The Courier Class

The announcement that Ebert and Roeper would no longer be doing the show "At The Movies" has brought about some discussion over whether the movie critic on TV would ever be big again. Personally, I think the discussion should be more about the state of the film critic in general.

To me, the "Thumbs Up/Down" and celebrity status of Siskel and Ebert did a great detriment to most film reviewers. And let's be honest, there are few actual film "critics" out there who really engage films and really break them apart and analyze them. Most film writers are reviewers and I believe Siskel and Ebert highlighted a key problem with today's reviewers; they think of themselves rather than realizing that they are in a service industry.

I am pretty harsh on films but when people ask me if they should see a film, I often hedge. The reason is that I know that what I like isn't what everyone likes and I'm not going to discuss a film the same way with everyone. I'm not going to recommend a foreign film to my friend who likes Snow Dogs, nor am I going to recommend a gross out comedy to a girl who thinks any comedy in English is low brow. Unfortunately, most reviewers simply state their own personal opinion, which doesn't really helping anyone out since all that tells us is the reviewers taste, not whether the reader would like the movie. I think a film reviewer should, whether they liked a film or not, try to hazard a guess at who would like the film or even explain how people should watch it so that they can enjoy it. The last part of that is key. I went in to "Live Free or Die Hard" being told that I should basically expect a superhero movie and that it was in no way, shape, or form realistic. Because of that, I had a blast. If I went in expecting a somewhat realistic film, I might have been disappointed. As it is today, film reviews are little more than half-assed film criticism with writers focusing on their opinions and then throwing a few film theories in the mix to support their stance. And, more often than not, film reviewers simply do not share the same taste or expectations as the general public so it's all moot anyways.

If I was going to put together a Movie Review show, I'd probably stack it wth 5 "normal" people, preferably from different parts of the country. Get a conservative mother/housewife, a hipster, a truck driver, a doctor, etc.  Try to get five people who can bring different opinions to the table. Also, I'd let the conversations really play out. Maybe they don't focus on the film but stray into censorship or violence at the films. And the show would basically act as an ad for the website where each reviewer could place their full reviews of films, give their own suggesions, etc.. We could also have a Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic type critic roundup as well (along with message boards discussing films, giving suggestoins, etc.). Also, I'd have, on the site, some actual deeper, more thoughtful film criticism and discussion. Not only would this be good for the people who are really into film and like dissecting what they see on the silver screen but having it on the site might help others start to open their eyes to the bigger picture so they could perhaps enjoy the artsier films out there. (Similarly, some snotty hipsters could read some of the reviews and learn how to sit back and enjoy some of the simpler movies).

To me, it's time that we take the film review/criticism and have it catch up with film marketing and become a multi-media platform. Also, if the show is syndicated and the core is on the net, that can also keep the studios from interfering and maintaining the integrity of the reviews.

So while many may bemoan the loss of Ebert and Roeper, I hope that it could bring about a new day of film reviews, an era in which reviewers are more into delivering a service than becoming a celebrity with their own show. Hopefully, this will also help spur a new era of film criticism where people actually break down and address the new movements in film.