Mark Kermode

Does he really hate everything? He's flooded some mindless tweeny rubbish with love before. Whilst he often favours the pretentious, never forget that he adored Mamma Mia, High School Musical 3 and Twilight.
 
You're a marketing man's dream.
Unfortunately not everyone has the time and/or cash to see every flick they might be interested in at the cinema.
Reading reviews can be entertaining and sometimes infuriating if you disagree. Doesn't mean you can't make your own mind up at the end of the day.
Having said that, the cult of Metacritic is getting out of hand.
 
We rely on reviewers to avoid wasting time on films that should not have escaped the studio. There are plenty of films hyped up and mis-represented on release in trailers, faux-recommendations, and engaging tag lines that are superior to their hackneyed plot.

He is clearly knowledgeable and independent offering intelligent insights though IMO he gets a little too smug in front of a camera. The two sides are shown here http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2009/05/tautou_290509.html , on his blog where he is (deliberately) pompous and savage and his amusing follow up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2009/06/tautou2_030609.html.

The problem for professional critics is they see far too many films compared to the rest of us so their tastes become ever more refined. They really have seen it all before.
 
Precisely.

Some people just don't seem to understand the purpose of critics. Kermode doesn't just read out a list of films and tell you whether or not you should like them, he critiques them. He explains why (he thinks) they're good or bad, what he perceives the problems with the film are, what he feels are the film's strong points etc.

And like you say, his taste is refined in the same way that a food critic's tastes are refined. You just have to understand that - just as you might happily drink a bottle of wine a professional critic would hate - you might enjoy a film that all the critics hate.

You just have to know who the critic is and how his or her tastes match with yours. If Kermode rants about a big dumb action film, there's a good chance I'll feel the same way about it. If he dislikes a comedy, however, I'll take his review with a pinch of salt.
 
Critics are great just for gathering opinions in order to make and informed decision, however many critics have proven they are not infallible and get something wrong which indicates perhaps they did not watch the film closer.

I take a single Ebert review as a case in point. Very reputable as a critic, but I think perhaps he neeRAB to rewatch the Eagle Has Landed. Not an Oscar worthy film by any stretch, but he discounted the film almost entirely because had no sympathy for Steiner and his men and called them Nazis. If he had watched the film he would have learned that Steiner was an avid anti Nazi who had a stronge distate of the SS and indeed had him in one scene saving the life of a fleeing Jewish girl (who was later gunned by by the SS) and as a result he was posted, along with his men, to a penal regiment.

Now it may not sound important and it may seem like I am crying over spilt milk here, but Steiner was a noble soldier who followed the correct protocols as laid out by the Geneva convention (something the SS and Gestapo spat on) and Ebert ignored this. It was important to have a sympathy with Steiner and his men and not too look at him as an evil, immoral SS Nazi murderer.

For this reason I cannot take Ebert seriously anymore.
 
I certainly dont consider David Thomson, Pauline Kael, Dilys Powell , Barry Norman and Alexander Waker ( even in if he was wrong about The Devils) as "jumped -up nobodies".
 
From him yes. He just tries to dress it up. He's not a really good reviewer he is just interesting in promoting himself.
Unlike someone like Ebert, he likes movies, and he will treat them with respect even if he doesn't like the movie. Unlike Kermode who'll harass and insult everything from the people watching the movie to the people making them.
Hardly surprising he's on five live, the tabloid channel.
 
I don't think he does favour the pretentious. He likes well-made, entertaining films and that includes well-made entertaining foreign-language films, horror films, musicals, comedies, whatever. He is also fallible and sometimes doesn't get the point of a really enjoyable film (eg The Hangover) but here's the thing: if he recommenRAB an obscure foreign-language film, people might go to see it. If he disses a mainstream Hollywood film, people will still go to see it.
 
I kind of view Mark Kermode film reviewer and Mark Kermode five live entertainment gimp as two different people, though I do enjoy his five live rants I must say :D

I like both Kermode and while he's being mentioned Ebert as well, both are knowledgeable decent film reviewers for the most part if you ask me.
 
I like Kermode even if I don't agree with him at times, his reviews are pretty spot on and at times very funny. He is more biased towarRAB horror films but that not a bad thing as most critics tend to hate them and family films, he praised High School Musical 3 and thinks Mary Poppins is one of the best films ever made which I would agree with.
 
Kermode is very listenable but also very silly. Remember him going on and on about how the Harry Potter director had made a new film that's got a lot in common with... Harry Potter. Get over it, you're not fourteen years old, man, it's how the industry works.
 
I went to see him in Clapham last night - at the Picture House - he was doing a talk to promote his book - it was excellent - very funny and entertaining.
I find his Radio 5 show has become the highlight of my radio listening week - just now and then I wish he would focus a little more on the content/plot of a film - sometimes you come away knowing what he thinks about the director/actor/style etc but very little about the film.
But I can't fault last night - a well spent
 
Just listened to about half of his book (from itunes, unabridged). Just over 4 hours in one chunk.
Its pretty good so far, some nice stuff about 1980s manchester "leftie" student life and the "Sex Wars" in relation to pornography / right on ness etc.
He writes like he talks on the Mayo show, taking big diversions. I wouldnt say I was a HUGE fan, but I enjoy his musings, and this book has so far impressed me both with the writing and the chap himself.

:)
 
Back
Top