This post is pretty much off-the-cuff, though it’s definitely something that I’ve been thinking about for a while now, and partially because of a recent discussion at Film Junk. I’m curious what everyone thinks about the subject.
Anyways, film criticism. Lately I’ve been wondering what the “job” of a film critic is to the majority of people. Is it…
a) To inform people what films they should watch or avoid
b) To expound in detail on a particular film
c) A combination of the two
I think, for the most part, that my film reviews have fallen into the last category. Along with that, toss in the factor of how much information (spoilers) should be included in the review. With option a) there would typically not be many, because most people haven’t seen the film yet, with option b) people have seen the film and want to discuss it further.
So I was thinking it might make more sense to end up writing two seperate reviews of the film. The first would be reduced to the bare essentials (synopsis, personal take, initial reaction, etc.) and the second would be a more indepth discussion about the film including spoilers.
What do you look for in reviews typically?