but that's not what writing is. Koyaanisqatsi is nothing BUT visuals, with a small piece of text at the end to give it more perspective. Is that a bad film cause it has basically no writing? Not at all! Was Gravity well written? Or was it more of an experience in the cinema? In any case. I think these might not exactly be counter-arguments. Movies have many perspectives, many ways to analyse them and nothing is really any worse or better than others. For me though... I think that audiences have become extremely critical and analytical. Plenty of older movies that are considered classics do not hold up to the same scrutiny as today's movies. With all the analyses and explanations of today's culture, it really sometimes destracts from movies. However, I too sometimes see plotholes that make me go "but wait... now I'm thinking about this plothole and that's actively ruining the movie for me." Does the fault lie with me? Or does it lie with the creators of the show or movie? I don't think there's a clearcut answer to this, not a black-and-white one. But as an example... do you think Holdo's magic lightspeed ramming maneuvre would've been accepted in say Return of the Jedi? Or A New Hope? Why would it be? Because of established canon? Where's the cutoff point? Is it because of the extended universe? Should we really care if it's a plothole? Or should we look down on people who aren't bothered by it? I don't feel like any of these have concrete answers. Not in a "alternative facts" kind of way, but this is fiction and basically art. Facts aren't grounded the same way in those worlds as they are in ours. Look, if you still disagree (which I think you will) that's fine. This is my perspective on the debate. I'm a filmmaker myself and I love to analyse stuff, but I'm far more interested in the why, than the how. Also none of what I say I think can be considered as absolute fact. This last paragraph is basically just to troll you, though, and it will most probably make you want to disregard my whole post and argument, which is part of my point. I liked The Last Jedi and I liked Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom :D If you cannot accept that someone does and can like those movies, then you will not understand any of my points. Later~

[@brettc6132]

This was a great vid! My whole life I’ve gotten flak from friends and family for reading reviews. They would say that I can’t think for myself and that I just take the word of critics on whether or not I should like a film. And my whole life I would respond to this criticism with the fact that I didn’t base my opinions off of critical reviews, but I would use them to gain further insight by listening to what professionals with more understanding and knowledge of the medium and combining those insights with what I already felt about the film in order to have a more complete picture of the picture. If it’s not obvious by the size of this rant, this has bugged me for a LONG time lol. It’s funny that these people would constantly tell me that I don’t think for myself because I read reviews, when in reality I thought a lot more about the film in question than the person accusing me of not thinking for myself ever would. And this came up almost always over them asking why I didn’t enjoy a garbage movie that every critic had panned, and I could never understand why they thought I was incapable of coming to the conclusion that an obviously garbage movie was garbage. I’ve noticed that ppl with awful taste really hate crocs and dislike anyone that even reads reviews. I think reviews make them feel dumb for liking things they like, and so they get offended and lash out. But you’re not dumb if you like a movie that has poor reviews, or one that is just objectively bad. I do think you’re dumb, however, if you shut out other viewpoints just because they are critical, and if the reason you like this bad movie is because you aren’t trying to really watch it you’re just letting it happen. I’ve always referred to this as “passive viewing”, which is when you just watch a film without thinking about it or engaging in any way shape or form. When viewed this way, nearly everything that isn’t personally offensive to you is a good movie. “Active viewing” requires you to engage with and think about a film, which requires work on the part of the viewer. I find that the vast majority of ppl are passive viewers, and these are the ppl that don’t understand or become offended by film criticism. This is something I absolutely hold against ppl, because it shows a closed mindedness that I just can’t abide. So when a relative or friend tells me I’m closed minded or too lazy to think for myself because I read reviews, it’s particularly galling because the reality is that I’m really thinking a lot about the movie in question and they haven’t bothered to think on any deeper level than, “was it offensive to me? No? Great film!” I believe Patrick would say these ppl are “watching movies wrong”, and I’m so glad to hear someone say that since I’ve had a lifetime of hearing ppl yell me you can’t watch a movie wrong, but you totally can and most ppl do. I’m so glad to hear someone try to clarify the point of film criticism, but the types of ppl that need to hear this are the types that wouldn’t listen. Unfortunately, it’s hard to fight closed mindedness because you have to open your mind to have your views swayed by even the most compelling of arguments. But at least you’re trying, so thanks for fighting the good fight l, Patrick!

[@varinstar7]

The “straight white man” comment came out of nowhere, you didn’t even use it to make a point.

[@DeltaSpartan141]

It goes with the perspective point he makes minutes later with Black Panther as the prime example.

[@kevcroft2939]

Not really. He's just letting his racism and sexism show as he used it another handful of times.

[@filmaidan6490]

You know, I was just thinking about film critics and film criticism before clicking on this video. Just what I needed. Great content.

[@pjdougherty6442]

You might have a point about film criticism, that is to say, a journalistic critic like Roger Ebert may go more in depth about a movie than a non professional KZbin critic like Jeremy Jahns. I will, however, say that the idea that journalistic critics are inherently better and more professional than KZbin critics just doesn’t sound right to me. For example, most video game KZbin critics I watch go pretty in depth and make excellent points, but if I read ‘professional’ video game reviews on websites like IGN, all I get is poorly written advertisements. Is that what’s supposed to make me think deeply about the games I play? A brief description followed by a meaningless number? Written by some moron I know nothing about who might not even be credited? Someone who probably didn’t even play the game in question?

[@manelpedro9959]

i see where you come from, but illustrating with examples from a wholly different industry doesn't really work here i think. The nature of video game reviews and film criticism is quite different as well. what i look for to know about the games i'll be buying is more superficial and practical than what i want to take from a movie critique.

[@pjdougherty6442]

Manel Pedro Fair enough. Honestly, I’m just one of those nerds who wants to see the artistic possibilities of games explored, but most games seem to be treated like toys to keep the kids entertained. It’s because of this that we’ll probably never see another game like Silent Hill 2, rich with detailed symbolism and an emotionally complex story.

[@IAmGeorgeLucas]

"I'm shocked that my followers who found me on KZbin would tend to prefer critics on the same website"

[@lorisbauer9053]

After that last bit before the end (the Cinemasins-thing), I am interested what your opinion on channels like CinemaWins is. I personally adore the sheer positivity he brings to most of the movies he talks about. I am also aware that such a subjective take on movies, like forcing yourself to like stuff about them, is not film criticism it is just entertainment. I am only curious whether you think that this, in some cases, forced positive outlook is hurting the way people perceive movies? Thanks in advance and Greetings from Germany

[@pennyomega7421]

Loris Bauer I don’t like the channel. It’s great to have some positivity but the channel’s gimmick is to basically like everything just like cinemasins’ is to hate everything. Which is bullshit

[@hillz_anesu]

I am a 23 year old guy from Zimbabwe in southern Africa and I love Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckman. I think I get the reason why this video was done and I understand how traditional film criticism is a form of respectable artform in its own right but the truth of the matter is the majority of people who watch movies especially from where I'm from, do so just for fun and are not concerned about why the cinematography looks great or what exactly certain shots or scenes mean, they just wanna have a good time. For those reasons, I think it makes sense that people just go whatch a spoiler free review on KZbin to determine if watching a certain movie is worth their time and money and it's great that we can do so nowadays. I personally whatch the reviews on KZbin from the guys being criticized in this video and l almost agree with their every review and yet I'm the total opposite of the typical white 20-30 something year old white dude being mentioned in this video lol so I don't know what that means lol. But I guess my point is KZbin reviews aren't a bad thing as this video may be making them out to be, it's just a shame that they're unintentionally affecting the traditional film critics. P.S I love CinemaSins and I don't think they're trying to be serious film critics. They just have fun with pointing out mistakes in movies and I absolutely love what they do especially to my favorite ones because I know it's for fun... Oh and I also love your video essays on film so I'm not just criticizing this video for the sake of doing so...

[@Simpson17866]

I think one thing that could help Rotten Tomatoes would be if the rating was 2-dimensional - "quality" and "enjoyability" - and if the results were mapped on a scatter-plot. The Star Wars prequels, for example, would have lots of dots across the "High enjoyability, low quality" through "Medium enjoyability, low quality" to "Low enjoyability, low quality" edge of the chart (Richard Brody 6:44-7:10 would be one of the few voices to say "High quality, high enjoyability")

[@Dildonic2]

Patrick is totally correct, we need people from Walanda to review Black Panther to truley know of its good or not.

[@Vitruvian42]

I am a white guy in my 20s/30s, and I vehemently disagree with everything you've said. I don't think the same way you do just because we're the same race, in case that's news to anyone.

[@BrianBrecker]

Fav critics, Chris Stuckman, Bob, Ebert, Roeper, Siskel

[@RowanJColeman]

Haha yes, love the jab at CinemaSins at the end there :)

[@ShinbrigTV]

I did hear once from John Campea that "your favorite movie critic is the one you disagree with".

[@cambodianz]

I really enjoy your videos, man. I thought you brought up a lot of points that I too have had regarding film criticism and the consequences (good and bad) of internet culture elevating everyone's opinions. I agree with about 95% of everything you said here, but I think the 5% issue is a large one and I'm gonna try and point out some troubles in it. You're a smart dude making videos that educate people on the arts, so to me you're doing the lord's work and I'm gonna try not to be too indulgent in criticizing your take on criticism. This also isn't an attack on you or anything like that, but I think there is a need to push back on the part you bring up mentioning that it's important to seek out views from people who look differently than you. Not only do I think this is the most shallow metric for finding great ideas, it also carries a bigotry that people of a certain identity have uniform opinions and a monopoly on certain ideas and insights. I don't care at all about the race or gender of the person expressing their take on art, nor would anyone who isn't racist or sexist. My favorite film critic is Elvis Mitchell, and I think he's probably the only person in his field who could probably make a great film if he chose (of course I'm speculating, he might make something worse than Ebert's Beyond The Valley of the Dolls). I respect his knowledge and his ability to enlighten the way you mentioned are great aspects of criticism. One of the reasons I love him so much was from seeing him dissect the use of movie posters in Inglorious Basterds and how they parallel certain themes of the film which acted as bread crumbs and got me rewatching that film, thinking about all the other things going on. After which I regarded that film as Tarantino's most rich and layered work (still do). This was a film set in WWII where a bunch of white people are fighting a bunch of white people and a black man had the most elevated take on the material. His race wasn't relevant to his insights. His vast knowledge of film and film history was relevant. His merit as a scholar was relevant. Also, the most in depth and nuanced take on Black Panther (especially the film's politics) the I've ever heard came from two white dudes. Because they understand film and politics deeply. I think it's really important to seek out ideas that differ from yours and think you're absolutely correct there, but I think it's quite toxic to state that people who look different automatically think different. A critics identity is the least important and most superficial aspect of their qualifications in dissecting art or ideas or culture. Again, I think you're videos are fucking great. You're obviously really intelligent and passionate about film and I'm glad you're putting well crafted content into the world. Thank you. However, I do see some holes in your idea about who you should seek out to diversify your tastes. I think you've got some bugs in a specific part of your software and really hope you reconsider them. Thanks for listening to my long winded critique. P.S. Cinemasins IS fucking garbage.

[@leighcochran7303]

Thanks for reminding me of Elvis Mitchell, obviously a smarter person than many directors and movie producers! Might I suggest my favorite critic, James Verniere of the Boston Herald (an otherwise worthless tabloid that once was pretty all right). He mostly shares my taste. Isn't that what we all want in a critic? LOL

[@Kfox0963]

Love the burn on Cinema Sins. Totally agree. I follow a channel called Cinema Wins which, while sometimes a bit simple, does delve deeper into how movies operate. Definitely worth a watch.

[@swivelmaster]

Two notes: 1: LINDSEY ELLIS 2: Why is your milk just sitting out on your desk? What are you, some kind of savage?

[@Ebrahim_17]

... shes 30 though! and awesome.

[@Jonmad17]

Lindsey Ellis is an essayist like Patrick himself. She's not a film critic.

[@Thagomizer]

Why would you give a shit about the race of a reviewer? Race isn't a monolith.

[@TheFitchproductions]

I must say, thank you Patrick for your recent shift to all types of different content. Your videos inspire me to create more .

[@Phronesis7]

The majority of those reviews are such echo chambers that I’m always annoyed at the way they waste my time so I’ve learned to just stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Two or three different review channels harped on the same “plot inconsistency” complaint which actually wasn’t-at all- and even I caught that.

[@MatBones]

I basically never comment on KZbin, but this might be your best video and I might just keep the URL around to weaponize it. Thanks for this and don't ever hesitate to discuss topics that critize the "easy route" often taken online. Cheers!

[@rpeters330]

Thank you for uploading today it made my day a lot better

[@yuothineyesasian]

Is this replacing Half in the Bag?

[@yuothineyesasian]

Also, WTF is with this fuckin' "white dude in his 20's" bullshit?

[@TheGeorgeD13]

It's not bullshit. It's literally the most prevalent film critic point of view we have on KZbin. It leads to a lot of the same/similar opinions. Variety is the spice of life. Plus, people in their 20s rarely know what they're talking about most of the time. They're still trying to figure out shit.

[@yuothineyesasian]

So you're saying all whiteys think alike... I think Stuckmann and Jahns are shallow, pretentious asshats. But a lot of other "white guys" think so too and they don't need a person of color to tell them that or what fucking movies to watch. Pull your head out of your ass.

[@1324Potato]

YouthInEyesAsian if him saying race triggers you then just use age. Would a 20 something and a 60 something have the same exact takeaways from a film?

[@mitchellhorton9382]

It's not about being told "what movies to watch" it's listening to people with different backgrounds to see what they gathered from movies.

[@thejunkface]

I think a large problem is also modern audiences. People tend to have their minds made up about what a movie is going to be before they even go, and if it doesn’t line up with that, they hate it. I also never hear my peers in the real world talk about what things meant or how it made them feel; it’s all just “that part was sick” or “that movie was the worst thing ever.”

[@nisferatu]

Being a Brit, I only learned about Roger Ebert after his passing. I have now got into the habit of reading his review of any old film that I am watching or rewatching.

[@avanishdutta2658]

Although He wasn't always right, his writings in criticisms have been influential for film enthusiasts and critics all over the world. He was wrong on many of the classic films(or great or really good films from the past) he reviewed. Movies like Brazil, The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, Edward Scissorhands, A Clockwork Orange were actually disliked by ebert on the first time, although i believe he might have viewed them a second time and loved them. BUT, Art is Subjective(he himself has said that many times) so it always is, as it exists for generations to come. That's it.

[@zero1188]

major issues i have with critics is they give synopsis. there no reason to watch if they dont talk about specific stuff that happened in the movie.

[@Titleknown]

TBH, I got a hypothesis that people don't watch critics for that kind of deeper commentary you talk about because that's what they watch video essayists for. And the consumer reporting and critical-deep-dive functions of criticism seem to be diverging. I also hypothesize that this is because of how game journalism did/is doing the same thing, and ultimately since gaming culture kinda made the major leap to dominance online (Which I'd also hypothesize as being heavily due to emulation) and the way in which the original "template" for game reviews as just consumer reports via the magazines jumped that way too, film criticism online has kinda been molded into that format. Which, if true, does say some interesting things. But, it's only a hypothesis for now...

[@Titleknown]

Also TBH I think, while the charges of "being out of touch with the public" can often be dogwhistling anti-intellectualism, I'll also say that the contempt for a lot of the audience shown in a lot of critical theory-y circles; like say original-sinner Theodor Adorno who I hate WITH A PASSION; trickles down and tends to create an adversarial relationship with the audience and their tastes in a way that is wildly unproductive. See also: The refusal to understand why; say; the DC film fanbase still engages with these films that are; in a lot of ways; terrible in terms that aren't flat-out dismissive and contemptuous. I mean, again, the critics are probably right that they're bad, but the refusal to engage with why people still like them speaks volumes. And, furthermore they also ignore the economic aspects of why people get so defensive of what they like, IE because of the fear that if what they like falls out of favor; the corporate overlords will stop making it in favor of something more popular/profitable, and it makes me so angry to see critics act like their criticism exists in a vaccuum and never address that; instead of trying to change the circumstances that cause that toxic capitalist dynamic. Of course, I'm speaking as a leftist-populist autistic man whose special interests have commonly been dismissed as trash by Adorno-worshipper-types, so there's that bias there...

[@chuckberry6650]

Thomas Johnson damn. This should be top comment. EDIT: I've commented on your Betty Boop video. Check that out.

[@meredithsutton1485]

Thank you for mentioning CinemaSins and how bad they are! I want to see more KZbinrs decrying their garbage. Now I have to go read that one guy who likes the Star Wars prequels best...

[@TheGerkuman]

I think the most valid reason to listen to people with similar opinions to yourself, is when you know what your opinion is but you can't work out why. Listening to others explain why they think what they think can help a person work out why they think what they think. But then, after one's own opinion is understood, it's time to listen to the opinions of others who disagree or know more than we do, because we now have a stable platform to compare against.