The life of a film critic is often perceived as glamorous, filled with premieres, exclusive screenings, and rubbing shoulders with Hollywood’s elite. While these moments do happen, the daily grind is a blend of rigorous analysis, deadlines, and a deep passion for cinema. Let’s dive deeper into the routine, responsibilities, and unique experiences of a film critic, drawing on the insights of members from the New York Film Critics Online (NYFCO).

Film critics have a unique role that straddles both the creative and analytical realms. They are tasked with not only watching and enjoying films but also dissecting them with a critical eye. This involves understanding the intricacies of film-making techniques, narrative structures, and character development. Critics need to be well-versed in film history and current industry trends to provide context in their reviews.

Additionally, the role of a film critic has evolved with the advent of digital media. Today’s critics are expected to maintain an active online presence, engage with their audience on social media, and sometimes even produce multimedia content such as video reviews and podcasts. This evolution has added layers of complexity to the job, making it more demanding but also more dynamic and far-reaching.

The Morning Routine: Setting the Stage

For many NYFCO members, the day begins with a review of industry news. Staying updated with the latest happenings in the film world is crucial. Critics scan through trade publications like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and online platforms such as IndieWire and Rotten Tomatoes. This helps them keep a finger on the pulse of upcoming releases, industry trends, and breaking news.

John Anderson, a veteran critic with NYFCO, shares:

“My mornings are about immersing myself in the world of film. I start with a coffee and catch up on the latest news, reviews, and sometimes re-watch trailers to remind myself of the films I’m reviewing that week.”

Beyond reading the news, critics also spend their mornings responding to emails and engaging with their audience on social media. This interaction is an essential part of their job as it helps them understand the audience’s preferences and opinions, which can influence their perspectives and reviews.

Mornings are also a time for planning and scheduling. Critics need to coordinate with publicists, arrange screening schedules, and plan their writing timelines. This administrative work ensures they meet deadlines and attend necessary events. The meticulous organization is key, especially during busy seasons such as film festivals and award cycles, where multiple screenings and deadlines can overlap.

The Screening Process: A Critical Eye

Screenings are the heart of a film critic’s job. Critics often attend multiple screenings a week, both at theaters and via online platforms. These screenings are sometimes accompanied by Q&A sessions with directors, actors, and producers, providing valuable context and insight into the filmmaking process.

Memorable Screening Experiences

Karen James, another NYFCO member, recalls a memorable screening experience:

“I remember attending a press screening for an indie film that went on to become a surprise hit. The director was there and gave an emotional talk about the challenges they faced. It added so much depth to my understanding of the film.”

During screenings, critics take notes, focusing on various elements such as direction, acting, cinematography, sound, and the screenplay. These notes form the backbone of their reviews. The screening process isn’t just about passive viewing; it involves active analysis and an ability to detach personal biases to evaluate the film on its merits.

Critics also compare their initial reactions with subsequent viewings, especially for complex films that might reveal more on a second or third watch. This thoroughness ensures a well-rounded and informed review. Additionally, attending festivals provides critics with a broader view of global cinema, exposing them to diverse storytelling techniques and cultural perspectives that enrich their critique.

Crafting the Review: Art and Analysis

Writing a review is a delicate balance of art and analysis. Critics aim to provide an objective assessment while also injecting their personal voice and perspective. A typical review process involves:

Drafting

Putting down initial thoughts and reactions. This stage is about capturing the raw emotions and immediate impressions a film leaves. Critics jot down what stood out to them, whether it’s a stellar performance, a gripping storyline, or a beautiful cinematographic moment.

Research

Gathering background information on the film, the filmmakers, and the context of the story. This includes reading interviews, behind-the-scenes articles, and previous works by the director and actors. Research provides the necessary context that can significantly enrich a review, making it more insightful and comprehensive.

Analysis

Breaking down the film into its core components, evaluating each aspect critically. This step involves looking at the technical elements like editing, sound design, and special effects, as well as thematic content such as underlying messages, symbolism, and cultural relevance. Critics also compare the film to others in its genre or the director’s previous works to evaluate its originality and contribution to cinema.

Revision

Refining the draft to ensure clarity, coherence, and engaging prose. Critics may rewrite several times, seeking feedback from peers or editors. This stage is crucial for fine-tuning arguments, ensuring logical flow, and eliminating any biases that might have slipped in. The goal is to produce a polished piece that is both informative and entertaining to read.

David Schwartz, a NYFCO critic known for his in-depth analyses, explains:

“I spend a lot of time revising my reviews. It’s not just about what I think of the film but also how I convey that to my readers. I want them to understand my perspective and see the film through my eyes.”

Publishing and Engagement: The Wider Impact

Once a review is published, the interaction doesn’t end there. Critics engage with their audience through comments, social media, and sometimes follow-up articles. They also participate in podcasts, panel discussions, and interviews, extending their influence and reaching a broader audience.

The impact of a critic’s review can be significant. A positive review from a respected critic can boost a film’s visibility and box office performance, while a negative review can deter potential viewers. Critics also play a crucial role in highlighting lesser-known films, bringing attention to indie gems that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Engagement with the audience is vital for a critic’s career. Through social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, critics can reach a global audience, sparking discussions and debates about films. This interaction not only builds their personal brand but also creates a community of film enthusiasts who look to them for guidance and recommendations.

Furthermore, critics often write follow-up articles or engage in public speaking events where they delve deeper into specific films or trends in the industry. These activities help them stay relevant and influential in the ever-evolving landscape of film criticism.

Tips for Aspiring Critics

For those looking to break into the world of film criticism, NYFCO members offer valuable advice:

Watch Broadly

Expose yourself to a wide range of films, including genres and styles outside your comfort zone. This broadens your perspective and enhances your ability to critique films with a well-rounded viewpoint.

Write Regularly

Practice writing reviews, even if it’s just for a personal blog. The more you write, the better you’ll get. Consistent writing helps refine your voice and style, making your reviews more distinctive and engaging.

Engage with the Community

Participate in film forums, attend festivals, and connect with other critics. Building a network is crucial for gaining insights, getting opportunities, and learning from others in the field. Engaging with the community also exposes you to diverse opinions and critiques, which can enrich your own work.

Stay Honest

Maintain integrity in your reviews. Your credibility is your most valuable asset. Always be honest about your opinions, even if they are unpopular. Integrity builds trust with your audience and industry peers.

Keep Learning

Study film theory, history, and criticism to deepen your understanding and enhance your reviews. Continuous learning helps you stay informed about new trends and techniques in filmmaking, making your critiques more relevant and insightful.

The Rewarding Path of a Film Critic

Despite the challenges and pressures, the role of a film critic is immensely rewarding. It offers a unique opportunity to engage with the art of cinema, influence public opinion, and contribute to the cultural conversation. As NYFCO continues to champion excellence and diversity in film criticism, its members remain dedicated to their craft, ensuring that the magic of movies is celebrated and scrutinized with passion and integrity.

Being a film critic allows one to be at the forefront of cultural discourse. Critics help shape the narrative around films, influencing how audiences perceive and appreciate cinematic works. They act as both gatekeepers and champions of quality cinema, ensuring that worthy films receive the recognition they deserve.

Moreover, film critics often develop a deep sense of community with other critics and film enthusiasts. This camaraderie is built on a shared love for cinema and a mutual respect for each other’s work. It provides a support system and a platform for collaborative projects, enriching the critic’s professional and personal life.

In conclusion, the journey of a film critic is filled with continuous learning, passionate engagement, and a profound impact on the film industry and its audience. The role goes beyond merely watching and reviewing films; it involves a deep commitment to understanding and interpreting cinema, thereby contributing significantly to the cultural tapestry.

The post Behind the Scenes: The Role of a Film Critic appeared first on Nyfco.

The world is at peace. Charles has accepted the role of mutant mentor and kindly offers them shelter. Erik has settled into an ordinary life in Poland. However, Mystique was not calmed by this phantom truce. On top of that, she has become a new symbol of freedom (after shooting Magneto in front of the Capitol) and a liberator of her fellow human beings.

But in the world of comics, there is no such thing as “all is well. The Apocalypse is coming. En Saba Noor, the first of the mutants equivalent to God, has been accidentally awakened. After watching two minutes of cable, he decides to destroy the world.

To be honest and frank, the plot of X-Men: Apocalypse” is barely breathing. In short, the situation is similar to the seventh episode of Star Wars: everything you see now has already been shown before. Bryan Singer tried to entertain the audience as best he could, but his ideas were questionable, to say the least. Due to Wolverine’s time travel, the events of the entire universe began to unfold differently. That’s why the writers came up with the idea to make a cut from the previous films in the franchise. You will see the famous base from X-Men 2, Logan’s transformation as in X-Men: Origins. Wolverine”, a certain self-repetition of the previous part (admit it, you missed Pietro), and the plot itself is suspiciously reminiscent of “X-Men: The Last Stand”. Seriously, the authors even subtly hint that the next installment will touch on the Dark Phoenix arc.

For me, the story is really sluggish. The filmmakers tried to standardize the crumpled X-Men universe with this movie, but it was a huge mistake. It’s like being invited to your grandparents’ house for New Year’s Eve, and you have to pretend to be surprised and delighted by a banal sweater in a huge box – that’s my impression of the plot. The screenwriters took on too much, tried to fit too much in, and it backfired on them. Even in Deadpool, the existence of the X-Men looked simple and organic. And here, you have a bunch of unnecessary characters who appear and disappear, too many loud phrases from the main villain’s mouth, and ‘unexpected’ plot twists (have you seen the trailers? Then it is not difficult to piece together the story while watching). Sometimes the amount of self-repetition (not to mention self-plagiarism) is infuriating.

Seriously, you kill people close to Magneto once again, and then he gets kinder again? Or the fact that the Professor only realized to train his students after several wars, a huge number of mutant chases, and the destruction of the world by the Sentinels? And Logan doesn’t remember anything again. Wouldn’t it be interesting if Wolverine recognized Jean Grey, whom he loved and killed? Why am I thinking for you, Bryan Singer? Where is the originality, maybe fresh ideas?

The main thief deserves a special mention. My God, how many transformations he has undergone, how many abilities he has taken on, but he hasn’t learned to think. He was once betrayed by his own subjects, and do you think he changed his strategy? Dzuski. Once again, Apocalypse is gathering a dream team to oppose him. But there are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. The Bible, the canon, and so on.

It’s sad to look at his idea. He wants to destroy the weak so that the strong can rise. Only with such methods, even his horsemen will not be long for the end. The “diversity” of his thoughts is unpleasantly surprising. Judge for yourself, most of his remarks boil down to “we will destroy the Earth,” “we will build a better world,” and so on.

Look at the motivation: to kill all living things because… think for yourself. For me, the Apocalypse remained completely unnoticeable, because it’s like a pale copy of Ultron, only Stark’s creation thinks well, jokes and hates its rivals. The oldest of the mutants has none of these traits. He’s like a lone wolf – he’ll smash everyone, but he hasn’t learned to use his powers rationally. En Saba Noor decided to move into Charles’ body to master his powers. Indeed, he needed a clear head.

What made me happy was the actors. Michael Fassbender did the best job, no doubt about it. His performance is really great and truly conveys Magneto’s pain and suffering. James McAvoy impressed with his hairstyle and got into the character. Evan Peters is a revelation for the X-Men (more on that later), and Lawrence is as good as ever. Oscar Isaac did a good job with the character, but there’s almost nothing for such a talented actor to play here. Among the newcomers, it is worth noting Sansa Grey as Jean Stark, who organically merged into the X-Men universe.

And now for the best part of the movie. It’s no secret that it’s Mercury. Every time he appears, he wows, to put it mildly. His benefit is the best moment of a superhero movie ever! It was worth going to the theater three times to see this movie just for his run through the school. It was so awesome, fun, creative. Every time he appears, he invigorates you like Red Bull. The movie even becomes interesting and exciting. His fun with the Apocalypse alone is worth it (it would have been more fun if the movie ended there).

As for the technical component, everything is good, but there is nothing outstanding. The special effects are good, though, except for the time dilation, which is just a standard set for such a movie. The music is pale – I don’t remember a single song from this movie (Sweet Dreams doesn’t count), although Is she with you from the B-side is still playing in my head. The costumes look interesting: the usual outfits are stylized in detail as the eighties, and the X-Men costumes are surprising. They are too canonical. There’s nothing wrong with that, but Superman was able to wear underwear under his pants, and everyone lived. The design demonstrates that the creators are stuck in a bygone era, as if the audience is living in the mid-nineties again.

The post X-Men: Apocalypse appeared first on Nyfco.

To be honest, Star Wars is not about plot twists at all. The first part of the saga is practically a space remake of Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress. The ending of the prequel trilogy (obviously) was known 22 years before the first movie was released. In fact, the most important thing about George Lucas’s world is the world itself. When we hear Star Wars, we imagine Jedi and Sith, lightsabers and blasters, spaceships and distant planets. The originality of this universe and the unbridled imagination of its creator made the original Star Wars films perhaps the biggest blockbuster in the history of cinema. And in many ways, they contributed to the failure of Lucas’ prequels. The films of the noughties were not much like their predecessors: space policy, advanced technology, a biological explanation of the mysterious “force,” an absurd amount of computer graphics (not a single real stormtrooper helmet!), and numerous rewrites of history scared off fans. But they once again emphasized the essence of “Wars” as the original author saw it: a melodrama set against the backdrop of a rich, diverse, distant Galaxy.

But Disney, after buying the rights to film the sequels from Lucas, decided otherwise for some reason. The company seems to have confused technical limitations with the creator’s vision. Someone decided that the spirit of Star Wars is centered in the same deserts of the 80s, not the diverse worlds of the noughties. That there can be only three types of spaces in the Galaxy: bars, spaceships, and bunkers. That retrofuturism means a complete lack of changes in technical, political, religious, cultural, and social life. That humans are much more interesting than aliens, and that Chewbacca should remain the only representative of extraterrestrial races that has been revealed. In general, the new owners of Star Wars refused to develop the Far Galaxy in breadth and depth, but in 2015 you could at least still convince yourself that Disney wanted to tell a story. Well, as it turned out, the new trilogy did without that.

“Star Wars. Skywalker. Ascension” (for the love of God, localizers!) is a huge exclamation point at the end of the question “Did these nuts really make a Star Wars trilogy without any plan?” Yes. To use a well-known analogy, J.J. Abrams’ The Force Awakens carefully hung guns on the walls. “Rian Johnson’s The Last Jedi threw them in the trash without replacing them with anything at all. So, before the trilogy’s finale, it turned out that we didn’t have a single “question” to answer. The heroes don’t have to carry the ring to the Fatal Mountain, they don’t have to search for the Infinity Stones, they don’t have to solve the riddles of deadly relics. So instead of continuing the previously established lines, Skywalker. Ascension” just took and out of the blue (in the final of the trilogy!) invented new problems, mcguffins, and even the main villain. Also, since J.J. Abrams returned to the helm, he rummaged through the trash and found questions that had been thrown away after the first movie. Apparently, they were looking for answers in the same place.

All of the above is the main reason for the creative failure of Skywalker. Ascension”. Instead of finally believing in themselves and creating something new, Star Wars decided to do a large-scale work on their mistakes, constantly looking back in the rearview mirror and at fan forums. And, predictably, hitting every possible pothole along the way.

For example, in the third installment of Star Wars, they finally decided to add interesting alien worlds. But for some reason, all of them at once. So the characters teleport across the galaxy, like in Game of Thrones, and the locations change more often than you can remember. Also, in “Skywalker. Rise finally added cool, beautiful lightsaber battles. Which inevitably raises the question: why didn’t Kylo Ren do this before? Actually, we know why: J.J. Abrams in the first movie wanted to abandon the unrealistic acrobatics of the prequels in favor of fencing. But now the threequel has corrected this “mistake” as well. Also, in the final part of the saga, they finally showed a battle of space fleets. But it was so stupid and poorly filmed that the stakes were impossible to take seriously. They also brought back the Knights of Ren (without a single line), showed the industrial use of new powers (it’s painful to even think about the canon), and in the best traditions of 007: Spectre, connected all the events of the previous films.

In general, the first half of Skywalker. Ascension is like trying to clean your apartment ten minutes before your parents arrive. The pace and final organization are about the same. Then Star Wars remembers that it has always been centered on family drama and turns into The Crimes of Grindelwald. Do you remember all those double substitutions of babies, Dumbledore’s secret brothers? The situation here is similar, only in Fantastic Beasts, the audience was outraged during the grand reveal, and in Star Wars, it was nervous laughter. This expression about the Disney trilogy is already turning into a cliché, but Skywalker. Ascension” really resembles a fanfiction based on the movie, not a movie for hundreds of millions of dollars.

It also doesn’t feel like a pond at all. We won’t spoil it, but it seems that all the characters in the threequel are simply hung with four-leaf clovers, rabbit’s feet, and ship-class plot armor. The local thieves have a similar problem: everything about them is devoid of any logic. As a result, you don’t believe in such idiots playing the roles of galactic evil at all, and thus the heroes’ fight against them becomes uninteresting. Don’t get me wrong: plot conventions in fantasy are normal. Sauron from The Lord of the Rings, for example, did not guard the only place where he could be destroyed. But at least we were told why. But the villains of The Ascension give you a chance to defeat yourself simply based on the timing. In The Guardians, the antagonists come up with seemingly too complicated and unreliable plans. But then everything falls into place. In The Ascent, the antagonists come up with a plan thirty years in advance, and none (absolutely none) of it makes sense. What’s more, the movie even imperceptibly brings the villains’ plans to life. Only they still don’t work.

As well as a huge number of other things that don’t work. For example, nostalgia, which has already worn off in the fifth movie in five years. Brief returns of old characters who do nothing important and are no more pleasing than the occasional visit of your long-forgotten godfather. The role of Carrie Fisher, who died before the filming of the final part, so the studio assembled her dialogues from the lines filmed on other films, looks like Princess Leia quotes random predictions from Silpo from time to time. The storyline of Rey and Kylo Ren, which for the third time boils down to “go over – no, you go over.” The storyline of Rey herself, who suddenly forgot all the lessons of Luke Skywalker and became interested in eugenics. The storyline of Finn, which ended back in 2015. The storyline of the rebellion, which did nothing for three movies and then just got together and won. And even the overall level of direction, cinematography and visual symbolism fell below The Force Awakens and well below The Last Jedi.

And yet, the most difficult challenge for Star Wars was the ending. It so happened that J.J. Abrams has filmed many things, but has never released the final parts of the stories. And it should be remembered that the Disney trilogy did not have a coherent story to complete at all. The only thing that mattered was the status quo in which the characters would remain. We’ll avoid any spoilers here, but we’ll just note that no trilogy ending can be deserved if you invent it an hour before the end of the last movie.

The post Review of “Star Wars: Skywalker. Rise” appeared first on Nyfco.

When I think of movies that have changed the genre in their movies, I often turn to Lethal Weapon as one of the biggest movers and shakers. Starting out as a dark cop thriller, we ended up with a comedic mess with a cop by part 4. The Thor movies are now a big contender for “the biggest genre shift in the series”. From Kenneth Branagh’s first movie, which was almost a modern Shakespearean tale, to the new movie, which somewhere resembled a Space Comedy Rock festival.

Chris Hemsworth is back as Thor (I think this is his 8th movie where he appears?) and we see the return of Natalie Portman’s Jane Foster, who has been away since the second movie in the series. Thor teams up with Foster in her new guise as Lady Thor as they fight the “Ripper God” Horr (Christian Bale), who is trying to kill all the gods to avenge the death of his daughter.

“Thor: Ragnarok” has really breathed new life into the character of Thor, and this is a great credit to Waititi’s creativity and humor. In this new movie, they essentially double down on that approach, and the writer/director goes all out. From screaming goats pulling a boat down a rainbow road, to a city full of gods with Zeus planning an orgy, to some of the most visually stunning sequences ever in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

And against the goal that the movie sets for itself with quirky humor, giant visual spectacles, but still with heart and laughter, it really hit the mark. It has an 80s aesthetic, great rock moments, laughs, and a really light and dark story. It’s not going to be for everyone, but in the genre of superhero comedy spectacular, they made an incredible movie.

The post Thor: Love and Thunder appeared first on Nyfco.

Reeves has done significant work directing Dawn and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and this is the first movie where we’ve gotten writing, directing, and producing credits. A busy man, isn’t he?

The movie tries to reboot the franchise, but instead of going back to the origin story, they instead go to the early days of Bruce Wayne as Bat. In the opening voice, he says that “Two years of nights turned me into a nocturnal animal”.

This is Wayne trying to figure out who he is trying to become. In his mind, it is an instrument of revenge. For retribution. This is the starting point as we follow him through the story.

The story itself is about him trying to chase down a serial killer who is killing important members of Gotham’s elite and leaving riddles at the crime scene specifically addressed to “Batman” (yes, the Riddler – played by Paul Deng). He does this with the help of Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Jeffrey Wright), Alfred (Andy Serkis) and the mysterious Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz). Everyone does a great job, and it’s also a great honor to have an unrecognized Colin Farrell play the role of Oswald Cobblepot (Farrell is doing incredible things now).

In making this movie, Reeves made a very clear choice. First, he dials up Batman’s famed detective skills more than any other version of the film. Second, he leans toward the grimy darkness of Gotham. This movie is ominous. It’s reminiscent of David Fincher’s Zodiac and also Alex Proyas’ Dark City. It worked great for me, but it’s definitely the first Batman movie I would think twice about showing my kids.

It’s another step away from the sheer insanity of Joel Schumacher’s time at the helm of the cinematic Batman and feels more connected to Nolan and Bale’s work than any from the Affleck era.

Musically, Michael Giacchino uses a simple combination of B-flat and G-flat notes (thanks to FilmGeeky’s “head of music” for explaining this to me) to create a recurring, unsettling theme that haunts the film’s score.

It’s a genuine attempt to get a clear grasp on Batman’s cinematic legacy after the recent drift from the DCEU (no fault of Affleck’s, but it was kind of a mess), and they absolutely succeed.

It’s dark, ominous, but fantastic. In my 2016 post about Batman’o’Meter, I referred to a range of approaches to the role, and the last one is probably the most correct, and it really works.

I believe there will be sequels over time and if they can stick to this formula, they will be great.

The post The Batman appeared first on Nyfco.