I love that you guys have an appetite for oral histories. Duly noted.
When I was working on the GHOSTBUSTERS book that I ended up not writing, I did a ton of interviews, and the Dan Aykroyd interview turned out to be pretty great after a rocky start. I got the feeling Dan was really pushing to see if I would dig deeper than just the surface, and the more we got into it, the looser he got. I have much love for him, but had never had the chance to talk to him before that. Finally, as we were finishing, I said, "So now that we've spoken, I would love to set up a time to talk to you about something. I've approached a number of your collaborators, and I would be very excited to put together a clear-eyed oral history about NOTHING BUT TROUBLE..."
I didn't even get the whole sentence out of my mouth. "Oh, I think that would be a terrible waste of time. I think you should not do that. Goodbye."
And that was it. Dan was gone in a puff of smoke that was shaped like Dan. There was just a Dan-shaped hole in the wall. Just... gone. Over. Nope.
I was contracted to write it, I did all the research, and then as I started writing, my marriage imploded, and the work I was doing just wasn't very good. The editor decided to have someone else finish it.
The editor was right. The interviews were great. I was not at my best.
I don't go to "sites" for movie stuff anymore. Many of the reasons you articulated in your opening "manifesto" had me swear them off. Twitter just seems to be a lot of grandstanding and too much silly groupthink when it comes to film. And don't get me started on "clickbait" stuff. I don't look at Rotten Tomatoes at all. I could care less what the score is there. It seems like a lot of bites and not enough of a meal. I want a meal. I want Ebert & Kael. I don't want plot summaries. I don't want video content. I want something to digest.
For sports news, I love what they are doing at The Athletic. They're collecting the best sportswriters in the country and putting out the dream sports website. That's the ideal for me. Finding a spot that is full of intelligent people -- not just fans -- intelligent people who can talk about a subject without intentionally trying to be divisive to drive clicks or impressions. I don't want drama. I want thought-provoking.
Like many others I’ve stopped caring about what is published on many “Entertainment Journalism” websites which is why what you are offering is so refreshing. Having said that the one thing I am fascinated by is things that never happened. The Miller / Lord version of Solo, Gilliam’s Watchmen, the Frank Darabont penned Indiana Jones movie. Heck, just because it’s so topical everything that went into the current Star Wars trilogy. It has nothing do with seeing if something might have been better or worse but more of the creative process and how close certain things came to being. I always loved your “Movie God” game because it made you think how things would have been effected if such and such had or hadn’t happened. I find that infinitely interesting.
My absolute favorite are Oral Histories, even though they probably take forever to write. But I feel like if done correctly they paint such an interesting, vivid picture of a movie/scenario.
Generally speaking, I prefer retrospectives/fun anecdotes or even critiques, but AFTER the movie in question has come out. News about reshoots or insider pics or whatever before the movie comes out just tend to spoil or diminish things I'm excited to see.
User Jose Lovero covered most of what I wanted to say. Beyond that, There is just one other pet peeve of mine concerning modern film coverage: The Film Festival. As a person who loves film but who has certain inescapable realities, the odds are I will never be able to attend a festival. I understand how integral the festival circuit is to life cycle of an indie film. It's where hype is generated and distribution deals are made. But personally, and for many reasons, I hate reading festival coverage. It's difficult to describe the unique level of jealousy and frustration that it brings. All about films that A) you know aren't likely to be as good as they are made out to be and B) you will not get to see for months or years, hell you might not EVER be able to see.
So, the less of that, the better. At least as far as I am concerned.
They are elitist AF, though. They are not designed for the average film fan. They are largely industry events, an extension of the echo chamber that exists in town. They all have very specific agendas, and more and more, they are launch pads for awards or acquisitions.
I think there are some fests I'll go to this year, but I certainly won't be doing so just to crank out sheets of on-the-spot coverage. You're right... when you can't see the films, it seems weird for me to be writing anything terribly in-depth about them.
Festivals are great for planning your editorial calendar. Less great for your readers.
Honestly. I’ve read you since the moriarty days and I love that you’re calling out everything I loathe about the current conversation. Apparently it’s no longer acceptable to like a big franchise movie with problems. You have to either unequivocally love it, or hate it. That’s poisonous to me. I love having conversation about film, and I think you’re fighting the fight that used to be.
Conversation is good. I don’t think I need to be on one team or the other to have said conversation. I’ve had enough of teams.
Not a movie site but I've recently become infatuated by the The Rewatchables podcast given their deep dive into older films. Hearing why Quentin Tarantino loves DUNKIRK only solidifies my feelings on the film and makes me want to study it more. I enjoy learning why other appreciate about a film or where they have issues with it. I also love exploring the director's touches and why certain decisions are made, whether I understand them fully or not.
I wish there were more deep dives about specific jobs within the industry. What the hell is a gaffer? Or take a behind the scenes photo and explain what every person is doing on the other side of the camera. I watched the documentary about the last year of GoT and I was amazed at the sheer number of people standing around while scenes were being filmed. What are they all doing? I’d also love to know there the numbers come from that are always being bandied about. X movie was made for Y million dollars. Break down that budget. Or net points! The director of the first MIB (forgot his name) was just talking about this on Twitter. Even though the movies grossed a ton of money, spawned multiple sequels, etc., the studio still says the movie is in the red. How? I’d love nothing more than a day in the life series if each type of person who works in a movie, from the lowest assistant to the highest paid actor.
One of the things I loved about Roger Ebert's reviews was that he didn't always feel the need to regurgitate the plot of the film in his review. I can get that anywhere. What I liked from Roger was his commentary, what I'll call his wry asides. Consider his excellent commentary for an otherwise forgettable film, HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE.
"The most popular occupations in movies about Hollywood are cops, crooks, hookers, psychics and actors, and to this list we must add the people they are all terrified of, real estate brokers. "Hollywood Homicide" covers these bases with a murderer, a cop who is a real-estate agent, a cop who wants to be an actor, and a psychic who can visualize that the murderer will be in an SUV on Rodeo Drive in half an hour."
He returns to this thought with a note that I've never forgotten:
"Note. I am aware that "realtor" is a trademark and is always supposed to be used with a capital "R." But I refuse to go along. Realtors can complain all they want, but why should they get an upper-case R just because they say so? Would we capitalize Philosopher, Exterminator, Proctologist or Critic?"
I want deeper dives into careers, films/series etc. Im a fan of oral histories for instance. Theres lots of great stuff on The Ringer, Vulture, and ScreenCrush for instance. I love learning about the history of things I love.
I wish there were more thoughtful critical essays. Not necessarily reviews per se, but deep dives into films from a particular critical lense. I was a huge fan of Siddhant Adlakha's deep dive on /Flim into the MCU through an investigation into those movies' relation to the military industrial complex. Just well researched and interesting critical perspectives.
In terms of what I read for pleasure. /Film is my go to cause they always have interesting pieces and I like their crew of writers a lot. Birth.Movies.Death is also a lot of fun to read.
Must confess that I don't go to specific sites anymore. With so many options and even the good sites just filling space, I depend on Twitter to curate interesting articles etc.
Though I think I'd enjoy more conversation and interviews. Not promotional interviews, but a critic and a filmmaker having rich discussions about movies.
Agreed. "Scorsese by Ebert" is one of my favorite movie books, where a lot of the book is just Ebert chatting with Scorsese about film. Not Scorsese promoting his recent movie, just two movie lovers talking about the director's work, influences, symbolism, behind-the-scenes stories, etc.
I love reading about "the process:" from the creative ideas, to working within a budget, to compromise, to happy accidents (all of which seem to describe Scorsese's account of shooting the final shot of LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, now that I think about it).
I really miss The Dissolve. They had the kind of film coverage I wanted to read. Insightful reviews and retrospectives. My go-to these days is Birth. Movies. Death. since they don’t get too bogged down in typical fluff you may encounter elsewhere. Even some of the movie blogs I used to check out have turned into 90% news and speculation with minimal reviews and meaningful conversation. And honestly, I have read your stuff since the AICN days, which is why I am here now.
I am more into film discussion and analysis than reporting deals and green lights, etc. that may never come to fruition. That stuff is interesting to a point but it shouldn’t be the bulk of a film website’s focus. Less fluff and more substance is what I would like. To contradict myself a little bit, it is fascinating to hear about stuff that was never made for whatever reason. I am thinking of your Corner Show column. I am probably all over the place in my response but I am glad to read whatever you feel like is worth your efforts because I trust you as a writer.
This. I still go to the Dissolve site and do a search for any movie (that hasn't been released in the last few years) that I've watched recently. The Dissolve was the last film site that I really felt like had it all in terms of what I wanted to check out.
Wow, is this a loaded question. I want to read reviews that are about the actual movie, from critics who understand the artistic and technical aspects of filmmaking, and not from people who only view film through the lens of their personal politics. That is the smallest lens one can view any kind of art. I want to read reviews that talk about a director's style and vision. I want to read about the choices an actor made, and how those choices did or did not service the story. I want to understand why a cinematographer lit a scene a certain way, or why the editor cut the film together the way they did. I want a conversation about how the score helps or hinders the story the film tells. If the film is political in nature, by all means have that discussion. God forbid a critic in new media talk about mise en scène; most have no idea what that means. Film criticism was once a journalistic endeavor. Kael wrote marvelously about film; Siskel & Ebert spoke skillfully about film, and even though those were only ever their opinions, they were, above all else, educated opinions.
The conversations about Joker that threw me were these bloggers decided the movie was about all the political things they hated, so they then hated the movie, when the politics of the film are far more nuanced and in many ways mostly in line with their beliefs. The biggest analogue I gleaned while watching was Occupy Wall Street and the Healthcare Crisis, which no one in their right mind would ever ascribe to the alt-right.
Honestly, I've largely stayed away from movie or entertainment sites the last few years. Collider, Uproxx, Slash Film, they all suffer from the same disease. Most critics I read now usually write for newspapers. I also listen to How Did This Get Made, because it's hilarious and not every discussion about movies should be serious.
I did try a podcast I thought would be great, about two people making their way through AFI's 100 Greatest Films, and by the second episode I knew I was in trouble. The "film critic" of the pair admitted they'd never seen Ben-Hur (how does someone who is a film critic live almost 40 years without seeing Ben-Hur?) and then spent an hour trashing the film because they didn't like Charlton Heston's personal politics. That's basically what the episode was about. I was flabbergasted.
If you can be better than that Drew, which I know you can, this is the only site I'll need. Conversation about movies can be spirited and fun, but these conversations should be so much broader in scope than the small-minded conversations film bloggers in new media currently have. I have great hope for this new endeavor, and I can't wait to subscribe to help you see your vision made real!
It's so frustrating how many details we have about about the process of making older movies, compared to current productions. Especially when there are so many hints that things have been more complex than what the studios are sharing.
Like many here, I no longer have bookmarks full on sites I could count on for a good time. I love reading old Ebert reviews on his site, and I miss and revisit The Dissolve, but otherwise I tend to follow around specific writers or just find topics when I’m in the mood for them.
I’d love to find more esoteric, chance-taking, and just fun-but-knowledgeable writing on movie sites (and Bright Wall/Dark Room and Film & Fishnets deliver for me, but I’m greedy) and not worry about the place folding soon because writers aren’t being forced to write clickbait. The dream!
Me, too! Kim's great at what she does, and I love that she's never been corrupted by some shitty clickbait gig that made her crank out listicles. From her blog to her current home, she's always written from the heart, and her essays stand apart from the films they're about as fully-formed things. She's one of our best.
The sites I read are primarily The Ringer, A.V. club, Vox, Hollywood Elsewhere...but more and more I’m going on twitter to find stuff from specific writers (ex. Alan sepinwal directly rather than Rolling Stone.com; Molly Lambert etc). I think that’s an evolution in response to the instability of work for pop culture and industry writers. My loyalty is less and less to a site than a specific writer:
In terms of content, I like reading about what could have been; learning choices made in moviemaking and exploring their ramifications. What choice made a good movie great? How was it decided. Also, one of my favourite podcasts of the year was Aaron Sorkin breaking down Butch On the Rewatchables. Having someone who is an expert in their craft speaking to something they clearly admire and love - more of that please....more of that energy.
I miss film criticism in the Cahiers du Cinema style, in depth analysis of the art and authors with context. Drew mentioned Cinefex offers a similar style, but mostly for the technical side of filming. As mentioned by other commenters, Birth Movies Death used to have space for the weird, pieces on the most obscure enemies of The Flash, LGBTQ+ representation... Seems to have gone more mainstream...
You mentioned Rinzler's books on SW and POA; I'm interested in that sort of thing quite a bit. I'd dearly like to know, for instance, how Lucasfilm got from THE LAST JEDI to SKYWALKER, or from Michael Arndt's script to what came out in 2015.
I read very little online for pleasure these days; there's so little of it. The best stuff seems to be in newsletters, now that we've ceded the internet to Google and Facebook. Warren Ellis's newsletter, ORBITAL OPERATIONS, never fails to make me smile even a little.
Considering Rinzler's "Making of The Force Awakens" book was cancelled -- and his personal blog detailing his own history with LFL through 2015 was deleted -- I'd say there are those still in positions that would prefer those stories not be told.
I'm still desperately curious what Rey's motivation was in the original draft (and cut) of TFA before every shot in which she references it was awkwardly reshot on the Bad Robot rooftop. Even Kasdan evaded the question, when asked.
I think we'll be waiting a few decades before we get these stories. I'm patient.
Seconded on his Orbital Ops. I'm surprised how long he's had it running. Usually he switches up formats on an irregular basis. The consistency is unnerving.
I wish I got actual filmmaking review not plot review. I've never been to film school but I'm always interested in how stuff comes together. I guess it would be cool also to read what is worth seeking out as opposed to mainstream stuff.
One of the things you did that originally made me value your writing so much was you helped me discover movies that I would like through pieces you wrote about them. I first heard about The Raid from you having written about it, and those movies are now among my all-time favorites. I also remember your piece on Before Midnight leading me to checking out that movie and the rest of the trilogy and loving it as well. (Kinda funny that those two movies are my examples.) I would read pieces on movies I hadn't heard of before just because you wrote them, and often enough I would seek those movies out because you wrote about them in a way that piqued my interest. So, first of all thank you for that, and to answer the question, that's something I don't get enough of from other sites these days.
What I’d love to see from movie sites nowadays is less snark and more genuine excitement. Film Twitter seems to be so cynical and negative about everything these days, and you can see it bleed into fandom.
Also, me personally - I loved the inside baseball stuff about how the websites work behind the scenes. Nobody working for one is really at liberty to do that, and if you are, and it doesn't feel too much like a career risk, I'm here for it.
I love content geared toward older films as I can keep up on new films just fine, but finding gems from the 80's, 70's and so on is tougher without a trusted guide. That is one of the reasons 80's All Over was so impactful to me personally (and I am sure many others). I also love articles that discuss the filmography of a particular artist--not a ranking of their work--a discussion of why their work resonates and is important.
As far as sites, Birth.Movies.Death does solid work and although not a "site" I get a lot from Letterboxd. In fact, the ratings/reviews I see on Letterboxd have led me to more films than most film websites.
I've largely retreated from reading specific movie sites and just follow favorite writers around for the most part. I read Drew's stuff, I subscribe to Sheila O'Malley's newsletter, I try to catch anything Kim Morgan writes for the New Bev, and I listen to Karina Longworth's podcast 'You Must Remember This,' but that pretty much covers my regular consumption these days, other than stray recommendations from Twitter. Reading for pleasure is all I have the inclination to pursue any more.
I read filmcrithulk over at Patreon, and watch Lindsay Ellis and Patrick Willems on YouTube...other than you and hulk there isn't a single space that I go to to read about stuff anymore. Donna Dickens does great work but I get her stuff on Insta when she posts it. I guess the whole discourse is pretty decentralized these days.
I wish movie sites explored more technical aspects of filmmaking. I would love to read in depth analysis of cinematography and visual effects work more often. I feel like most film news sites focus almost exclusively on directors and actors. I read mostly my favorite film and tv journalists wherever they my write. I really enjoying reading Alan Sepinwall, Matt Fowler, Jim Vejvoda and watching Chris Stuckman reviews on YouTube. I also read and enjoy anything you write wherever it is you may write it. Have a great weekend Drew and I can't wait to see what you post next.
Yes! I am going to do that this weekend for what I've already posted, and then I plan to do them concurrent with the actual posts. I may just do one compilation a week, since I'm not trying to break "urgent" news.
Someone brought up to me not long ago that I really don't have any concessions to readers who might not be able to actually read the pieces for various reasons, and I should.
Fangoria’s website has great original content, different from the published magazine. @moviessilently has a great twitter feed, and longer articles on her website too.
I still use Moviehole and Dark Horizons for the general news stuff mainly to support the local sites that I grew up with. I am finding that the Ringer has some decent material and I do enjoy the oral histories that have been coming out on films anniversaries.
I am finding though that the majority of my time is going into podcasts now. Whether it be ones on the ringer network like the rewatachbles and Sean's work or previously 80s all over etc.
As others have said, social media like twitter provides a nice curation source where you don't have to follow a site but you are able to find specific writings you would find interesting.
Also getting into the books. Rick Baker's was the last one I picked up.
I don’t read any movie sites anymore. I get my news from Twitter or Empire podcast. I also subscribe digitally to Empire magazine, but usually forget to read it. The news I’m most interested in is probably Bluray release news, like from Arrow or 88Films. But for pleasurable reading, probably retrospective pieces.
I read BMD and the Ringer regularly and love the Big Picture, Rewatchables, Shockwaves and Junkfood Cinema pods. Fangoria’s member page now had great writing and aggregation of links to other good stuff.
Honestly I like behind the scenes information that gives context to news stories and movie making. I really liked the article you posted today and I feel like it’s stuff like that that sets you apart for me.
It's been a while, but some of the better moments have been reading about something I've never seen before, and making a note to keep an eye out for ___ should it pop up anywhere. A genuine thing to look forward to. Sometimes an interview or write up can feel like a treasure map of sorts.
I look for more information for why a movie may be unique among its peers, for its creators, or for its performances. What the critical creative decisions were that made it what it is. More of, "if you like this, check out this ..." Overall, take any movie and convince me why I should like it or, at least, appreciate it. Filmcomment has been my best resource for this lately, though I'm relatively new to criticism and still finding sources.
This was probably already said, I'd like to see content and discussions about the smaller films that maybe don't do well at the box office but are worthy of discussion. I'd like to see more in-depth discussions on television programs that go into every single episode. Also, as a Schmoedown fan, I'd love to hear your thoughts on your mentality going into each match and your thoughts on the league.
I recently read about the making of The Wild Bunch and thought that was a great book and it really took me back to a time in film making history. I wish there was more writing about some of the mavericks in the business and stories about how classic films got made where ever there is a good story to be told. For pleasure i read the Rolling Stone site.
I hit Birth.Movies.Death on a regular basis. As much as I like the reviews, I truly love oral histories, retrospectives of older films, and articles examining the careers of folks in the business. You've mentioned Aykroyd a few times, and I've always thought of him as one of the most promising SNL performers and a guy who couldn't quite capitalize on his stardom beyond The Blues Brothers and Ghostbusters. He's been a pretty effective supporting actor & I wondered why he didn't push his career toward more drama.
I enjoy reading "re-reviews". How has the given circumstance of the individual and the world around them affected their rewatch of a movie (or a piece of theatre for that matter)? Seeing the same piece of art through the same, but different eyes--it's fascinating to me.
Not too much more to add here, but I love the question. I want more considered analysis into why and how films work, trends and motifs Also, some critical distance. I'm all for breathless enthusiasm, but find that it is now becoming the common stock-in-trade for film sites.
I don't tend to read sites for pleasure. I still go to film magazines for that, plus video essays and podcasts. Plus, good old-fashioned film books. Ebert's The Great Movies essays are brilliant in their conciseness twinned with insight. David Bordwell's Planet Hong Kong is the perfect template for studying a branch of national cinema and Faber's Director series (e.g. Scorsese on Scorsese) are accessible and fascinating.
Another vote for oral histories. Also would love a broader look at time and release date pressures. Rise of Skywalker had 3 months less time than TFA, and bam you have the first episode that starts with a montage. Who would honestly care if that film or others were delayed three months, or six months to get things in the best possible shape? Happens in the game industry all the time - doesn’t impact the overall income for the studio, would only increase it. Why are studio executives so helpless at moving dates to give filmmakers more time? They’d make more money from repeat viewings if the films were better!
I agree with a lot of what has already been said so all I'll throw out there is that as life and work and kids have sapped away my free time for devoting to movies its only yourself and film crit hulk and Vern who I still go out of my way to follow as individual critical voices. Everything else just comes up in my social media feeds or else it falls by the wayside. So in that sense I suppose its you guys and the very unique qualities you each bring to your work that I still read for pleasure. Film Nerd 2.0, the Morning Read (god I miss those), etc. These columns helped get me through some long and lonely years in my youth. Seeing you so focused here has that young film nerd with no kids and lots of free time so pleased and excited to just follow along and see where you go with this. Thanks for keeping at it, Drew! You're boss.
While it is a little off-topic, I am currently reading ~"Correspondances" letters from Roland Barthes, the French theorist. If not familiar with him, I recommend "Camera Lucida".
I have been following your work since the AICN days. I am eager for you to write whatever it is that you are passionate about. Furthermore, I look forward to the opportunity to subscribe because you deserve to be paid for your work.
(FYI, The Thin Man is one of my favorite films. My wife and I watch it once a year at Christmas time. Then, we watch After the Thin Man on New Year’s Eve.)
To answer your question, I read Birth. Movies. Death., io9, AVClub and Tor for media news. The Gizmodo sites are a pale shadow of what they used to be and I am considering dropping them. Tor has really good analysis.
I frequent FilmSchoolRejects, Collider, and your Twitter account most days. I'm voting for lists. Any movie list interests me, but the really weird ones are the must reads. Den Of Geek used to be really good about making strange ones, now they'll less eclectic.
I love lists because they can go in weird directions, spiral into unusual recommendations. I discovered Aguirre, The Wrath of God at a young age because of a list of "Best Decapitations in Movies". I'm always looking to discover something new from a good list.
I feel like Drew probably has a lot of good, experience-based lists in him. I'd love to read something like "Drew's 5 Worst Theatrical Experiences".
I'd also specifically like an explanation as to why Drew doesn't care for The Last Crusade.
I love that you guys have an appetite for oral histories. Duly noted.
When I was working on the GHOSTBUSTERS book that I ended up not writing, I did a ton of interviews, and the Dan Aykroyd interview turned out to be pretty great after a rocky start. I got the feeling Dan was really pushing to see if I would dig deeper than just the surface, and the more we got into it, the looser he got. I have much love for him, but had never had the chance to talk to him before that. Finally, as we were finishing, I said, "So now that we've spoken, I would love to set up a time to talk to you about something. I've approached a number of your collaborators, and I would be very excited to put together a clear-eyed oral history about NOTHING BUT TROUBLE..."
I didn't even get the whole sentence out of my mouth. "Oh, I think that would be a terrible waste of time. I think you should not do that. Goodbye."
And that was it. Dan was gone in a puff of smoke that was shaped like Dan. There was just a Dan-shaped hole in the wall. Just... gone. Over. Nope.
So that went well.
Why did you end up not writing that book? Are those interviews available somewhere?
I was contracted to write it, I did all the research, and then as I started writing, my marriage imploded, and the work I was doing just wasn't very good. The editor decided to have someone else finish it.
The editor was right. The interviews were great. I was not at my best.
The book is from Insight Editions. GHOSTBUSTERS: THE ULTIMATE VISUAL HISTORY.
And, to be clear, you should be able to respond to this. This isn't like the comments on a regular post. This should be open to everyone.
I don't go to "sites" for movie stuff anymore. Many of the reasons you articulated in your opening "manifesto" had me swear them off. Twitter just seems to be a lot of grandstanding and too much silly groupthink when it comes to film. And don't get me started on "clickbait" stuff. I don't look at Rotten Tomatoes at all. I could care less what the score is there. It seems like a lot of bites and not enough of a meal. I want a meal. I want Ebert & Kael. I don't want plot summaries. I don't want video content. I want something to digest.
For sports news, I love what they are doing at The Athletic. They're collecting the best sportswriters in the country and putting out the dream sports website. That's the ideal for me. Finding a spot that is full of intelligent people -- not just fans -- intelligent people who can talk about a subject without intentionally trying to be divisive to drive clicks or impressions. I don't want drama. I want thought-provoking.
I want a meal, Drew and goddamn, I'm hungry.
Like many others I’ve stopped caring about what is published on many “Entertainment Journalism” websites which is why what you are offering is so refreshing. Having said that the one thing I am fascinated by is things that never happened. The Miller / Lord version of Solo, Gilliam’s Watchmen, the Frank Darabont penned Indiana Jones movie. Heck, just because it’s so topical everything that went into the current Star Wars trilogy. It has nothing do with seeing if something might have been better or worse but more of the creative process and how close certain things came to being. I always loved your “Movie God” game because it made you think how things would have been effected if such and such had or hadn’t happened. I find that infinitely interesting.
My absolute favorite are Oral Histories, even though they probably take forever to write. But I feel like if done correctly they paint such an interesting, vivid picture of a movie/scenario.
Generally speaking, I prefer retrospectives/fun anecdotes or even critiques, but AFTER the movie in question has come out. News about reshoots or insider pics or whatever before the movie comes out just tend to spoil or diminish things I'm excited to see.
I enjoy The Ringer a lot.
User Jose Lovero covered most of what I wanted to say. Beyond that, There is just one other pet peeve of mine concerning modern film coverage: The Film Festival. As a person who loves film but who has certain inescapable realities, the odds are I will never be able to attend a festival. I understand how integral the festival circuit is to life cycle of an indie film. It's where hype is generated and distribution deals are made. But personally, and for many reasons, I hate reading festival coverage. It's difficult to describe the unique level of jealousy and frustration that it brings. All about films that A) you know aren't likely to be as good as they are made out to be and B) you will not get to see for months or years, hell you might not EVER be able to see.
So, the less of that, the better. At least as far as I am concerned.
I'm sort of with you on this one.
I've enjoyed many of the festivals I've attended.
They are elitist AF, though. They are not designed for the average film fan. They are largely industry events, an extension of the echo chamber that exists in town. They all have very specific agendas, and more and more, they are launch pads for awards or acquisitions.
I think there are some fests I'll go to this year, but I certainly won't be doing so just to crank out sheets of on-the-spot coverage. You're right... when you can't see the films, it seems weird for me to be writing anything terribly in-depth about them.
Festivals are great for planning your editorial calendar. Less great for your readers.
Honestly. I’ve read you since the moriarty days and I love that you’re calling out everything I loathe about the current conversation. Apparently it’s no longer acceptable to like a big franchise movie with problems. You have to either unequivocally love it, or hate it. That’s poisonous to me. I love having conversation about film, and I think you’re fighting the fight that used to be.
Conversation is good. I don’t think I need to be on one team or the other to have said conversation. I’ve had enough of teams.
Not a movie site but I've recently become infatuated by the The Rewatchables podcast given their deep dive into older films. Hearing why Quentin Tarantino loves DUNKIRK only solidifies my feelings on the film and makes me want to study it more. I enjoy learning why other appreciate about a film or where they have issues with it. I also love exploring the director's touches and why certain decisions are made, whether I understand them fully or not.
I wish there were more deep dives about specific jobs within the industry. What the hell is a gaffer? Or take a behind the scenes photo and explain what every person is doing on the other side of the camera. I watched the documentary about the last year of GoT and I was amazed at the sheer number of people standing around while scenes were being filmed. What are they all doing? I’d also love to know there the numbers come from that are always being bandied about. X movie was made for Y million dollars. Break down that budget. Or net points! The director of the first MIB (forgot his name) was just talking about this on Twitter. Even though the movies grossed a ton of money, spawned multiple sequels, etc., the studio still says the movie is in the red. How? I’d love nothing more than a day in the life series if each type of person who works in a movie, from the lowest assistant to the highest paid actor.
One of the things I loved about Roger Ebert's reviews was that he didn't always feel the need to regurgitate the plot of the film in his review. I can get that anywhere. What I liked from Roger was his commentary, what I'll call his wry asides. Consider his excellent commentary for an otherwise forgettable film, HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE.
"The most popular occupations in movies about Hollywood are cops, crooks, hookers, psychics and actors, and to this list we must add the people they are all terrified of, real estate brokers. "Hollywood Homicide" covers these bases with a murderer, a cop who is a real-estate agent, a cop who wants to be an actor, and a psychic who can visualize that the murderer will be in an SUV on Rodeo Drive in half an hour."
He returns to this thought with a note that I've never forgotten:
"Note. I am aware that "realtor" is a trademark and is always supposed to be used with a capital "R." But I refuse to go along. Realtors can complain all they want, but why should they get an upper-case R just because they say so? Would we capitalize Philosopher, Exterminator, Proctologist or Critic?"
Man, I miss Roger.
So, yeah, I guess more commentary and less plot regurgitation. That's what I'm looking for.
I want deeper dives into careers, films/series etc. Im a fan of oral histories for instance. Theres lots of great stuff on The Ringer, Vulture, and ScreenCrush for instance. I love learning about the history of things I love.
I wish there were more thoughtful critical essays. Not necessarily reviews per se, but deep dives into films from a particular critical lense. I was a huge fan of Siddhant Adlakha's deep dive on /Flim into the MCU through an investigation into those movies' relation to the military industrial complex. Just well researched and interesting critical perspectives.
In terms of what I read for pleasure. /Film is my go to cause they always have interesting pieces and I like their crew of writers a lot. Birth.Movies.Death is also a lot of fun to read.
Must confess that I don't go to specific sites anymore. With so many options and even the good sites just filling space, I depend on Twitter to curate interesting articles etc.
Though I think I'd enjoy more conversation and interviews. Not promotional interviews, but a critic and a filmmaker having rich discussions about movies.
^^ This above all. Conversation about the film in question, or filmmaking overall.
Agreed. "Scorsese by Ebert" is one of my favorite movie books, where a lot of the book is just Ebert chatting with Scorsese about film. Not Scorsese promoting his recent movie, just two movie lovers talking about the director's work, influences, symbolism, behind-the-scenes stories, etc.
I love reading about "the process:" from the creative ideas, to working within a budget, to compromise, to happy accidents (all of which seem to describe Scorsese's account of shooting the final shot of LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, now that I think about it).
I really miss The Dissolve. They had the kind of film coverage I wanted to read. Insightful reviews and retrospectives. My go-to these days is Birth. Movies. Death. since they don’t get too bogged down in typical fluff you may encounter elsewhere. Even some of the movie blogs I used to check out have turned into 90% news and speculation with minimal reviews and meaningful conversation. And honestly, I have read your stuff since the AICN days, which is why I am here now.
I am more into film discussion and analysis than reporting deals and green lights, etc. that may never come to fruition. That stuff is interesting to a point but it shouldn’t be the bulk of a film website’s focus. Less fluff and more substance is what I would like. To contradict myself a little bit, it is fascinating to hear about stuff that was never made for whatever reason. I am thinking of your Corner Show column. I am probably all over the place in my response but I am glad to read whatever you feel like is worth your efforts because I trust you as a writer.
This. I still go to the Dissolve site and do a search for any movie (that hasn't been released in the last few years) that I've watched recently. The Dissolve was the last film site that I really felt like had it all in terms of what I wanted to check out.
Wow, is this a loaded question. I want to read reviews that are about the actual movie, from critics who understand the artistic and technical aspects of filmmaking, and not from people who only view film through the lens of their personal politics. That is the smallest lens one can view any kind of art. I want to read reviews that talk about a director's style and vision. I want to read about the choices an actor made, and how those choices did or did not service the story. I want to understand why a cinematographer lit a scene a certain way, or why the editor cut the film together the way they did. I want a conversation about how the score helps or hinders the story the film tells. If the film is political in nature, by all means have that discussion. God forbid a critic in new media talk about mise en scène; most have no idea what that means. Film criticism was once a journalistic endeavor. Kael wrote marvelously about film; Siskel & Ebert spoke skillfully about film, and even though those were only ever their opinions, they were, above all else, educated opinions.
The conversations about Joker that threw me were these bloggers decided the movie was about all the political things they hated, so they then hated the movie, when the politics of the film are far more nuanced and in many ways mostly in line with their beliefs. The biggest analogue I gleaned while watching was Occupy Wall Street and the Healthcare Crisis, which no one in their right mind would ever ascribe to the alt-right.
Honestly, I've largely stayed away from movie or entertainment sites the last few years. Collider, Uproxx, Slash Film, they all suffer from the same disease. Most critics I read now usually write for newspapers. I also listen to How Did This Get Made, because it's hilarious and not every discussion about movies should be serious.
I did try a podcast I thought would be great, about two people making their way through AFI's 100 Greatest Films, and by the second episode I knew I was in trouble. The "film critic" of the pair admitted they'd never seen Ben-Hur (how does someone who is a film critic live almost 40 years without seeing Ben-Hur?) and then spent an hour trashing the film because they didn't like Charlton Heston's personal politics. That's basically what the episode was about. I was flabbergasted.
If you can be better than that Drew, which I know you can, this is the only site I'll need. Conversation about movies can be spirited and fun, but these conversations should be so much broader in scope than the small-minded conversations film bloggers in new media currently have. I have great hope for this new endeavor, and I can't wait to subscribe to help you see your vision made real!
Can you please write about what happened behind the scenes of The Rise of Skywalker. Seems like a lot of turmoil went on behind closed doors.
It's so frustrating how many details we have about about the process of making older movies, compared to current productions. Especially when there are so many hints that things have been more complex than what the studios are sharing.
Like many here, I no longer have bookmarks full on sites I could count on for a good time. I love reading old Ebert reviews on his site, and I miss and revisit The Dissolve, but otherwise I tend to follow around specific writers or just find topics when I’m in the mood for them.
I’d love to find more esoteric, chance-taking, and just fun-but-knowledgeable writing on movie sites (and Bright Wall/Dark Room and Film & Fishnets deliver for me, but I’m greedy) and not worry about the place folding soon because writers aren’t being forced to write clickbait. The dream!
Piggybacking on this statement!
I love Kim Morgan's essays over at the New Beverly.
Me, too! Kim's great at what she does, and I love that she's never been corrupted by some shitty clickbait gig that made her crank out listicles. From her blog to her current home, she's always written from the heart, and her essays stand apart from the films they're about as fully-formed things. She's one of our best.
The sites I read are primarily The Ringer, A.V. club, Vox, Hollywood Elsewhere...but more and more I’m going on twitter to find stuff from specific writers (ex. Alan sepinwal directly rather than Rolling Stone.com; Molly Lambert etc). I think that’s an evolution in response to the instability of work for pop culture and industry writers. My loyalty is less and less to a site than a specific writer:
In terms of content, I like reading about what could have been; learning choices made in moviemaking and exploring their ramifications. What choice made a good movie great? How was it decided. Also, one of my favourite podcasts of the year was Aaron Sorkin breaking down Butch On the Rewatchables. Having someone who is an expert in their craft speaking to something they clearly admire and love - more of that please....more of that energy.
I miss film criticism in the Cahiers du Cinema style, in depth analysis of the art and authors with context. Drew mentioned Cinefex offers a similar style, but mostly for the technical side of filming. As mentioned by other commenters, Birth Movies Death used to have space for the weird, pieces on the most obscure enemies of The Flash, LGBTQ+ representation... Seems to have gone more mainstream...
You mentioned Rinzler's books on SW and POA; I'm interested in that sort of thing quite a bit. I'd dearly like to know, for instance, how Lucasfilm got from THE LAST JEDI to SKYWALKER, or from Michael Arndt's script to what came out in 2015.
I read very little online for pleasure these days; there's so little of it. The best stuff seems to be in newsletters, now that we've ceded the internet to Google and Facebook. Warren Ellis's newsletter, ORBITAL OPERATIONS, never fails to make me smile even a little.
Considering Rinzler's "Making of The Force Awakens" book was cancelled -- and his personal blog detailing his own history with LFL through 2015 was deleted -- I'd say there are those still in positions that would prefer those stories not be told.
I'm still desperately curious what Rey's motivation was in the original draft (and cut) of TFA before every shot in which she references it was awkwardly reshot on the Bad Robot rooftop. Even Kasdan evaded the question, when asked.
I think we'll be waiting a few decades before we get these stories. I'm patient.
Seconded on his Orbital Ops. I'm surprised how long he's had it running. Usually he switches up formats on an irregular basis. The consistency is unnerving.
I wish I got actual filmmaking review not plot review. I've never been to film school but I'm always interested in how stuff comes together. I guess it would be cool also to read what is worth seeking out as opposed to mainstream stuff.
More in-depth analyses on films new and old. BMD, The Ringer (mainly the Big Picture & Rewatchables), and sometimes Vulture do this very well.
I just miss The Dissolve so much. That site was the best of them all.
This pretty much nails my feelings. Goddamnit, why couldn't The Dissolve try to make it on a reader-funded format?
The Athletic, but for film (and television and music). Maybe this can be the first step to something like that?
One of the things you did that originally made me value your writing so much was you helped me discover movies that I would like through pieces you wrote about them. I first heard about The Raid from you having written about it, and those movies are now among my all-time favorites. I also remember your piece on Before Midnight leading me to checking out that movie and the rest of the trilogy and loving it as well. (Kinda funny that those two movies are my examples.) I would read pieces on movies I hadn't heard of before just because you wrote them, and often enough I would seek those movies out because you wrote about them in a way that piqued my interest. So, first of all thank you for that, and to answer the question, that's something I don't get enough of from other sites these days.
What I’d love to see from movie sites nowadays is less snark and more genuine excitement. Film Twitter seems to be so cynical and negative about everything these days, and you can see it bleed into fandom.
Also, me personally - I loved the inside baseball stuff about how the websites work behind the scenes. Nobody working for one is really at liberty to do that, and if you are, and it doesn't feel too much like a career risk, I'm here for it.
Oral histories of older films to echo the below, I find them fascinating and not something you see too often in modern film journalism.
I love content geared toward older films as I can keep up on new films just fine, but finding gems from the 80's, 70's and so on is tougher without a trusted guide. That is one of the reasons 80's All Over was so impactful to me personally (and I am sure many others). I also love articles that discuss the filmography of a particular artist--not a ranking of their work--a discussion of why their work resonates and is important.
As far as sites, Birth.Movies.Death does solid work and although not a "site" I get a lot from Letterboxd. In fact, the ratings/reviews I see on Letterboxd have led me to more films than most film websites.
I've largely retreated from reading specific movie sites and just follow favorite writers around for the most part. I read Drew's stuff, I subscribe to Sheila O'Malley's newsletter, I try to catch anything Kim Morgan writes for the New Bev, and I listen to Karina Longworth's podcast 'You Must Remember This,' but that pretty much covers my regular consumption these days, other than stray recommendations from Twitter. Reading for pleasure is all I have the inclination to pursue any more.
I read filmcrithulk over at Patreon, and watch Lindsay Ellis and Patrick Willems on YouTube...other than you and hulk there isn't a single space that I go to to read about stuff anymore. Donna Dickens does great work but I get her stuff on Insta when she posts it. I guess the whole discourse is pretty decentralized these days.
I wish movie sites explored more technical aspects of filmmaking. I would love to read in depth analysis of cinematography and visual effects work more often. I feel like most film news sites focus almost exclusively on directors and actors. I read mostly my favorite film and tv journalists wherever they my write. I really enjoying reading Alan Sepinwall, Matt Fowler, Jim Vejvoda and watching Chris Stuckman reviews on YouTube. I also read and enjoy anything you write wherever it is you may write it. Have a great weekend Drew and I can't wait to see what you post next.
I really love the Soundtrack Show podcast : https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/soundtrackshow?selected=HSW4130262636
Speaking of which... Have you considered recording audio versions of your mailing list posts?
Yes! I am going to do that this weekend for what I've already posted, and then I plan to do them concurrent with the actual posts. I may just do one compilation a week, since I'm not trying to break "urgent" news.
Someone brought up to me not long ago that I really don't have any concessions to readers who might not be able to actually read the pieces for various reasons, and I should.
Fangoria’s website has great original content, different from the published magazine. @moviessilently has a great twitter feed, and longer articles on her website too.
I still use Moviehole and Dark Horizons for the general news stuff mainly to support the local sites that I grew up with. I am finding that the Ringer has some decent material and I do enjoy the oral histories that have been coming out on films anniversaries.
I am finding though that the majority of my time is going into podcasts now. Whether it be ones on the ringer network like the rewatachbles and Sean's work or previously 80s all over etc.
As others have said, social media like twitter provides a nice curation source where you don't have to follow a site but you are able to find specific writings you would find interesting.
Also getting into the books. Rick Baker's was the last one I picked up.
I don’t read any movie sites anymore. I get my news from Twitter or Empire podcast. I also subscribe digitally to Empire magazine, but usually forget to read it. The news I’m most interested in is probably Bluray release news, like from Arrow or 88Films. But for pleasurable reading, probably retrospective pieces.
I read BMD and the Ringer regularly and love the Big Picture, Rewatchables, Shockwaves and Junkfood Cinema pods. Fangoria’s member page now had great writing and aggregation of links to other good stuff.
Honestly I like behind the scenes information that gives context to news stories and movie making. I really liked the article you posted today and I feel like it’s stuff like that that sets you apart for me.
It's been a while, but some of the better moments have been reading about something I've never seen before, and making a note to keep an eye out for ___ should it pop up anywhere. A genuine thing to look forward to. Sometimes an interview or write up can feel like a treasure map of sorts.
I look for more information for why a movie may be unique among its peers, for its creators, or for its performances. What the critical creative decisions were that made it what it is. More of, "if you like this, check out this ..." Overall, take any movie and convince me why I should like it or, at least, appreciate it. Filmcomment has been my best resource for this lately, though I'm relatively new to criticism and still finding sources.
This was probably already said, I'd like to see content and discussions about the smaller films that maybe don't do well at the box office but are worthy of discussion. I'd like to see more in-depth discussions on television programs that go into every single episode. Also, as a Schmoedown fan, I'd love to hear your thoughts on your mentality going into each match and your thoughts on the league.
I recently read about the making of The Wild Bunch and thought that was a great book and it really took me back to a time in film making history. I wish there was more writing about some of the mavericks in the business and stories about how classic films got made where ever there is a good story to be told. For pleasure i read the Rolling Stone site.
Is that the WK Stratton book? I'm about to dig into that one myself.
Yes it is. I'm also after the book put out recently on Once Upon a Time in the West.
I hit Birth.Movies.Death on a regular basis. As much as I like the reviews, I truly love oral histories, retrospectives of older films, and articles examining the careers of folks in the business. You've mentioned Aykroyd a few times, and I've always thought of him as one of the most promising SNL performers and a guy who couldn't quite capitalize on his stardom beyond The Blues Brothers and Ghostbusters. He's been a pretty effective supporting actor & I wondered why he didn't push his career toward more drama.
I enjoy reading "re-reviews". How has the given circumstance of the individual and the world around them affected their rewatch of a movie (or a piece of theatre for that matter)? Seeing the same piece of art through the same, but different eyes--it's fascinating to me.
Not too much more to add here, but I love the question. I want more considered analysis into why and how films work, trends and motifs Also, some critical distance. I'm all for breathless enthusiasm, but find that it is now becoming the common stock-in-trade for film sites.
I don't tend to read sites for pleasure. I still go to film magazines for that, plus video essays and podcasts. Plus, good old-fashioned film books. Ebert's The Great Movies essays are brilliant in their conciseness twinned with insight. David Bordwell's Planet Hong Kong is the perfect template for studying a branch of national cinema and Faber's Director series (e.g. Scorsese on Scorsese) are accessible and fascinating.
Another vote for oral histories. Also would love a broader look at time and release date pressures. Rise of Skywalker had 3 months less time than TFA, and bam you have the first episode that starts with a montage. Who would honestly care if that film or others were delayed three months, or six months to get things in the best possible shape? Happens in the game industry all the time - doesn’t impact the overall income for the studio, would only increase it. Why are studio executives so helpless at moving dates to give filmmakers more time? They’d make more money from repeat viewings if the films were better!
I agree with a lot of what has already been said so all I'll throw out there is that as life and work and kids have sapped away my free time for devoting to movies its only yourself and film crit hulk and Vern who I still go out of my way to follow as individual critical voices. Everything else just comes up in my social media feeds or else it falls by the wayside. So in that sense I suppose its you guys and the very unique qualities you each bring to your work that I still read for pleasure. Film Nerd 2.0, the Morning Read (god I miss those), etc. These columns helped get me through some long and lonely years in my youth. Seeing you so focused here has that young film nerd with no kids and lots of free time so pleased and excited to just follow along and see where you go with this. Thanks for keeping at it, Drew! You're boss.
While it is a little off-topic, I am currently reading ~"Correspondances" letters from Roland Barthes, the French theorist. If not familiar with him, I recommend "Camera Lucida".
Jen Jonas @ https://filmintuition.com/, wherever Siddhant Adlakha is dropping new stuff, http://outlawvern.com/author/outlawvern/ and https://lewtonbus.net/author/vycevictus/ for written stuff.
I have been following your work since the AICN days. I am eager for you to write whatever it is that you are passionate about. Furthermore, I look forward to the opportunity to subscribe because you deserve to be paid for your work.
(FYI, The Thin Man is one of my favorite films. My wife and I watch it once a year at Christmas time. Then, we watch After the Thin Man on New Year’s Eve.)
To answer your question, I read Birth. Movies. Death., io9, AVClub and Tor for media news. The Gizmodo sites are a pale shadow of what they used to be and I am considering dropping them. Tor has really good analysis.
I go to Deadline, which is ok for what it is.
I frequent FilmSchoolRejects, Collider, and your Twitter account most days. I'm voting for lists. Any movie list interests me, but the really weird ones are the must reads. Den Of Geek used to be really good about making strange ones, now they'll less eclectic.
I love lists because they can go in weird directions, spiral into unusual recommendations. I discovered Aguirre, The Wrath of God at a young age because of a list of "Best Decapitations in Movies". I'm always looking to discover something new from a good list.
I feel like Drew probably has a lot of good, experience-based lists in him. I'd love to read something like "Drew's 5 Worst Theatrical Experiences".
I'd also specifically like an explanation as to why Drew doesn't care for The Last Crusade.