reminded me of how much i loved reading this: &quot;Lost Highways: An Illustrated History of Road Movies by Sargeant, Jack&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.abebooks.com&#x2F;9781871592689&#x2F;Lost-Highways-Illustrated-History-Road-1871592682&#x2F;plp" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.abebooks.com&#x2F;9781871592689&#x2F;Lost-Highways-Illustr...</a>

Good movie criticism is alive and well. You simply need to expand your vision beyond anyone who relies on Rotten Tomatoes or (probably) Letterbox. That&#x27;s probably not it.Youtube is a great place to start looking. It has a lot of trash, but there are some extraordinary essayists and writers giving robust and insightful looks into films new and old.Off the top of my head:1. House of Tabula - Essays on art and culture, with a heavy emphasis on film, old and new.
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@TheHouseofTabula&#x2F;videos" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@TheHouseofTabula&#x2F;videos</a>2. Deep Dive - Lewis from House of Tabula doing 10-15 min reviews of recent theatrical releases:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@DEEPDIVETHOT&#x2F;videos" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@DEEPDIVETHOT&#x2F;videos</a>3. Spikima Movies
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@SpikimaMovies&#x2F;videos" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@SpikimaMovies&#x2F;videos</a>4. Thomas Flight
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@ThomasFlight&#x2F;videos" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;@ThomasFlight&#x2F;videos</a>These channels (expect for #2) all diverge from straightforward reviews, but what they give you are the tools to articulate what the film is doing, how it is doing it, and therefore equip you to become your own critic. Someone capable of thinking critically.

Siskel and Ebert the TV show was a good example of the dumbing down of criticism; that trend started already before the internet age. The twentieth-century American television medium simply didn&#x27;t allow much informational depth and nuance. (Edit: after I posted this comment, I saw that the show&#x27;s Wikipedia article notes that it attracted such criticsm, so it&#x27;s not just my own opinion.) Ebert&#x27;s newspaper criticism was rather better.

Not sure what OPs reasoning was but you have to wonder if this far-more-human type of film criticism will see a revival in the age of AI assisted writing.I always like to remind people that before talk heads were battling it out on cable news or ESPN we had Siskel and Ebert shaking things up. They made me realize that movies could carry subtext, nuance and meaning. They made reading ABOUT movies more interesting.

I think Dan Olson and Folding Ideas is doing a fantastic job of bringing thoughtful criticism to all kinds of modern media, most recently Mr. Beast Games.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;channel&#x2F;UCyNtlmLB73-7gtlBz00XOQQ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;channel&#x2F;UCyNtlmLB73-7gtlBz00XOQQ</a>

Interesting to see this on HN, I&#x27;d be curious to know OP&#x27;s rationale, but I&#x27;m glad they posted it.Film criticism itself has suffered greatly in recent memory; at the end of the day, whatever trouble a critic might have gone to to watch, process, and articulate their thoughts on a given film is now reduced almost entirely to a number on Rotten Tomatoes.

He Lost It at the Movies