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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

I loved how he called out CinemaSins. Hilarious 😂

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 KZfaqr 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.

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

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.

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

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

"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.

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

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 KZfaq 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.

Mark Kermode and Alonso Duralde are my favourite critics.

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

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

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

**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.

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

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.

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

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

Many of the KZfaq film “critics” are what I call bro critics. It’s more like a friend telling you about a film. Kinda sucks they are replacing traditional film critics.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I love your videos Patrick, but this argument was pretty reductive in my opinion. I also read written reviews myself, and I understand where you're coming from in terms of KZfaq reviews lacking depth. However, you're completely neglecting the difference between criticisms and reviews. A critic analyzes a work and expounds upon it, whereas a reviewer gives a recommendation - watch or don't. I watch Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckmann's reviews before seeing a movie to get an idea of if I'll enjoy it, then dig into written ones once I've seen it (one thing you neglected to mention is written critics are much more cavalier about spoiling things). That way I go in with a good idea of what I'm getting, and afterwards have some deeper written material to dig in to. They serve different purposes, which I don't feel you bothered addressing that well.

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!

Loved this video, Patrick. Amazing work.

Hmm... a bunch of straight white guys in their 20s-30s... I wonder if he’s includ- “I’m not talking about Bob Chipman.” Cool. :-P

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

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.

Yms is great

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)

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.

I’m a film critic and I really want to thank you. I’ve found myself in every single words of yours. We struggle everyday to watch Movies and analyse them under a social, historical and technical point of view. Our aim is not just suggesting or not a movie, but to educate our readers in an easiest way possibile. So yeah. Thank you.

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

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

I think video reviews work better than written reviews for films and TV shows since you can have clips of the movie/show in the review

"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.

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 KZfaq, exactly? I want ways to think about film, that's it - and many a 20-something year old white guy on KZfaq can teach me exactly that.

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

Absolutely, positively right fucking on. I love that he’s reading the Cahiers du Cinema compilation of essays at the beginning (there are a few volumes). It’s required reading for anyone who really loves movies.

Yassss I needed this in my life. My two favorite film critics are Christy Lemire and Alonso Duralde, but after seeing this I really want to broaden my circle of critics, and I'll definitely check out some of the people you've suggested.

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

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.

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.

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

But what about Mr. Plinkett and his pizza rolls😢

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.

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.

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

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 😆

I completely understand what you're saying, and you're kind of right. But I do think that these "KZfaq 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 "KZfaqrs" 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.

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

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.

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

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

The worst thing is that the channels of negative criticism and that promote hatred towards movies and series from Disney, Warner Bros, Netflix, Dreamworks such as Astro Recargado, Zowl and Dross are still on KZfaq and to make matters worse, no one does anything to denounce these horrible and inhuman channels. 

What is your opinion on Redlettermedia - aside from their meme stuff, only their movie criticism?

Hey Patrick I just wanted to thank you for your videos, they are really entertaining and have their own identity. You sometimes even put a narrative on them. You are a great inspiration.

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

Hey could you add the list of reviewers you mention at the end to the description at all? Would make it a little bit more accessible for those of us who are interested in looking them up. Keep up the good work... thanks!

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 KZfaq criticism such as the animation community.

I do understand your point of view, but I think it's a bit unfair to box written reviews and KZfaq 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 KZfaq 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 KZfaq 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.

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....

this video is gold, thanks for making it!

Nice video, thanks for the critics suggestion :) I also like to watch movie critics on KZfaq that seem to know what they're talking about like "Just Write" or "Lessons from the screenplay" because I like to know what make me like a certain movie or what makes a movie that I didn't like a great movie, in all cases it gives me a better appreciation of the art piece.

How does the race, sex, or sexual preference of a person factor into the quality of their criticism? I'm black and Arab, does this mean that I can't learn much by listening to other black or Arab 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?

I used to like Cinema Sins years ago, now they are sludge that I do my best to avoid.

Absolutely fantastic video. I've found myself disagreeing with you many times but that doesn't make me hate you or think less of you, it makes me realize that people have different opinions and that's a great thing. I have been able to learn so much from you because you think differently than me. Don't stop making fantastic content

I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to people seeking critics who echo their own thoughts. The written reviews are almost always better than vlog movie reviews.

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."

So inviting mainstream critics to huge LA premiers with gift bags and a chance to see films early surrounding by famous people isn't buying people off? Maybe it isn't, but it certainly can't hurt the reviews.

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.

Curious what you think about A.O. Scott as a film critic after I didn't see him on your list.

Cinema Wins on the other hand!!!

Say that Cinemasins is, in some way, film criticism is like saying HISHE is film criticism. They're not. They're just entertainment channels, they make comedy.

As someone who follows a bunch of different channels that do the kind of criticism that Patrick Willems and Bob Chipman do, one possible reason why movie reviews don't contain as much deeper analysis of those kinds of films is that those analysis videos tend to be their own thing. As in, some videos and/or channels do quick takes on whether they liked a movie or you will, versus others that just focus on analyzing cinematography, writing, or some other aspect of film technique, sometimes on a new movie and other times on an older one. So it may be that viewers are still getting both, but in different places.

So much of this is applicable to comics criticism too! I’m curious what would be some recommendations for actual “good comics critics” that look at form and story rather than Easter eggs or origin stories

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

Rotten tomatoes is a great site cause it gives you a list of all critics reviews... to bad people just glance at the percentage.

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.

After 3 semesters of film studies I gotta admit, classical reviews can be awesome. I love me some Bazin and Sontag. But.....some of the video essay reviewers really can surprise me with their quality. If I were taking those classes now, I probably would be citing Lindsay Ellis, Bob Chipman, Every Frame a Painting, and Cracked After Hours right and left.