There is certainly a degree to which many critics rely on press materials and such when reviewing a new film, particularly one that is difficult or idiosyncratic. I once looked back at all the reviews of "Stranger than Paradise" and it's amazing how many critics compared the film to Wenders and Ozu when that's precisely what Jarmusch did in his "Some Notes on Stranger than Paradise." Actually, the Wenders comps came from the fact that everyone knew Jarmusch had gotten his film negative from Wenders after helping out on Lightning over Water - the Ozu comp was in "Notes."

Were the critics in that case guilty of a groupthink? Yes, but I would also attribute it to the fact that sometimes one encounters a film unlike anything you've seen before, and then you get all of 2 or 3 days to write a review of it. Perhaps I'm making an excuse for laziness, but really, how the hell do you process a film like "Stranger" in just a couple days without relying on extra context (pre-Internet, the only context would have been the press kit.)

I know there are axes of critics out there who have relatively similar tastes - Rosenbaum, Adrian Martin, Nicole Brenez, etc (i.e. the Movie Mutants) - and "the Village Voice crowd" (which involves more than just Village Voice writers), but doesn't this just reflect the likelihood that people with certain proclivities will tend to like similar groups of films?

There's also the rush to "discover" either a new movement, a new national cinema, or a newly emerging style, and sometimes critics will pile on as that develops.

If there is one critic whose voice I can always distinguish and whose style is completely unique, it is Nathan Lee. He's a saint amongst film writers.

Interesting thoughts, and I appreciate (and agree) that this is a wonderful time for film discussion and critisism, even if the more mainstream critics seem to be in a rut.

I can't even bring myself to read most "reviews" these days, and stick almost exclusively to my favourites like Ebert, Scott or Rosenbaum. Even when I disagree with them, they not only force me to consider my opinions but are genuinly interesting to read. For the most part, my film education is devoted to reading more formal critisism, and personal blogs. I think first and foremost what attracts me to them is the diversity in interest. THey are not focused on the new releases, on DVD and theatres and are able to bring the table a lot more personality and anecdotal elements that you can't find in mainstream reviewing. There are a surprising number of brilliant writers in the blogosphere, who are able to entertain and support their arguments through writing. A lot of the annoying formalities of summarizing plots are avoided (which as Chris Long mentions, probably is a large contributor to the sameness of mainstream reviewing), and as you say the lack of boundaries in most cases is a blessing rather than something that ruins the work.

I've learned so much from blogging/message boarding, that I would never be able to learn through another setting. I can't deny the presence of some strange conformity in ideas and trends, but the deviations from these norms are so revelatory that I'm able to forgive it all.

I think the "group think" accusation is generally unwarranted, and most of the sameness comes from what has already been pointed out: press screenings, press kits, and short lead times between viewing and reviewing. However, I think certain films have come with baggage from film festivals or from Variety articles. What kind of a chance did "Brown Bunny" have after its Cannes debut? The accusation that "Dogville" was anti-American started at Cannes and was probably discussed in all subsequent reviews. And then films that have been reported to have budget problems (like "Titanic" and "Waterworld") can have that story dominate the reviews. And didn't every review of "Mission: Impossible III" mention Tom Cruise's public persona?

On a side note, just a pet peeve. You probably already realize this (I hope) but in its original context "winter of our discontent" meant the END of our discontent. Richard is complaining about the demise of the period of strife where he felt like he could flourish. I realize it has been quoted incorrectly so frequently that it has gained a new meaning, but here's the quote in context:

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our stern alarums chang'd to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visag'd war hath smooth'd his wrinkled front,
And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.

it seems to me that one of the ways that people try to assert themselves on a subject (especially in the arts) is to accuse everyone else of being dull, or that the state of the art is at it's worst, or there's just nothing good anymore like the old days.

to that i say: whatever.

if were were to somehow compile all the print criticism from pre-web days and take a look at different critics side by side, i think we'd find about the same thing that we have today. we have some unique voices, and we have others who are doing this quasi-palgerism thing.

maybe i'm a little off here, but i think this type of thing falls into the same basket as people who say "movie's today aren't as good as they used to be". bull. if you sat down and watched every movie from the 50's (say), i promise that you wouldn't hold the 50's in such high esteem anymore. the fact is that the arts are generally as they always have been. there will always be great movies here and there, good movies, and a great number of bad ones. it all depends on where you look. and there are always peaks and valleys. this can be said of criticism, literature, music...you name it. i think it just makes people feel smart or superior to be the prophet that tells us all how horrible things are right now, how we've fallen from our once lofty place.

I don't quite share Andy's frustration with the "sameness" but I see his point (I'm just not frustrated by it). First of all, a blog on any topic (but obviously in this case, film)is going to cover that which is beloved to the blogger. And since it's film it's most likely going to be covered by doing reviews, talking about special moments, opening shots, making lists and so on. So yes the basic outlines are the same but the voices are radically different. We all have are favorites that we visit and comment on (I like Dennis very much as well and Flickhead and Girish and yes, Scanners obviously) and they all cover film but it's the different types of film that are covered that draw me to certain sites over others.

My current favorite is Cinebeats who does a lot with sixties horror and fantasy as well as an amazing array of Japanese films that others just aren't covering. With Scanners you get great discussions which you can afford to bring up because of your prominence in the community. A small time blogger is going to stick with reviews and such because nobody wants to post an entry where they ask everyone what they think and then get one response. You can afford to do that knowing that hundreds or more are going to read it and comment addicts like me are going to respond. Hell, if you can't get Jonathan Lapper to comment you're doing something wrong.

If I had to identify the "sameness" that could frustrate me ala Andy, it would be the preponderance of posts about movies from the seventies and eighties on up. For a lot of blogs it's as if movies didn't exist before the ratings system was adopted.

As far as professional critics go, I like their reviews much more than their blogs. Professional critics blogs often seem kind of stale, as if it's something they have to do now because everyone is and so they try to come up with a topic straight out of film class for everyone to think about without really engaging anyone to participate. An exception to this is Michael Atkinson who regularly asks his readers to comment and contribute and as a result I very much enjoy visiting Zero for Conduct as well. And being the comment freak I am I'm sure he knows my name well by now.

And one last comment. When you say you hold bloggers to a higher standard you state several good reasons why but one that I very much disagree with is "the luxury of time and space." Many of us bloggers have full time jobs and families so when we write in our precious free time it doesn't always feel quite like the luxury you describe. For instance, if I am a professional film critic then writing about movies is all I do. It is my job. Not something I have to squeeze in at one in the morning after working all day on someone else's time, cooking dinner, getting the kids to bed, etc. Hell, if I could do nothing but write about movies during the day because I was paid for it I'd get to bed a hell of a lot earlier.

Your other reasons I will not argue with. Yes, bloggers can choose exactly what they want to write about and when. And that's exactly why I don't feel there is as much sameness in the blogosphere as in the professional critics' circles. And in the end, that's why I prefer the bloggers to the critics.

Part of the problem is in the *kind* of film criticism (and film blogs) that get the most attention. Popular movie bloggers, like newspaper critics, tend to spend most of their time talking about whatever is new in cinemas, at film festivals or on DVD.

It's hard for niche blogs to get exposure, and even harder for those with infrequent postings (i.e., from writers who actually employ their supposed luxury of time).

I think in terms of the sameness of style in reviews, at least one aspect of it is... there's a sort of "review writing lexicon," I suppose is one way of saying it, and it is something that's more evident in younger, inexperienced writers. They may not even be conscious of it, but years of reading hundreds of reviews builds into your brain certain terms and formats (you might more accurately call them crutches) that instinctively come to mind when writing. "Okay, this is one way to do the intro, because that's how a lot of intros are. And then this is where I give the synopsis, and I know this, because that's how I've seen it handled so many times." Except that's not necessarily what you're thinking when you do it, because often you're not aware you're doing it at all--it's hard-wired.

I say this, of course, as a young writer with first-hand (in)experience. Admittedly, I'm far more interested in writing about video games than movies (I watch and read about many, but don't nearly consider myself an expert). But the sameness of style is even more explicit in game reviews (if you think Rotten Tomatoes has a lot of negative movie review examples, just skim through some of the game reviews they compile), and ultimately I think it's more of a general writing problem than a specific movie critic problem.

It simply takes time and experience to find your own voice in writing, and it's a process that, I suppose, has to begin through emulation of your influences, until you make those influences something of your own. And if after time and experience you never do... then I guess you're just a bad writer.

And to get to something Justine mentioned, I've also found the experience I've gained through blogging and message boards has been just as influential than the more conventional writing experience I've had. Hurray for Web 2.0.

There's some sameness in blogs I think, but that's more or less because it's a community. This 25 greatest foreign films thing meant that everyone included wrote a blog about the "event" and gave their 25 and wrote about it then left a response on everyone else's blog saying that their 25 could be read on their own, etc. It's kind of funny to see everyone discuss the same thing, and that's what it is, more a discussion than a form of copy catting, or "sameness".

I think many reviewers just don't know how to dig into the movie as well as they used to so it all ends up being about the surface of the film and not about the meaning; trying to decipher the context...and that could be because a lot of movies nowadays lack the context. So should we be going after the critics or the movies for not giving the critics something to actually dig into? There's only so many thing someone can say about a third Shrek or Spider-Man, or a Michael Bay film for that matter. Critics just stop looking for different angles to essentially the same films.

There are a couple major points that should be brought up. One is the number of films that are being reviewed. The other is the dwindling word count of the movie reviewer.

The professional movie reviewer isn't just on deadline, but has to watch a boatload of movies opening every week. And after a while don't the majority of them seem to be just slight-to-nonexistent variations on familiar cliches? Others have commented on the finite number of things one can say about sequels and unexciting formula films, but let's not forget that reviewers who makes their living writing for a newspaper have to spread their critical and creative powers among several mediocre formula films every week.

As for word count, journalistic reviewers have to recount the plot of a film and offer an evaluation of the film's quality/effectiveness, and then attempt to squeeze in something more critically-oriented. Often they resort to familiar terms or predictable angles, which are usually the easiest ways to explain why the latest Adam Sandler movie is not funny in less than 200 words.

I stopped reading newspaper reviews years ago. With a shockingly small number of exceptions, newspaper reviews are reliable sources for factual information about the film (plot, cast and crew, genre) and star ratings (or letter grading, or whatever), and that's it. Many newspaper reviewers are pretty good writers who can be entertaining, but it's rare for a reviewer other than those few exceptions I just mentioned to provide any worthwhile critical insight on whatever they're writing about.

"No one pays attention to reviewers anymore, yet they somehow have the power to set a tone that limits the terms of response to films? How can this be?"

Different sets of demographics involved :
The lack of attention to reviewers is from the readers (public), while the power to set the tone is exerted on the writers (professionals).

One negative reaction I've had to this eruption of (often hasty and long-winded) internet writing: it's caused me to write less.

Some would say that could be a good thing.

However, I look back on my output before Blogger took over the universe, and there's a ton of material there.

But now, with everyone and their grandmother given free reign in the blogosphere, it hardly seems worth my effort. There's just too much, and that's why the "sameness" is more evident than ever before.

Meanwhile, excuse me while I contradict myself: Luis Buñuel Blog-a-Thon. Be there. Aloha.

Another comment to further elaborate on something that I think separates blogs from your average movie website or critic and that is discussion. The comments section of any blog is a great way to engender a sense of community and take a bloggers views past what they have initially written. Some blogs are much better at this than others. When I comment on a blog with a "good job" or maybe just a joke reference to something I don't expect a response. But when I take the time provide an alternate viewpoint or expand on an idea the blogger has made and get no response whatsoever it's a little off-putting. The best ones (Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule, Cinebeats, Scanners, etc.) take the time to respond to comments made on their blog, if not each individually then at least a general response covering all the topics brought up. I've only been blogging for a whopping two months so I only get around two or three comments a post but I definitely make it a point to respond to each one. If someone has read something I wrote and was kind enough to give me their thoughts on it it is only courteous that I respond. Some bloggers who never respond to comments leave you with the impression that they are only doing this to "hear themselves talk" so to speak (in written form)which I think is all wrong for the type of community blogging creates. But the best don't do this and never will. As well as the above-mentioned I have commented on Self-Styled Siren, 100 Films by Lucas McNelly, Mirror/Stage, Flickhead and they always give a response and sometimes a great new conversation can take off from there. Hell, Dennis Cozzalio responded to a throwaway joke I made about his reference to Pink Lady and Jeff that ended up getting about ten other comments. That's why Dennis kicks butt.

So that's my tirade for the day. Bloggers can provide a great outlet for discussion that used to only happen in film schools and a part of that comes from the familiarity of form, or sameness, that makes us feel comfortable browsing and surfing and commenting at leisure. I don't want that type of "sameness" to ever go away.

Jonathan:

When you say you hold bloggers to a higher standard you state several good reasons why but one that I very much disagree with is "the luxury of time and space."

I don't think Jim was referring to the oodles of free time bloggers have; we're all pretty aware blogging is for the most part voluntary and do-as-you-can.

What Jim's talking about is that bloggers are not confined to the "timeliness" factors of a larger publication. You know: Got to get the review of the new movie up on Friday when it opens, got to get the interview with the main star up Wednesday before it opens, blah blah blah. Published critics are far more beholden to the time-and-space restrictions of the paper/magazine/whatever they're featured in. Bloggers can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

Which is nice for bloggers, because once you throw out the (sometimes contrary) restrictions of a larger body of work, you can take time to review films in depth days, weeks, months, years, or decades after its release. You can do something like the Opening Shots Project or Jim's awesome compilation of movie plumbing. There's just a lot more freedom overall, freedom to let your film freak-flag fly.

Phillip Kelly has made the right point. How are critics to avoid sounding the same when they're confronted by Hollywood's endless lineup of superhero movies, Robin Williams comedies, and end-of-the-season formulaic biopics? A diversity of response is feasible only when what's being responded to has some intellectual substance; but when you're dealing with, say, THE BOURNE IDENTITY, you're up against something whose very style both promotes and appeals to inattention and mindlessness. The only sensible thing to do in reply is complain about that sort of filmmaking, as quite a few critics, professional and amateur, have done.

But whatever homogeneity does exist should be attributed also to another factor--the lack of an extended culture on the part of the guilty critics. A critic like Rosenbaum or Stanley Kauffmann stands out because he has a store of aesthetic experience derived from other art forms, a knowledge of literature, music, theater, painting, etc that enriches his perception of those films that are challenging or different. And that sort of acquaintance tends to correlate with greater writing skill. Is it a coincidence that Pauline Kael was a Henry James fanatic or that John Simon wrote a graduate dissertation on French poetry; or that (much as I dislike his criticism, he can really write) Anthony Lane appears to be the beneficiary of a Leavisite literary education? By contrast, one gets the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the whole intellectual life of most critics consists of watching movies, reading newspapers and magazines, and cranking out copy. Naturally they're going to sound the same: they only read journalism.

By the way, DVC, I don't think there's much support in the text for your reading of 'winter of our discontent'. (Lines 2-4 make things hard for you.) The discontent Richard speaks of is the War of the Roses, a winter driven out, for the moment, by the accession to the throne of Edward IV, whom Shakespeare metaphorically equates with the sun that brings in summer, i.e., happiness. Richard's problem is that he's a fighter, not a lover, so he wants a return to the chilly times of war.

could the "sameness" have anything to do with the fact that all of these critics are writing about the same thing: movies. the same movies. i think when you have 2-300 people writing about the same movie, or about movies in general, you're bound to come up with a little "sameness"

I do think there is quite a bit of groupthink. On the arty side of things, too often I think critics give movies they don't get more credit than the films deserve out of fear of being "found out." On the mainstream side of things, there also a tendency to decide ahead a time that a film is going to be a turkey based on pre-release coverage. For example, even though none of them were good films, Ishtar, Hudson Hawk and Last Action Hero weren't nearly the all-out disasters that reviews made them out to be and the opinions seemed to be led more by the budgets than the films themselves. I expect that Titanic would have had the same fate if it hadn't been such a huge hit, though it probably would have deserved it because I'd rather sit through Last Action Hero again before Titanic.

Christopher: Thanks for a perfect example. I thing critics absolutely should do their research, which includes reading the press kits. Not only do these materials provide you with specific factual details that you may not recall from a single viewing of a movie (details about the location, the year in which it's set, the relationships between the characters [was that supposed to be her cousin or her nephew?], etc.), but they often give you an idea of what the filmmakers SAY they were attempting to do with the film. The trick is to distinguish between what they claim were their intentions, and what you thought they actually put on screen.

DVC: Yes, I know. I was attempting to make a joke about Andy's post being made in February. Hence, "the winter of his discontent." Did I succeed? That's up to you critics!

Jonathan: Good points. When Scanners first went up, Comments were not enabled. A lot of blogs choose not to have them. But one of the things I wanted to do with this blog was not just to lay out my opinions, but to get discussions going. To me, that's a major part of writing on the web. Print can feel monolithic and one-way, and I've done that for many years. I wanted to try something a little more personal and (forgive me for using this word) "interactive." Sometimes I have strong opinions, and I try to express them and my reasons for them. Other times, as in this post, I'm trying to clarify the issues (for myself, as much as anyone), and ask you guys (and gals) for your own takes to help me do so.

One thing about a blog: You can write about things you haven't really made up your mind about and throw it out there. For me, writing itself has always been a way of clarifying my thoughts (which is why, sometimes, I don't really know what I think is important to say about a movie until I've gone through the process of writing about it.

I do appreciate what you say about bloggers who also work full-time jobs and have to squeeze in their blogging when they can. (I also do a LOT of my blogging on my own time, but at least as editor of RogerEbert.com, I'm engaged with movies and movie criticism every day. And a lot of web technology, to boot.)

What I meant was that we bloggers are not on a strict deadline. I've been working on several posts and Opening Shots for a couple weeks, but haven't had time to put them together. Something else always comes up. But that's OK, because they don't HAVE to be published on a certain date. Yes, I feel pressure to get things up ASAP, and I want to write while I'm still fired up by the subject, but I have the luxury of being able to decide when the piece is ready -- and even to fiddle with it, fix it, and rephrase things for clarification even AFTER I've published it. That's the dream of every writer who has worked in print! (A lot of the time I do my final re-writing once I actually see the post on the page.)

Jim, I had gone to the link to see if Andy had used the term "winter of discontent," but I didn't even think to check the date. Sorry for missing your joke and sounding like an English teacher with a stick up his ass. But a pet peeve is a pet peeve.

And "dm494," I think we are in complete agreement as to the interpretation of Richard's character and intent if not necessarily the use of the words "now is."

Jim, I feel you are the lucky man here. Most blogs rarely get comments. I try to comment on every blog I stumble upon, but little else is said by others. Your site here is a rare breed. Long before blogs were popular my blog existed as something I called a "circle journal" among friends, where we could email and discuss topics in the LA and entertainment and acting world, even in that instance no one felt the need to respond to anything I wrote. I sometimes wonder if in my writing I don't leave it open for discussion. The point being, that fact that you get over 70 responses on a single post is not the average, but the exception to most blogs.

"I hold movie bloggers (and web sites) to a higher standard...."
I will use this from now on any time a teacher thinks I shouldn't rely on blogs for research material.

There is another kind [of plagiarism], that is more pervasive and insidious and nearly invisible. That’s the group-think that sweeps across the nation as certain reviews and reviewers set the tone and limit the terms of response to a film.
You know what I didn't like about Clerks II? Not scabrous enough.

They and many thousands of others are now available everywhere, all the time. That is revolutionary -- beyond anything we could ever have predicted in the 1970s....
"By the year 2000, people will share music for free with computers" -Bruce Haack, 1965
And we can download movies that are otherwise unavailable to us. Wanna see Todd Haynes's powerful telling of the Caren Carpenter story using Barbie dolls? Great film! Exiled before its release by The Carpenters' management. Never legally released anywhere. Very easy to get.

But you're not thinking about my comment at all! You're thinking about... a brick wall!

I think much of what's being said here is quite interesting.

A point that strikes me is made nearly by accident by Andrew James of MoviePatron.com in a comment he made to my post Lists, movies and criticism (self-promotion is only partly intentional). I was discussing a similar issue to this post in fact, and he said, in a longer context, I understand, "I don't very often write about past films as that doesn't generate traffic - i.e. $$"

And so blogs and websites have moved, not surprisingly, to being market driven over being personality driven. To me, the exciting thing about most of the blogs I read, most of which have already been mentioned on this thread, is that they're writing about what inspires them as people to write about rather than what market trends suggest will be best for them to write about.

By the same token, I'm often more interested in Roger Ebert's Great Movies column than the regular reviews, because they feel more often like they're reflecting the movies he wants to celebrate, although some are also obviously timed to coincide with or inspired by re-releases or new DVDs.

Jim, I have a jumble of thoughts about this, and I agree that these are golden days for film criticism in many ways. But maybe that's a problem, too: Did the golden age of film need a golden age of film criticism? No, it didn't. Perhaps there are too many rats gnawing at a small hunk of cheese here. Maybe we spend too much time in meta self-reflection. Maybe we spend too much time writing about movies and not enough time watching movies. (I feel that. The blog becomes the reason to watch the movies.)

I'm still convinced that the deep, underlying problem to all discussions on the state of contemporary film criticism is that there are few really good WRITERS nowadays. (Thankfully, Jim, you and your boss are exceptions to that rule.) It's not the movies. It's not Hollywood. It's the critics/bloggers themselves. Many of them are smart. Many of them know everything about film. But they just can't write. We don't address this problem enough. I make no claims for my writing, but as a reader I know what I want. I want to be engaged by the writer's style and thoughts and occasionally provoked into a rage. And, sad to say, I rarely am. Once again, why are we still going on and on about Pauline Kael years later? She had personality. She could write. If she couldn't, her opinions would have been forgotten years ago.

A quick note to Jonathan Lapper: You are absolutely right about responding to blog comments. Mea culpa.

My last comment might have just felt like a pat on the back, but I didn't connect it properly to what I wrote earlier, about the "sameness" among bloggers and critics. Many times even around here it's easier for the people who agree to voice their opinion. It's like those television polls where they ask people to call or text in; I always feel like one side cares more about being heard than the other. One group of people that likes Michael Bay may not feel as passionately as a group of people who loathes every breath he takes and frame of film he wastes, which means you won't hear from those people who enjoy his movies, but you will definitely hear from the large group of people that think he's a pompous jerk who probably doesn't know how to shoot a coherent home movie. Are all of my thoughts connecting? or am I just writing to hear the sound of my own key board?

Phillip: Reading the comments here, and on some other blogs, I think people are generally civilized in their level of conversation. Ten years ago everything came down to personal insults and ROCKS vs. SUCKS on too many sites, and there just wasn't much to get into.

So, yeah, I think I'm really lucky that this site attracts consistently thoughtful, provocative, clever and lively comments. (One major NY critic told me the level of discussion here was as good or better than at the more exclusive critics' group blog a_film_by, and I consider that a BIG complement to the people who contribute here.

One thing you learn at any publication is that, if someone's goiong to take the time to write a letter to the editor, its usually not going to be about something they like. People write when they're angry, frustrated, disgusted. As we've all seen, e-mail and comments just make it easer for people to fire of flame mail.

On the other hand, maybe some people are hesitant to disagree with the majority of comments, but I don't know why. I find that on other blogs I like -- like, say, The House Next Door -- when I leave a comment it's usually to take issue with something, or to offer a small but important caveat. I hope that doesn't mean it seems like I'm complaining all the time, but the thing I love most about these comments is the chance to debate different nuances and angles.

We've had comments at Scanners for just about a year, and I think it makes the site. We don't get as much traffic in the new format as we did when Scanners actually featured stories on the RogerEbert.com homepage, but I think a lot of people enjoy reading the comments as much as the post they're commenting on. I've been focusing on writing the posts that way -- to entice people to challenge or offer a new perspective on the subject(s) under discussion.

One of the lessons I learned from hosting the Contrarianism Blog-a-thon is that it's fun and enlightening when somebody goes out on a limb to defend an unpopular view, or criticize a conventional wisdom -- as long as they really have sincere and substantive reasons for doing so.

I wrote a rather lengthy comment yesterday about Tony Scott and how I think his early movies had a lot to do with his reputation as a mainstream slickster -- a window-dresser of action, like Joel Schoemaker combined with Renny Harlin, or something like that. I'd love it if somebody who knows more about Michael Bay than I do could write a comprehensive overview of his career. He's become a punchline, but he has his defenders. I'd love to hear what they want to defend and celebrate in his work. That's a challenge I'd really like to see somebody -- sombody who means it and can articulate it -- take on.

I'm working on my reservations about "Schindler's List" -- not to "shock" people, but because I don't think it ranks with Spielberg's best work, and I value his work very highly. But I've gotta do my homework first, and for about the fourth time I've stopped watching it an hour or so in. I've got my notes so far, but I want to go all th way through to the bitter end, because that's the part of the movie that has bothered me most. I'll be just as curious to read what people have to say about how they think the movie works, or why they think it's a major work of art or whatever. And, given the nature of Comments, those views will appear below the article on the very same page! I really, really like that.

Jim,
Great, thought-provoking essay, and I've loved the comments, as well. I think the intelligence you rightly note is a tribute to the stimulating nature of your own writing, and the welcoming environment you create.

Also, Jonathan-- I totally agree with you about blog etiquette, re: responding, and just wanted to say that I've really enjoyed your comments here and on other film blogs, so much so that I wandered over to your site to check it out. Great work! I especially love the ongoing oscar series, and hope to dive into it in more soon.

Jim,

Just so it doesn't look like we're following under the "sameness" category, I'm going to say that I heartily disagree with everything you wrote, knowing you know otherwise.

One group you might want to look into concerning Michael Bay would be Criterion, as they have two of his films under special edition status. It would be interesting to find out why they did that.

Cinephile,
Thank you very much. I think your work is quite great as well. Your comments have always come across to me as the voice of reason after the rest of us hotheads have flown off the handle.

Shamus,
I apologize if it seemed like I was calling out anyone by omission, I wasn't. As I said, I often make "throwaway" comments on sites where I just point out a piece of trivia or make a joke reference to something and I certainly don't expect or demand every comment I make receive a reply but thank you for the sentiment anyway. It says quite a bit about you and I'll be commenting more (of course I will, I'm a comment whore).

Jim,
Re: Schindler's List. Here's what I hope doesn't happen. Often when a high profile writer, critic, blogger, what have you, comes out against a well received film or comes out in support of a poorly received film then everyone feels they must agree lest they look uninformed. You know, "I'm going to go on Emerson's site and tell him I totally agree with him on Schindler's List and how I can't believe no one saw it before and he'll think I'm super cool and we'll become good friends." Admit it, sometimes people just agree with you or other high-profile writers because they want to jump on the bandwagon. I guess you could file that under "It's good to be the king". I agree with you quite a bit of the time myself but I hope the reader's reactions to your post on Schindler's List go both ways (and strongly). I myself am not the biggest fan in the world of Spielberg and find a lot of his best received films to be absolutely swimming in schmaltz but I do like several of his films nonetheless and Schindler's List is one of them so I'll be very interested to see what you have to say.

And you can be sure I'll comment on it. If I don't, send someone to Gitmo looking for me.

I agree with The Shamus about the decline in writers (small w). There are still a lot of good Writers (capital W) around but how many are likely to choose film criticism early? Like so much in this world of specialization, writing has become less valued as a skill for the general public and more the province of the few with a special gift. If you are more interested in film (or sports or music or politics, etc.) than in Writing for its own sake, it's much less likely than it used to be that you will practice the skill much.

Phillip: I may have to rent those Criterion Michael Bay editions just for the extras. I wonder who wrote the critical essays that usually accompany Criterion releases?

Here's what they feature in the two-disc Special Edition of "Armageddon":

SPECIAL FEATURES, DISC ONE: THE MOVIE
#
The exclusive director’s cut, containing previously unseen footage, in a new digital transfer personally supervised by Michael Bay
#
Discrete 5.1 channel Dolby® Digital soundtrack
#
Two commentary tracks: One featuring Michael Bay, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, Bruce Willis, and Ben Affleck; the second featuring cinematographer John Schwartzman, NASA consultant Dr. Joe Allen, and asteroid consultant Ivan Bekey
#
Subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired
#
Optimal image quality: RSDL dual-layer edition
#
SPECIAL FEATURES, DISC TWO: SUPPLEMENT
#
Michael Bay’s gag reel
#
Deleted scenes compiled by Michael Bay
#
Storyboards and production design drawings
#
Analyses of the special effects by visual effects supervisors Richard Hoover, Pat McClung, and Hoyt Yeatman
#
Production designer Michael White on the look of Armageddon
#
Trailer, teaser, and television spots
#
The Aerosmith music video “I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing,” plus interviews with band members

Jim,
I'm guessing you've read George Orwell's essay on writing and politics. If not, please read it. In this brilliant essay he points out 5 principles to avoid bad writing.

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

3. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

4. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

5. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

One big reason I think so many critics sound alike is because they are breaking the first two principles. Orwell also says, " In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning." This is certainly evident in film criticism. My problem with most critics is that they seem to have a hidden agenda. They seem to be focused more on "being a profound critic" than actually trying to communicating with their readers. This makes most of what they write meaningless and unreliable. If a reader notices a writer's style or word choice rather than what they're trying to say, doesn't that mean that the writer has failed to communicate effectively? Too many critics (in my opinion) are insincere, self-indulgent and trying to sound intelligent rather than just be themselves. To me that's what makes a site like Rotten Tomatoes so great. You can find the critics you like and make note of the ones who might need to find a new career.

Thanks for adding that, Justin. Political blogger Andrew Sullivan has another great quote from Orwell at the top of his site:

"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

Ironically, Strunk & White have come up with a much more concise version of #1 and #2:

"Omit needless words."

I commented earlier but it never showed up so I must have screwed something up. Sorry. Just to reiterate what I said in my unposted comment: In regards to your future post on Schindler's List one thing I have encountered on many blogs is the "herding of the disciples" whereby the blogmaster makes a statement either in support of a poorly received movie or against a well received movie and everyone flocks around to agree. Some of this is courtesy, some sycophantism and some just good old fashioned not thinking for oneself. I certainly hope this doesn't happen with your Schindler's List post and judging from the quality of readers you have I doubt that it will. But there's nothing more maddening than posting something in hopes of sparking discussion and ending up with nothing but agreement.

Personally I look forward to it. I am not a big fan of Spielberg and find many of his well received films to be swimming in schmaltz. At the same time, I do very much enjoy some of his films and recognize his gifts. That said, one of the movies I do like by him is Schindler's List (although not as much as Jaws or Close Encounters) so I'm curious to see what you have to say on the matter.

And I hope the discussion that follows is vigorous and contrary, but civil.

Jim,

Now I've made myself curious to watch the Bay Criterions as well! "The Rock" isn't so bad, but I'll be dreading "Armageddon"...I just hope "Pearl Harbor" is not on the list, never want to consider seeing it! Pa-tooie!

Justin,
There's one reviewer who I like, but bothers me sometimes with his use of clever word phrasings. I always stick my tongue out when you can feel him trying too hard rather than just being honest.

I've been discussing a similar topic in some ways in my own blog in relation to Japanese film criticism written by westerners, which I think has suffered a lot from the “pack mentality” of many critics. I find it fascinating.

Personally I think "groupthink" or "sameness" has often shaped film criticism in very powerful ways. There are thousands of examples and some more grievous than others such as the negative reviews of Peeping Tom which deeply effected Michael Powell's filmmaking career. The poor man was reduced to being a footnote in college textbooks I was reading in the ‘80s thanks to “groupthink.” Due to many factors such as Martin Scorsese enthusiasm for Powell’s work, important retrospectives and Criterion DVD releases, his career has been given a new life.

More recently director Bertrand Tavernier wrote to Roger Ebert and he seemed to think that the Cahiers du cinéma critics like Truffaut and Godard had wiped out the entire British cinema and marginalized directors like De Sica and Duvivier.

If more critics had stood up against the tide of popular opinion and “groupthink” that affected a director like Duvivier or British cinema in general, it could have made an impact and film criticism as a whole might look very different today. This doesn’t mean that I think critics shouldn’t write negative criticism, it just means that not everyone should be willing to nod their heads in agreement when someone of Pauline Kael’s stature announces that a film like Ryan’s Daughter is a dreadful.

More recently lots of critics have decided to label particular horror films with the unsavory tag “torture porn” which reduces their credibility and makes their creators like Eli Roth seem like lecherous smut peddlers trying to make a buck off torturing young naked girls on camera. Reading a lot of the poorly written and barley coherent rants against Roth’s latest film made me much more nauseated than anything I saw in his actual movies.

Many professional (and not so professional) critics have always been uncomfortable going against the grain and taking a contrary position. Sadly, basic human nature often dictates that we should go along with the pack if we want to survive or be accepted. Undoubtedly there are countless critics who feel the need to “fit in” and don’t want to be the odd person out by having a contrary reaction to a popular or unpopular film.

Today where press junkets are set up to promote movies and the actors and filmmakers have to basically whore themselves out to the press in order to get their films seen and reviewed, really good film criticism is hard to come by. I also agree with the Shamus that good writing can be plain hard to find. A lot of professional critics bore me due to the types of films they write about and the way they write about them, but a hell of a lot of modern films also bore me so I’m sure that clouds my view.

I enjoy reading film blogs written by unprofessional (as well as professionals like yourself Jim) because of the variety of opinions being shared and the variety of films being discussed. The film blogs I tend to frequent often have a very informal, but smart and engaging style that I really appreciate. With that said, I’m thankful that people like Jonathan who commented above enjoy reading my sometimes incoherent thoughts about the films I like.

A few points of interest, since I'm late in the coming. These are very random, so keep up:

Someone mentioned a "review lexicon" and I think a lot of online criticism suffers from stuff like this. When the AFI and OFC "best movies ever" lists came out, there was an uproar, and it really bothered me. Everyone bashed the lists, distanced themselves from it, and all that other stuff. But isn't that the point of these lists? To show what you think? Not what you think that you should think? As I've mentioned in other blogs, is there some "cosmic Best Films List" that every list must adhere by? If so, then why make your own lists if people will belittle you for thinking The Incredibles is one of the best films ever? Does EVERY Top 100 list HAVE to include The 400 Blows or else it's not considered legit?

I agree with the comment that stated that many new or young blogs/bloggers are afraid of trying new things out of the fear that no one will comment. I rarely try to initiate discussions because I know there will be no one there to comment. A lot of times I find myself sticking to the basics.

When writing a review, I really just try to write my thoughts on the film, and then discover things along the way. When I'm done with all that, I find myself "filling in" the rest before I post the review. By that, I mean that I now have the meat and bulk of my review, how do I tie it together? Well, I could put an intro and brief plot summary...a conclusion would be nice.... I feel almost ashamed looking back, because I know that deep down, I really just do it because it's what I'm "supposed to do."

For a while, my reviews were fairly brief, but as I started writing more, the word count skyrocketed, and I became concerned. Is anyone going to read a nearly-2000 word review of Season 2 of The Office? I became self-conscious but I've decided to not worry too much about it. I'm ALWAYS disappointed in newspaper reviews because they're so short and they spend so much time summarizing the plot. I asked myself what kind of review I'd like to read. Brief plot description, if none. If I haven't seen the movie, I skim through reviews to see if the critic/writer liked it or not. If I have seen the movie, I want to know why, and what else they found in the movie.

I hear a lot of talk about the "sameness" and a few examples, but I want to know what people really mean by that. Is it the topics focused on? The usage of space? The order? The opinions? What is it? and more importantly, how would you change it? I'm not looking for a list of what to and not to do, but I'm always frustrated when people complain about problems but never try to do anything about them.

I often find that some of the sameness will force me to abandon essays that I wanted to write. I take my time trying to ponder and think through an essay, and by the time I've looked up, everyone and their mother has already written about Knocked Up, Harry Potter, or whatever (I'm only talking mainstream releases at this moment). I see it all and think, "Well, I have nothing new to add, so why go through the trouble?"

That's one reason why I really enjoy Oggs' Movie Thoughts. I don't read the majority of his reviews because they're of films that I haven't seen yet (not a good reason, I know), but the guy churns out a ton of reviews of whatever movie he happens to see -- it could be from 2007 or 1927, it doesn't matter. Too many times, film bloggers are trying to BE or compete with newspaper critics, so we only focus on some movies.

Yet, othertimes, I think us bloggers are just trying to be trendy. "Well, everyone's talking about that Foreign Films list, so I guess I should, too...." And then our actual THOUGHTS are influenced as well. I know I was sorely disappointed by Pan's Labyrinth, but man, Jim loved it, and all these other guys loved it...maybe I liked it a little.... Or when I finally got around to seeing Babel, I liked it. A lot. I thought it was quite good, yet I didn't say much because, well, all these other smart people say it's terrible and idiotic. I'll like the movie, but I just won't make my thoughts public.... It's not anyone's fault but my own, but I think it's something that a lot of bloggers suffer from, and it's just something we have to get over. It's okay to be different. Who cares if you have Saw III or V For Vendetta in your Top Ten instead of Half Nelson? And who says you have to have a Top Ten? I enjoy when people have belated lists like that, or when they just make a list of the best movies they watched, regardless of whether or not it was released within the year.

One thing I also wanted to add is that I don't think bloggers make enough use of things like screengrabs. Sure, plenty of people use YouTube clips, and that's fine and all (I'm not a huge fan, but I use it occasionally), but so many times have I read and written descriptions of scenes or moments but didn't see or show the actual shot. The Opening Shots project makes good use of them, but in film analysis, I'd like to see more specifics, and with those specifics, specific shots (instead of generic shots from the film). If you like the look that someone gave, show the look! I know it doesn't give the same impression as seeing it in the context of the film, but hey, have a little fun and experiment a little (this is aimed at myself first and foremost).

could the "sameness" have anything to do with the fact that all of these critics are writing about the same thing: movies. the same movies. i think when you have 2-300 people writing about the same movie, or about movies in general, you're bound to come up with a little "sameness"

What I was going for was the idea that now that we can so easily see what other people and other critics are saying, we have been handed the burden of having to try to differentiate ourselves; if we are living and working in a climate where all critics are essentially writing for a national market, then a large part of what characterizes a good critic is originality: what does this writer give me that I can't find elsewhere?

And boy am I glad that I got away from that italics kick I was on when I wrote that: I can barely read the post in question!

I should probably not have written this and let Andy have the final word, as this huge post+comments thing is essentially his fault and I don't actually have any new insights.

However, I'm feeling churlish and Andy's complaint reminds me of something...From the age of approximately eight to my first year or so of college I read the L.A. Times Calendar section (actually called "View" during the week back then...it had once been known as "the women's section"), every day, cover to cover, give or take a ballet or opera review or two -- but usually those, too. Lots of reviews of restaurants I'd never go to and profiles of celebrities I barely cared about.

Then, one day, it hit me. I was reading the same articles again and again. The same celebrity profiles, the same cultural trendspotting rehashed. (What's new this week? Why, movies have more sex and violence these days...have you noticed?)

Reviews were actually the least repetitive bits of entertainment journalism because, if nothing else, the movies and plays were usually at least slightly different from each other.

Well, there were exceptions. Robert Hilburn's mind-numbing rock reviews, and I swear that Kevin Thomas mimeod his biannual positive nods to the newest Tora-San movie.

I anxiously await your views on SCHINDLER'S LIST, Mr. Emerson. There are many quite interesting subtextual issues that people overlook when praising the film to high heavens as Spielberg's masterpiece. It more than calls out for a serious minded re-consideration.

No worries, Bob: I'm not done yet!

The "sameness" frustrates me because I think that a film criticism community in which hundreds of people are writing more or less the same things about the same films week after week is a community that's not using its collective resources wisely. That these "collective resources" exist is what's so "revolutionary" about the changes Jim describes, in my opinion.

I agree with this copycat issue of course, but I'd like to add a little reservation. Falling in the opposite extreme is not an improvement either. To be different for originality sake is pointless. Critics are all writing on the same unique movie, so even if there are various valid interpretations and many possible themes to address, the things to be said on a given film are not infinite. It shouldn't be a surprise that critics end up talking about the same things, actually it means that the film did a good job at conveying a clear and distinct message.

And if it's about stylistic sameness, then it's not a critical issue (content), it's just mannerism (form). Critics are free to use the form they prefer as long as their critical insight is irreproachable.

Ken,
Very impressive simplification with that Strunk and White quote. Orwell admitted in his essay that he was no doubt guilty of many if not all of the things that he was protesting against. It's no wonder there's a simpler way to say it. That being said, I think the quote "Omit needless words" has more in common with rule 2 than rule 1. Just think for a minute. If all critics followed rule 1 religiously, there probably wouldn't be a Stepford Critic phenomena. You probably couldn't say the same if all critics followed only rule 2 religiously because they still could be in the habit of all copying each other's styles. How about this: "Omitting needless words won't make you original." How concise! Oops.. I saw "concise" in print recently...

I’d prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.