784:
databases of movie reviews, except for the redundant master’s thesis on movie reviews and the link to “Big
Picture Big Sound”, which looks to me like just a bunch of Google ads and two guys' opinions of some movies they watched. I’ve removed these two arbitrary links, and reinstated the external links SimonP poo-pooed, save the Upperstall and Midnight Eye links, which seem more appropriate on an Indian and Japanese cinema page, respectively. In any case, it seems pertinent for a page called “Film Criticism” to have some external links to actual criticism and not just to Ebert and his merry band of plot recapitulators.
1328:
criticism,” the section of journalistic criticism contains “Online film reviews” section. There is no explanation and citation why online film review is included in film critic so that this article is written like editor’s personal opinion about a topic. Also, this definition of film criticism on this article does not contain any citations so that this definition seems like an unreliable and generalized. The amount of information of
Academic criticism section is too small compared to Journalistic criticism. I think this article needs more citations for verification. 01:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
685:
1453:
oversimplifies many of Jarvie's points and also incorrectly uses ordinal numbers (e.g. repeating the phrase "The fourth way in how film critics are able to write criticisms that involve critical discussions containing rationality" twice but using separate examples for each). I'd suggest removing this section entirely, or otherwise editing and clarifying. It feels out of place and lacking in rigor. Proposing this here first to see if others share my assessment.
607:
548:
339:
318:
597:
576:
1374:
709:
240:
222:
250:
191:
939:
Jean-Louis
Beaudry, he doesn't seem to exist outside of this article. William Rothman though, definately does exist, and has published some books, but they don't seem to have had the earth shaking impact of stuff published by Sarris and likes. I'd be inclined to to just cut those and others in the list like that out, but it would probably be better to discuss first.
450:
423:
460:
349:
1333:
Jahns and Black Movie Nerd 2) critics with a journalistic background who publish reviews online, like Mark
Kermode, Richard Roeper and Christy Lemire 3) community review websites, where anyone can post. In some cases, the latter are little more than ratings rather than actual film criticism. It needs more citations, though.
1452:
This section is deeply strange and confusing. It's all based on a single source, which is Ian Jarvie's 1961 Film
Quarterly article - a pondering of a proposed framework for objectivity in film criticism. It's not a "format" or guideline for all criticism. The writing here is also confusing in that it
1432:
and here is the kicker i am young these old peoplewho dish out so much negativivty towards evrything nowadays they just want things to go back to the old days during there time and its not just the movie franchise getting negativity from old farts the church industries are recieving it as well i fort
1292:
Sounds neat and precise, but it's inaccurate and outdated. In fact, academics and theorists writing in scholarly journals are in the minority and newspaper critics are a dying breed. Ironically, for a Web encyclopedia, a third category of Web critics—bloggers—is not mentioned, even though their ranks
1332:
I've rewritten the lede. I don't view them as being different. Film reviews are probably the main form of film criticism. More could be done to mention the different forms that online film criticism takes: 1) film critics who gained a following publishing reviews online, like Chris
Stuckmann, Jeremy
774:
I don't know how to cite something backing this up, but it's certainly not always true. Some films are seen on tape or even DVD, or seen at film festivals and then seen again at press screenings. And while sometimes press screenings might occur a day or two before the release of the film, they can
783:
I don’t know why SimonP is acting like the arbiter of relevancy for the Film
Criticism page when he obviously doesn’t understand the difference between film criticism and movie reviews. The external links he eliminated were all links to journals or examples of film criticism; those he kept are all
938:
Hopefully, that gives an idea of what sort of criteria should be used to decide on notability. Now, that NPOV tag is still up there because I'd contend that some of the people on that list are not notable: I can't even determine whether "Danielle Savage" even exists from a Google search. Same for
756:
I think this definition of film criticism is pretty narrow -- the distinction between critics and reviewers is sometimes made, but it's much more of a continuum than this page suggests. (Kael is a reviewer, but Sarris is a critic?) I'm tempted to do a major rewrite, but someone else may be better
1215:
I can't help but look at the criticism section and wonder how the films were chosen, except to conclude they were put in by an Avatar fan enraged by the fact that Hurt Locker beat Avatar to best film in the
Academy Awards. Could I perhaps put in an art house example that is actually art house?
1327:
I think this article should clearly describe the difference between the definition of film critic and film review first. It confused because the first section of the definition of “film critic” describes “film criticism can be divided into two categories: journalistic criticism and academic
1252:
I find the current list of hubs rather underwhelming. Not only is it Anglo-centric, but they're links to newspapers that the average Wiki reader would already be familiar with. I think someone interested in, but inexperienced with, film criticism might want stronger, more cinephile-friendly
1289:"Film critics analyze and evaluate film," states the site. That much is true. But there's more: "They can be divided into journalistic critics who write for newspapers and other popular, mass-media outlets, and academic critics who are informed by film theory and publish in journals."
1110:
Ok, the article does make a case for including
Truffaut in academic critics, seems I didn't read it carefully enough; however, I still feel that the whole list is rather imbalanced, and that academic may not be quite the word to describe some of the more theoretical critics.
1085:
While agreeing that links to individiual critics/journals are superfluous, I think the sites that are ABOUT film criticism (e.g., rottentomatoes.com) are pertinent. They help a reader understand what criticism involves and what different types of criticism are available.
1005:
It's not something that I would be surprised at if it were true, but I can't verify it off the top of my head. Perhaps it would be best to move it here from out of the main article until it can be sourced? As it stands right now, the arguement rests on a straw man.
1231:
Actually, I may just re-word it all to give appropriate context (the issue won't have much relevance without context in a year or two), and change Hurt Locker's description from art house to that of a film that simply didn't achieve major box-office success.
1195:
I was surprised that this article does not have a
Controversy section, considering the overall public negativity towards the movie critics (including notable actors, directors and so on). This is just not typical for an article about such a hated group of
1386:
1253:
recommendations. I think a link to the Cahier du cinéma and Sight & Sound websites should be no-brainers. But what about respectable webzines and critics' blogs? Slant, Ebert, Rosenbaum, etc. 17:26, 26 December 2011
994:
The just-added "Criticism of Criticism" section refers to no authoritative sources and is not very well argued. I was going to delete it, but I thought I'd check first to see if anyone could support the points it makes.
721:
1070:
I've just cleaned out the External Links section -- deleting sites that appeared to be vanity projects or otherwise not-notable review sites. If anyone can make a case for any of the deleted sites, please do so here.
153:
1144:
I think that would be a good idea if anyone cares enough to add it to the article but any mention of quote whoring would need to mention the apotheosis of that phenomenon, an entirely fictitious film critic:
1100:
The list of notable journalistic critics is, I feel, terribly Anglo-centric. Also makes me wonder why Truffaut has been included in academic critics, whereas he was, as far as I know, anything but academic.
1434:
844:...it seems very opinionated for one to make a list of critics that are noteworthy. If there's a certain criteria, perhaps it should be explained. Ohyeahmormons 03:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
1286:
Look up the words "film critic" online—not that one necessarily should—and a Knowledge definition is the first to pop up. The description is decidedly, and oddly, old school:
1541:
869:, well, there is no set policy on that, but I could give some examples of what makes some critics notable that would give a general idea of why they should be in a list:
977:
OK - I removed the NPOV tag. My suggestion for the future: if anyone thinks any of names don't belong in the listing, then the name(s) should be discussed individually.
147:
764:
this part about "some say" needs to be removed or made more specific. Where is this official distinction between film critics and film reviewers made? Citation needed.
481:
on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the
1353:
Is film appreciation a term to be included in this article or is it a very different thing, sufficiently different to create another article? Thanks, regards!
1125:
In advertisements for Smoking Aces, a quote from a negative New York Times review, in which the quote had been used in a negative light, was cast positively.
1028:
It would be cool to provide an (almost) exhaustive list of what can be discussed in a movie, as well as examples of typical movies of such styles. Example :
1282:
This article was mentioned on the DGA, (Directors Guild of America), website ,(which is a treasure). It looks like this column was posted sometime in 2010;
1531:
1516:
1506:
1491:
663:
653:
555:
518:
508:
433:
405:
395:
79:
733:
1536:
1496:
1521:
44:
860:. These are usually there to give the reader some idea of who is well known within that particular field, and as such serve a useful purpose.
629:
483:
371:
85:
1526:
1511:
1501:
1486:
1394:
1233:
1217:
1150:
1481:
1269:
692:
1438:
1176:
1146:
1132:
949:
My two cents: it's better to cut a few questionable names, than keep the tag on the page, which calls the whole page into question.
620:
581:
473:
428:
362:
323:
268:
99:
30:
1476:
1310:
168:
104:
20:
135:
280:
272:
74:
1032:
Rythm : alternance of quiet and active times (or whatever :-). Example of a movie with a remarkable rythm : The big sleep
202:
849:
757:
qualified and I've got other topics I'd like to tackle first. Anyone else have any thoughts -- or an impulse to redo?
65:
968:
Good. So, we can one of us just remove the NPOV tag, or must an administrator do that? (I'm relatively new here.)
276:
263:
227:
802:
129:
806:
1237:
1221:
1154:
109:
125:
1458:
1265:
831:
1338:
1201:
1180:
1136:
208:
1454:
1039:. Example of a movie with low field depth : whatever. Example of notable field depth effects : whatever
175:
1257:
1172:
1128:
866:
190:
1390:
1358:
1197:
1057:
161:
55:
813:
rag, but I'm not sure if his work is widely read or even known outside the Trotskyist community. —
628:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
370:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1377:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
1087:
1072:
1036:
996:
741:
712:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
70:
933:-are not not necessarily most famous for there film criticism, but are famous for other reasons.
684:
771:"Normally they only see any given film once and have only a day or two to formulate opinions."
1414:
1261:
930:
926:
910:
898:
612:
465:
354:
51:
1429:
you know a lot of films these critics say sucked i watched them myself and they were awesome
1334:
758:
141:
1402:
1007:
940:
886:
857:
814:
785:
881:-publishes a comprehensive review book every year that usually becomes a #1 bestseller.
848:
Well, a lot of articles on various subjects have lists of notable these and thats, i.e.
1354:
1044:
878:
874:
775:
also happen months before, so the time needed to "formulate opinions" can vary widely.
24:
547:
1470:
1052:
This is the thrust of what I'd like to accomplish with a new website I just set up -
960:
922:
902:
890:
737:
1410:
1398:
978:
969:
950:
914:
894:
882:
267:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
1373:
1112:
1102:
1022:
906:
870:
725:
708:
338:
317:
255:
918:
810:
625:
602:
596:
575:
478:
455:
367:
344:
245:
239:
221:
853:
284:
917:-have published books or articles that profoundly influenced the field.
1462:
1442:
1418:
1362:
1342:
1241:
1225:
1205:
1184:
1158:
1115:
1105:
1090:
1075:
1060:
1047:
1010:
999:
981:
972:
963:
953:
943:
834:
817:
788:
745:
477:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
830:, and several other mainstream places, so yes, I'd say he's notable.
449:
422:
901:-have had a longtime association with a well known publication.
679:
184:
15:
1053:
546:
1025:. Actually, I don't know where this request fits best).
160:
703:
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
624:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
366:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
959:I agree. Just cut a few of the less notable names.
529:
1448:Format for film critics to write film criticisms
1021:(Note : this suggestion has also been posted on
840:Regarding the NPOV tag; taken from my talk page.
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
805:. Is he really so notable? He writes for the
283:. To improve this article, please refer to the
1056:, if anybody is interested in participating.
174:
8:
1433:one am sick and tired of so much negativity
1425:old people and there love for being negative
1368:Wiki Education assignment: Media Innovations
1293:are growing daily.-CLAUDIA PUIG in DGA.org
570:
526:
417:
312:
279:. To use this banner, please refer to the
216:
1542:Knowledge former articles for improvement
734:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
696:on 8 July 2013 for a period of one week.
1302:
779:External links to actual film criticism
732:Above undated message substituted from
572:
419:
314:
218:
188:
487:about philosophy content on Knowledge.
1435:2601:402:C202:C990:A9AC:6AC7:ED0:9AB7
7:
618:This article is within the scope of
471:This article is within the scope of
360:This article is within the scope of
261:This article is within the scope of
207:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1532:Low-importance Journalism articles
1517:Low-importance Aesthetics articles
1507:Low-importance Philosophy articles
1492:Low-importance psychology articles
1382:
1378:
801:This section of the article lists
717:
713:
14:
1147:David Manning (fictitious writer)
690:This article was selected as the
1385:. Further details are available
1372:
720:. Further details are available
707:
683:
638:Knowledge:WikiProject Journalism
605:
595:
574:
493:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy
458:
448:
421:
380:Knowledge:WikiProject Psychology
347:
337:
316:
277:regional and topical task forces
248:
238:
220:
189:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1537:WikiProject Journalism articles
1497:WikiProject Psychology articles
1035:Field depth : See main article
658:This article has been rated as
641:Template:WikiProject Journalism
513:This article has been rated as
496:Template:WikiProject Philosophy
400:This article has been rated as
383:Template:WikiProject Psychology
1522:Aesthetics task force articles
1159:14:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
1139:) 20:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
990:Criticism of Criticism section
973:22:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
964:19:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
954:23:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
1443:03:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
1409:— Assignment last updated by
1206:02:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
818:07:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
789:18:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
632:and see a list of open tasks.
374:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1419:14:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
1116:05:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1106:05:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
1017:Elements of style in a movie
822:He's also been published in
746:21:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
1527:C-Class Journalism articles
1512:C-Class Aesthetics articles
1502:C-Class Philosophy articles
1487:C-Class psychology articles
1323:Film review and film critic
1242:19:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
1226:19:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
1091:11:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
1076:10:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
982:02:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
850:List of famous piano makers
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1558:
1343:16:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
1185:07:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
761:02:39, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)
664:project's importance scale
519:project's importance scale
406:project's importance scale
293:Knowledge:WikiProject Film
1482:WikiProject Film articles
1463:17:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
1363:18:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
1278:Criticism on this article
1061:00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
657:
590:
554:
525:
512:
443:
399:
332:
296:Template:WikiProject Film
233:
215:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1048:07:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
1011:09:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
1000:12:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
944:05:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
807:World Socialist Web Site
752:Pretty narrow definition
1359:Editrocito or Heme aquĂ
1349:About film appreciation
1169:low!!! muzta Uhh@!!!!
1121:Quote Whoring Addition?
1066:External Links Clean Up
835:05:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
693:article for improvement
530:Associated task forces:
1295:
621:WikiProject Journalism
551:
474:WikiProject Philosophy
363:WikiProject Psychology
197:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1477:C-Class film articles
1389:. Student editor(s):
1284:
1131:comment was added by
873:-first critic to win
724:. Student editor(s):
550:
100:Neutral point of view
1355:Correogsk or Gustavo
797:Notable film critics
105:No original research
1397:). Peer reviewers:
1311:"Critical Revision"
644:Journalism articles
499:Philosophy articles
386:psychology articles
269:join the discussion
1387:on the course page
1054:wikifilmschool.com
768:This part here...
722:on the course page
552:
484:general discussion
203:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1274:
1260:comment added by
1175:comment added by
1140:
931:Peter Bogdanovich
927:Sergei Eisenstein
911:Francois Truffaut
899:Stanley Kauffmann
700:
699:
678:
677:
674:
673:
670:
669:
613:Journalism portal
569:
568:
565:
564:
561:
560:
466:Philosophy portal
416:
415:
412:
411:
355:Psychology portal
311:
310:
307:
306:
271:and see lists of
183:
182:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1549:
1421:
1395:article contribs
1384:
1380:
1376:
1315:
1314:
1307:
1273:
1254:
1211:Strange examples
1187:
1126:
828:Senses of Cinema
748:
719:
718:14 December 2021
715:
714:1 September 2021
711:
687:
680:
646:
645:
642:
639:
636:
615:
610:
609:
608:
599:
592:
591:
586:
578:
571:
537:
527:
501:
500:
497:
494:
491:
468:
463:
462:
461:
452:
445:
444:
439:
436:
425:
418:
388:
387:
384:
381:
378:
357:
352:
351:
350:
341:
334:
333:
328:
320:
313:
301:
300:
297:
294:
291:
264:WikiProject Film
258:
253:
252:
251:
242:
235:
234:
224:
217:
200:
194:
193:
185:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1467:
1466:
1450:
1427:
1408:
1383:9 December 2022
1370:
1351:
1325:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1280:
1255:
1250:
1213:
1193:
1170:
1167:
1127:—The preceding
1123:
1098:
1096:Notable critics
1083:
1068:
1019:
992:
887:Bosley Crowther
858:List of authors
842:
824:Sight and Sound
799:
781:
754:
731:
705:
643:
640:
637:
634:
633:
611:
606:
604:
584:
535:
498:
495:
492:
489:
488:
464:
459:
457:
437:
431:
385:
382:
379:
376:
375:
353:
348:
346:
326:
298:
295:
292:
289:
288:
254:
249:
247:
201:on Knowledge's
198:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1555:
1553:
1545:
1544:
1539:
1534:
1529:
1524:
1519:
1514:
1509:
1504:
1499:
1494:
1489:
1484:
1479:
1469:
1468:
1449:
1446:
1426:
1423:
1391:Brandon Figaro
1379:23 August 2022
1369:
1366:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1324:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1301:
1300:
1296:
1279:
1276:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1212:
1209:
1192:
1189:
1166:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1122:
1119:
1097:
1094:
1082:
1081:External links
1079:
1067:
1064:
1058:HamillianActor
1041:
1040:
1033:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1013:
991:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
975:
947:
946:
935:
934:
879:Leonard Maltin
875:Pulitzer Prize
862:
861:
841:
838:
832:207.216.170.38
798:
795:
793:
780:
777:
767:
753:
750:
704:
701:
698:
697:
688:
676:
675:
672:
671:
668:
667:
660:Low-importance
656:
650:
649:
647:
630:the discussion
617:
616:
600:
588:
587:
585:Low‑importance
579:
567:
566:
563:
562:
559:
558:
553:
543:
542:
540:
538:
532:
531:
523:
522:
515:Low-importance
511:
505:
504:
502:
470:
469:
453:
441:
440:
438:Low‑importance
426:
414:
413:
410:
409:
402:Low-importance
398:
392:
391:
389:
372:the discussion
359:
358:
342:
330:
329:
327:Low‑importance
321:
309:
308:
305:
304:
302:
260:
259:
243:
231:
230:
225:
213:
212:
206:
195:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
25:Film criticism
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1554:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1530:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1520:
1518:
1515:
1513:
1510:
1508:
1505:
1503:
1500:
1498:
1495:
1493:
1490:
1488:
1485:
1483:
1480:
1478:
1475:
1474:
1472:
1465:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1447:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1430:
1424:
1422:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1406:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1375:
1367:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1322:
1312:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1283:
1277:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:77.101.60.220
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1218:77.101.60.220
1210:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1190:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1151:109.77.213.49
1148:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1108:
1107:
1104:
1095:
1093:
1092:
1089:
1088:Jeremy Butler
1080:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1073:Jeremy Butler
1065:
1063:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
998:
997:Jeremy Butler
989:
983:
980:
976:
974:
971:
967:
966:
965:
962:
958:
957:
956:
955:
952:
945:
942:
937:
936:
932:
928:
924:
923:Graham Greene
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
903:Andrew Sarris
900:
896:
892:
891:Vincent Canby
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
846:
845:
839:
837:
836:
833:
829:
825:
820:
819:
816:
812:
808:
804:
796:
794:
791:
790:
787:
778:
776:
772:
769:
765:
762:
760:
751:
749:
747:
743:
739:
735:
729:
727:
723:
710:
702:
695:
694:
689:
686:
682:
681:
665:
661:
655:
652:
651:
648:
631:
627:
623:
622:
614:
603:
601:
598:
594:
593:
589:
583:
580:
577:
573:
557:
549:
545:
544:
541:
539:
534:
533:
528:
524:
520:
516:
510:
507:
506:
503:
486:
485:
480:
476:
475:
467:
456:
454:
451:
447:
446:
442:
435:
430:
427:
424:
420:
407:
403:
397:
394:
393:
390:
373:
369:
365:
364:
356:
345:
343:
340:
336:
335:
331:
325:
322:
319:
315:
303:
299:film articles
286:
282:
281:documentation
278:
274:
270:
266:
265:
257:
246:
244:
241:
237:
236:
232:
229:
226:
223:
219:
214:
210:
204:
196:
192:
187:
186:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1455:Cinephilioso
1451:
1431:
1428:
1407:
1371:
1352:
1326:
1305:
1297:
1291:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1262:Cbennett1989
1256:— Preceding
1251:
1214:
1194:
1168:
1124:
1109:
1099:
1084:
1069:
1051:
1042:
1027:
1020:
993:
948:
915:Manny Farber
895:Janet Maslin
883:Pauline Kael
843:
827:
823:
821:
800:
792:
782:
773:
770:
766:
763:
755:
730:
706:
691:
659:
619:
514:
482:
472:
401:
361:
262:
209:WikiProjects
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1335:Anywikiuser
1191:Controversy
1177:120.28.8.20
1171:—Preceding
1133:75.69.118.1
1037:field depth
1023:Film theory
907:Andre Bazin
871:Roger Ebert
803:David Walsh
759:Scarequotes
256:Film portal
148:free images
31:not a forum
1471:Categories
1403:Lvmcintire
1298:References
1008:Gershwinrb
941:Gershwinrb
919:James Agee
867:notability
815:Psychonaut
811:Trotskyist
786:Sinlechuga
635:Journalism
626:journalism
582:Journalism
556:Aesthetics
490:Philosophy
479:philosophy
434:Aesthetics
429:Philosophy
377:Psychology
368:Psychology
324:Psychology
285:guidelines
273:open tasks
1045:King mike
854:Columnist
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1270:contribs
1258:unsigned
1198:Preslavk
1173:unsigned
1129:unsigned
1043:Thanks.
961:Jiberole
738:PrimeBOT
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1411:Moillet
1399:Moillet
1196:people.
979:PaulLev
970:PaulLev
951:PaulLev
865:As for
662:on the
517:on the
404:on the
199:C-class
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1113:Naphra
1103:Naphra
726:Jhulty
205:scale.
126:Google
1149:. --
856:, or
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1459:talk
1439:talk
1415:talk
1381:and
1339:talk
1266:talk
1238:talk
1222:talk
1202:talk
1181:talk
1155:talk
1137:talk
809:, a
742:talk
716:and
290:Film
275:and
228:Film
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1248:Hub
1165:low
736:by
654:Low
509:Low
396:Low
176:TWL
1473::
1461:)
1441:)
1417:)
1405:.
1401:,
1361:)
1341:)
1272:)
1268:•
1240:)
1224:)
1204:)
1183:)
1157:)
1086:--
1071:--
995:--
929:,
925:,
921:,
913:,
909:,
905:,
897:,
893:,
889:,
885:,
877:,
852:,
826:,
744:)
728:.
536:/
432::
156:)
54:;
1457:(
1437:(
1413:(
1393:(
1357:(
1337:(
1313:.
1264:(
1236:(
1220:(
1200:(
1179:(
1153:(
1135:(
740:(
666:.
521:.
408:.
287:.
211::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
