Do film critics ever 'dial it in' without properly (or actually) watching the film?
I love Mark Kermode as a critic, normally, but for his review of Triangle of Sadness (imo a great film!) I don't think he was paying attention, or was even there.
When David Lynch’s “Inland Empire” first came out, my friend invited me to come with for a screening. The film had barely started when I heard a loud snore in the empty cinema: he had fallen asleep. Woke up a couple of minutes before the credits rolled.
The review was published a couple of days later - it was as good and engagingly written as it could be, and if I didn’t know, I’d never have guessed he just actually slept through it all.
Interesting to see this on HN, I'd be curious to know OP's rationale, but I'm glad they posted it.
Film criticism itself has suffered greatly in recent memory; at the end of the day, whatever trouble a critic might have gone to to watch, process, and articulate their thoughts on a given film is now reduced almost entirely to a number on Rotten Tomatoes.
Good movie criticism is alive and well. You simply need to expand your vision beyond anyone who relies on Rotten Tomatoes or (probably) Letterbox. That's probably not it.
Youtube is a great place to start looking. It has a lot of trash, but there are some extraordinary essayists and writers giving robust and insightful looks into films new and old.
These channels (expect for #2) all diverge from straightforward reviews, but what they give you are the tools to articulate what the film is doing, how it is doing it, and therefore equip you to become your own critic. Someone capable of thinking critically.
I think a bit problem with any kind of art criticism in 2026, especially on YouTube, is audience capture. It's rare to find analysis that examines a piece as it is without dipping into some kind of political angle. A few channels try, but you get more clicks by choosing a side in the culture war and catering to those that agree with you. Once you go down this road, woe be to you if you stray from the path - your audience will turn on you in an instant.
I think this effect is worse on YouTube because YouTube creators live or die by the algorithm. There's no organization backstopping them if they publish something their audience doesn't like.
Film Crit Hulk continues to put out good essays on film and much more besides, over on Patreon [1]. I agree that finding good critique is hard now that we're past the heyday of magazine critique.
I think Dan Olson and Folding Ideas is doing a fantastic job of bringing thoughtful criticism to all kinds of modern media, most recently Mr. Beast Games.
Does film criticism even matter anymore? There used to more cost and friction associated with watching a movie and so good critics provided a useful gatekeeping service. But now with most people using streaming services (or pirating) if you don't like something it's easy to turn it off and watch something else.
Not sure what OPs reasoning was but you have to wonder if this far-more-human type of film criticism will see a revival in the age of AI assisted writing.
I always like to remind people that before talk heads were battling it out on cable news or ESPN we had Siskel and Ebert shaking things up. They made me realize that movies could carry subtext, nuance and meaning. They made reading ABOUT movies more interesting.
Siskel and Ebert the TV show was a good example of the dumbing down of criticism; that trend started already before the internet age. The twentieth-century American television medium simply didn't allow much informational depth and nuance. (Edit: after I posted this comment, I saw that the show's Wikipedia article notes that it attracted such criticsm, so it's not just my own opinion.) Ebert's newspaper criticism was rather better.
The problem with "criticism" from the perspective of the average person is that "Is this film worth my time and money" isn't really a question criticism answers. The linked article touches on this when it bemoans "the consumer guide approach" but until we firmly separate criticism from reviewing we're bound to keep going around and around on this.
I think that's not true for me and a lot of other people. If I read a specific criticism/review of a movie or book I often make a decision not based on good/bad but based on what the criticism is about. If a movie has slow pacing for example, I might be ok with that depending on the mood I'm in.
I'm not sure what you mean by separating review from criticism. Can you expand on that?
> I'm not sure what you mean by separating review from criticism. Can you expand on that?
Let's start with applying both to "Eraserhead":
A critical approach might have a thesis on how it links with Lynch's interest in Buddhism and how those concepts surface in the film, how different events and characters in the film can be read through that lens and how the resolution of the film makes sense in a Buddhist context. Absolutely none of this tells you whether the person who watched the film was enraptured by it from the first scene or whether they got through it out of academic obligation and immediately bitched about it on social media afterwards. Criticism has a thesis about a work and defends it, which doesn't usually involve how enjoyable the work is.
A review of "Eraserhead" would tell you about the experience of watching it, whether the person writing the review thought it was a well-constructed and engaging film, and maybe some thoughts on how much sense they made of it, but the analysis wouldn't be the focus. Thumbs up, thumbs down, that's the meat.
It's entirely possible to mix the two realms, but there's a difference in focus and intent. The better YouTube channels (Folding Ideas) mix the two quite deftly, in fact, but I'd put Folding Ideas in the realm of criticism more than reviewing because he does tend to have a thesis and defends it in addition to saying how much he enjoyed (or, more often, didn't) the films he talks about.
For example, in his video about The Nostalgia Critic's review of Pink Floyd's movie The Wall (that is, his video about another person's review of a band's movie made from their rock opera album) his thesis is that the person behind The Nostalgia Critic character is creatively stalled and fundamentally lazy. He defends this thesis while lambasting the video he's talking about, but the thesis is centered. That's criticism.
I'll be honest, I tired of the article after a while, but I found your AI summary to be unrewarding. In the few paragraphs I read I got a feeling for some of Hamrah's personality. I don't think I would have expected that given the summary.
The thing about summaries is they should give you enough information to tell you what you are about to read, and if that would be something you are interested in pursing. It gives your brain some context of something to latch onto when you start reading.
"He Lost It at the Movies" means nothing to me, and even after I knew what the article was about still means nothing to be, it's no more than click bait. The summary on the other hand, gives you enough context to know what the writer was even trying to write about.
> Do people really just go around reading large blocks of random text they find on the internet hoping they'll find it interesting?
Yes. That's why I'm on substack. Good writing can be a pleasure to read even if it's about something I don't care all that much about. A summary can tell you about the subject matter, but fails to capture the quality of the writing itself.
To put it another way: I'd rather read an idlewords post about taking a Russian boat to the Antarctic[1] - something I care little about as a subject - than read AI generated slop about some Python programming subject that's immediately relevant to my career.
I guess you are not alone in wanting to fill you mind with random bits of nothing; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48269580 <-- here is an article voted up that is just a list of random host names with no context to anything else.
I have seen an a stunningly large amount of anti-intellectualism on HN recently, but suggesting that writing as whole has no more value than a random list of words has to be really quite up there
The post with the random hostnames was ranked higher than this post of "intelligently meaningful words", so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
also taking: "suggesting that writing as whole has no more value than a random list of words" from me just saying it'd be nice to know what I was reading before I spent the time reading it seems kind of melodramatic.
"...came to widespread attention in the late 2000s..." Weird. I thought we were all living in the year 2026, which seems like the early 2000s to me. Huh...
Nope. 2000s would refer to the century. We're still in the 2000s and still early. The Wright brothers flew the first plane in the early 1900s. Accurate. Ford introduced the Model T in the late 1900s, inaccurate. 1908 was not the late 1900s.
I love Mark Kermode as a critic, normally, but for his review of Triangle of Sadness (imo a great film!) I don't think he was paying attention, or was even there.
See here https://youtu.be/ciJnhGNPS60 am I right?
reply