Online film critics get mixed reviews

"Readers of a major newspaper might send letters to the editor praising or dissing a review," Karten notes, "but it isn't likely they'll be published." By contrast, "moviegoers can easily respond to Web critics by posting messages and having [the critic respond] in turn."

A spur to online journalism has been the weakening power of traditional print media. Yet even some successful Internet reviewers aren't convinced the new medium is all its most vocal supporters claim.

"It's great because it democratizes film criticism, just as [flexible, inexpensive] digital video has the potential to democratize filmmaking," says Peter Brunette, a longtime print reviewer and media professor who is now chief film critic for IndieWire.com, a Web publication. "But on the other hand, it adds massively to the huge amount of information that's already out there and is already drowning us."

Dr. Brunette is also skeptical of the notion that more reviewers mean better reviewing. "I doubt if there's been any improvement in [film] criticism as a whole," he muses. "But the [Internet] proliferation has probably caused 'serious' critics from regular newspapers to think about how exactly they're different from - and whether they're better than - all those online people."

Hall agrees that the flood of new Internet reviewers hasn't necessarily made criticism better as a whole. Many film-review websites are run by people who lack a journalism background and whose writing shows more enthusiasm than skill. The Online Film Critics Society receives hundreds of applications, he says, but only a tiny number meet the organization's standards for membership.

In sorting through the countless Internet critics, it's important to remember that they're a varied lot.

"Take a look at imdb.com or rottentomatoes.com," says Karten, referring to sites that disseminate reviews from many sources. "You'll find articles by print critics who have an online presence, and also by writers who post exclusively online. The second group [includes] those who have their own vanity web- sites and those who work for other sites, some of them quite prestigious, like Slate.com and Salon.com, for instance. There is good and bad writing in [all] categories."

Hall observes that Internet reviewing "has given writers - especially young writers in their early 20s or even teens - opportunities to reach a wide readership."

He adds that online writing can be a launching pad to traditional print criticism. Mike D'Angelo started with a bare-bones online site before getting recruited to Entertainment Weekly and later Time Out New York. A.O. Scott, the chief film critic of The New York Times, was hired because of a piece he wrote on Slate.com.

Whether they aspire to print or broadcast glory, or find online reviewing glorious in itself, the army of Web critics isn't likely to shrink any time soon.

"Most of the newer online critics I've seen are self-published and self- focused," Hall reports. "Then again, a few enterprising and serious journalists ... have created [Web] magazines with significant editorial staffs. I suspect that in time they'll be recognized as major forces - the digital heirs to Cahiers du Cinèma."

Page: 1 | 2