Lawrence Booth2 said:What books should a film critic actually bother reading? It’s a question I get asked more often than I’d like, and honestly, it depends entirely on whether you want to be a commentator or a true scholar. If you’re just looking to scribble some opinions for a blog, you can skip most of this, but if you want to understand the DNA of the medium, you need to go deeper. First off, you can't claim to know anything about the craft without diving into the fundamentals. You need to master the film theory basics. Without that foundation, you're just describing what happens on screen rather than analyzing *why* it matters. For anyone serious about the mechanics of storytelling and visual language, there is one specific text that stands above the rest—it’s essentially the bible of practical film terms. If you haven't spent time with it, you're basically flying blind. Then there’s the heavy lifting: the history of film art. You can't jump straight into modern critiques without understanding the lineage. You need to see how the masters built the house we're all living in now. Take someone like Stanley Kubrick, for example; his work isn't just "good movies," it's a masterclass in structural precision. Or look at the way François Truffaut approached the lens—his perspective changed everything for how we perceive the relationship between the director and the subject. If you want to understand how a director can manipulate emotion through pure visuals, you have to study the greats. Look at Akira Kurosawa. There’s a key quote regarding his method that always sticks with me: Kurosawa does not have access to The articulation of Shakespeare and He therefore refashions visually What Shakespeare achieves linguistically. That is the essence of cinematic power. When you watch something like his Throne of Blood, you aren't just watching a play being filmed; you are witnessing a total visual translation of a literary soul. It’s why comparing a Branagh adaptation to Kurosawa's approach feels like comparing a stage play to a fever dream. I also recommend picking up works by Amos Vogel if you want to explore the idea of film as Subversive art. Understanding how cinema can challenge social norms and act as a tool for subversion is vital if you want your criticism to have any actual teeth. Ultimately, being a critic isn't about having an opinion on whether a movie was "fun." It’s about understanding the architecture of the image. Whether you're dissecting the kinetic energy of Tsubaki Sanjuro or trying to find the philosophical weight in something as wild as The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension, you need a toolkit. Start with the theory, move through the history, and learn to respect the visual poets. Everything else is just noise.
Gerald Barrett25 Lawrence Booth2 said:It’s honestly irrelevant... at the end of the day, any critique written by anyone tells you just as much about the person behind the pen as it does about the subject they're tearing apart.
It’s not exactly trivial. I mean, when you start writing about—I don't know—how everyone is just absolutely obsessed with Mary. 🙄 Look, if you’re planning on tackling a more demanding piece of cinema, you really can't just wing it. You need to wrap your head around some of the technical mechanics behind the lens. Beyond that, having a solid grasp of the history of film art is practically essential. If you don't know where these filmmakers are coming from, how are you supposed to catch the subtle nods or recognize exactly what a film is referencing when you're trying to critique it? It’s about seeing the connective tissue between the classics and the modern stuff.
Gerald Barrett25 said:Modern film criticism has become incredibly commercialized, and frankly, it’s exhausting. There's this unspoken, unwritten rule nowadays that you can write all about a movie you just saw, but you aren't allowed to actually say what it's about. It’s completely absurd. It's like walking into a gallery at the MoMA, looking at a masterpiece, and being told you can write a whole essay on the brushwork and the lighting, but God forbid you mention what the painting actually depicts. It’s total nonsense.
Every review should clearly state its subject right at the top. One thing I really appreciate—and it’s something some people seem to actively avoid—is when a reviewer stays away from those tedious, play-by-play plot summaries. Honestly, it drives me absolutely insane when someone decides to recount the entire storyline, including all the spoilers.
That unexpected ending.Well, I’ll be damned if I don't get hit with that.
I’m on the same page as the previous post. Look, what you wrote is important, but there’s another side to this that we can't ignore. If I just want a gut feeling or a quick reaction, I’ll go grab a beer with my friends and ask them how they felt about a movie. But when I turn to actual criticism, I expect something much more substantial than just an impression.
Imagine someone trying to write a critique of a book—let's say a collection of poetry—but they’re completely flying blind. They don't grasp the fundamentals like rhyme, meter, metaphor, or enjambment. They have absolutely zero grasp of literary history, either; their entire academic foundation consists of some half-remembered verses by Walt Whitman they had to slog through in high school fifteen years ago.
What would that kind of critique even look like? You’d have these songs—beautiful, fluid pieces of music—singing about love. They’re just so profoundly moving that they’re bound to strike a chord in anyone's heart. 😁
Look, maybe I’m being a bit dramatic here, but let’s be real: you can't just waltz into any field of art and start throwing around critiques without having done the homework first. Without a solid foundation of actual knowledge, you're essentially just shouting into the void.
If you're looking for a solid recommendation, I’d point you back toward Peterlić and his work.
The fundamentals... If you really want to get a handle on some of these concepts, I’d suggest consulting...
Encyclopaedia BritannicaIf you ever want to see how much actual substance can be squeezed out of a single movie, just take a look at this.
A study of nine films. (also Peterlić).
