I'm curious what others think of this critic (from ReelViews). I've only read a few complete reviews of his, but I think I know his style...and I've seen countless blurbs of his on MetaCritic.

For me, he might be the most useless critic there is on MC. He tends to offer dry, pseudo-technical observations that mean next to nothing: "The editing in the third act is slightly off the mark", or something similar.

He also tends to delineate "themes," "emotions" and "technique" in ways that read like an 11th-grader's essay on Tom Sawyer.

"...concentrates more on the details than the broad picture."

"a jumbled string of clichés that mesh into something that’s derivative and at times uninteresting..."

His stuff reads like a politician's speech..vague and afraid to offend, consequently saying nothing of worth. I just never get the feeling that he actually knows what he's talking about, what he's doing.

My best theory is that he's targeting a certain demographic and deliberately keeping things dry, easy to read and pseudo-intellectual. The last quote above is from his review of Eastern Promises..having seen the film, it's like, "Is that *really* all you could glean from this carefully directed, well-performed Cronenburg film?" He misses any opportunity to flesh out his opinions beyond the most shallow level. He also consistently gives low ratings to movies that end up being the highest-scorers on MC; and I usually tend to believe those movies (in bold) are very good films. James B. usually doesn't.

I don't know, am I being too hard on this guy or what?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Commontone,

No.

Agreed. He's a hack.

Not to mention 3 stars is a middle-of-the-road mark for him, thus making his disparaging comments toward Eastern Promises even more unforgivable.

Actually, I've met him many times, because I live in NJ, and he's the host of a "sneak movie" series there that's part of a bigger, multi-city thing. So I'm always especially interested in seeing what he writes. Personally, he's a little on the geeky side, but he's extremely approachable, down-to-earth, and not at all pompous. I don't always agree with everything he writes, but for the most part, I think he's a good film critic. I won't go off-topic on this board, but I'd much rather read him than that hack Ebert.

One thing about Ebert is, even if you don't like his criticism, you can't deny that he knows how to write in a professional, engaging way.

I'm sure JB is a nice guy and all, but he's just not a good writer, apart from his opinions, which I don't like. He doesn't know how to flesh out his ideas. He might actually be pretty astute in his head, but he has no idea how to put that across on paper. He could never be a professional journalist the way he writes now. That he's a simple blogger is no excuse; there are many bloggers out there who write beautifully, and could probably be published if they really tried.

And to me, his ideas are really lacking in depth, sometimes just plain uninformed. No spark at all.

Anyway, enough ripping on the guy...I suppose in the end all I can do is not read him, right?

There is more you can do than not read him.
Tell metacritic that you want him off the site.
(I wish I had more to add to the discussion of his mediocrity, but you guys have really nailed most everything!)

I never thought I'd find myself doing something so overtly fanboyish, but seeing the one-sided negativity in this topic, I couldn't help but sign up and post my opinion, if only to give a fan's perspective. Given the slow nature of responses in the thread in general and the fact that it's still on the first page, I'm hoping I haven't performed a taboo in "resurrecting" a topic.

All that being said, James Berardinelli is by far my favorite reviewer and is the only one I read anymore on a regular basis. I understand the complaints about the lack of engagement in his writing. As far as I know, he is an engineer, not a writer, and as such, both his writing and opinions tend to stray toward the geekier and drier end of the spectrum. However, when I read reviews, I'm not looking for flowery commentary, cultural tangents, or smug witticisms that I feel far too many reviewers seem to indulge in. I want to actually understand what the movie is trying to do and whether or not it succeeds in doing so. And Berardinelli is the only reviewer I have found who seems to consistently do or at least try to do exactly that.

Berardinelli's observations and analyses may very well be dry and simplistic, but no other reviewer gives me a better, more straightforward sense of what a film is actually about and what its strengths and weaknesses are (even when I disagree with him, which is often!).

This may be purely subjective, but I also feel Berardinelli is one of the few reviewers who consistently "gets" the point of a film, even when he dislikes it. Despite being the most recognizable film reviewer in history, Ebert is an unrelenting offender in this area for me. I recall a review about the Usual Suspects in which he once wrote, "To the degree that I do understand, I don't care." I was appalled, not so much because he didn't like the film, but because that statement reflected a glaring laziness and arrogance that I've continued to see repeated in far too many publications.

Disagree as many of you may, I don't see this in Berardinelli's writings, and that alone is enough for me to check them time and time again.