Talk:James Berardinelli

James Berardinelli

well, he's right below ebert on imdb for the review pages, and it's "the largest non-commercial movie site on the net".

Here are two direct links to biographical information Bio on his website(FAQ section) and Bio on Rotten Tomatoes . I would suggest...

- that comments be added about how long he has been reviewing on the internet

-that someone mention his book of reviews, or at least it's ISBN.

- mention his serialized novel published online

- mention Ebert's comments about him

Female Toplessness

I would like to see some sourcing on the phrase "he has been a forceful advocate of decriminalizing public female toplessness". I check his site daily and vaguely remember him even discussing the subject jokingly, let alone as a "forceful advocate".

I removed this reference. I contacted Berardinelli regarding this and he described as a "stretch" of his opinion on the issue. Perhaps, in a future section, his views on the matter could be given a proper and better sourced airing.--Lord of the Ping 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

This is odd. Most everyone in the online review sites I frequent blast Berardinelli for lacking insight and being boring; I was actually kind of surprised how much praise is exhibited in this article. I hesitate to edit the article myself, being obviously biased and such, but the respect for him is surely not as widespread as suggested.

Berardinelli's writing style is not very colloquial and tends to make him sound highbrow, which I could easily see how people could find him "boring." I disagree completely, but that's just my opinion. The fact that Roger Ebert gives him praise says a lot. Can you list some sites that disparage him? Willbyr 21:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I could, but it's just message board crap. Just... ho boy, "highbrow" is not how I'd describe the guy at all.

Berardinelli is one of the 5 most popular - and arguably appreciated - movie critics online. Anyone with that sort of pedigree is bound to get a lot of criticism. Ebert is arguably the #1 movie critic in the world in terms of pedigree AND he also gets more criticism than anyone else. Because he just happens to be the most famous one. It's the same with Berardinelli. But judging simply by the general response in movie discussion forums around the net, Berardinelli comes #2 after Ebert in terms of how much people respect him - I'm of course talking about still *living* movie critics. Just look at discussions where people list their favourite movie critics.

NPOV

The article herein was so obviously POV that I found it worthy of a "criticism" section. I've tried to entertain a more appropriate balance of both his advocates and opponents, since he has plenty of both. In fact, I think this whole section may be too nice to him, with hoards of critics accusing him of almost total lack of insight (I somewhat disagree, though their point is clear). I think the next step should be citing sources clarifying both sides of the coin (Roger Ebert is not enough, thank you very much).

His criticism of the movie Heat (1995)

I just saw this guy's review of the masterpiece that is the movie Heat (1995) here: http://www.reelviews.net/movies/h/heat.html. I think he has completely missed the point of the movie and criticizes the exposition of the (too many) characters as causing the movie to drag. Yet that is exactly what this movie is - an exploration of obsession, of man's ability to stick to his principles.

Perhaps for that reason it should not be called a 'movie' at all, but something akin to a 'treatise' or 'essay'. For that reason time is required, nay demanded, for character building and not a single moment is unnecessary or over-indulgent. Yes the action scenes are short, but that's because the 'long stretches of banal dialogue' enlighten us to the fact that these set of characters are intelligent professionals that know how to deal with a score and deal with it fast. We do not need protracted action to demonstrate what is being intimated in the scenes leading up to it if we bother to read between the 'pedestrian' dialogue (besides, these people are 'cops and robbers', not thespians).

Furthermore, the coffee shop scene was a meeting of two guys with mutual respect for each other, wanting to know what makes the other tick and, crucially, recognizing the own obsession in the other. Again if one pays attention, one sees how succinctly the scene summarizes the first half of the movie, and sets up the second. As Hannah says, "he's worked all kinds", and such a meeting of seasoned men does not require 'tension and raw energy' (which is more appropriately reserved for other foe) but rather engenders a more dignified response (and thinking about the potential parallel that could be drawn between such a hypothetical meeting of these two great actors in real life was exhilarating).

If this guy had wanted to see more fast paced action then maybe he should have gone to see a 'routine.. serviceable cops-and-robbers thriller' - because this great work most certainly is not that.

And all the above doesn't even begin to take into account the non-dialogue. Th exquisitely constructed interplay of colour, light, and sound, with mood and how beautifully it offset each scene. From reading this guy's review again, it would seem that neither did he. Maybe he was too busy looking at his watch.

Interesting, but this isn't a chat board about Berardinelli's reviews. --Golbez 04:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Golbez: this is not interesting. -Seth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.162.167 (talk) 22:07, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Occupation

1. His autobiography on Rotten Tomatoes reads [1]: "I attended the University of Pennsylvania... obtaining both a BS and an MS in Electrical Engineering. Putting my education to use, I went to work for a company called Bellcore... ."

2. His autobiography on his website, ReelViews.net, adds more detail[2]:" I went to work for a company called Bellcore (now re-named with the moniker of "Telcordia Technologies") and spent the next 15 years working in a variety of fields, including fiber optics, video testing ... and software systems."

3. The website for Telecordia Technologies describe itself as "[providing]... configurable software and services for IP, wireline, mobility and cable networks—helping communications companies around the world transform, manage, and grow their networks." [3] Their clientele include many telecommunication companies [4].

4. In the forward to Berardinelli's "Reel Views" (2003), Roger Ebert describes Berardinelli as "a computer expert." Ebert, also in the forward, references an article he wrote for the June, 1996, edition of the defunct internet magazine 'Yahoo! Internet Life' in which he writes: "Berardinelli describes himself as an electrical engineer..." Berardinelli includes an excerpt of this article on his website [5]. There seems to be discrepency between the publication date of the article; Ebert lists it as June, 1996, in the forward, while Berardinelli's website lists it as September, 1996. However, there are no substantive differences.

In sum, there is no clear and definitive description of his job or job title . However, I think describing him as an electrical engineer is aprropriate, for now, for two reasons:

1. The term 'electrical engineer' is extremely vague, given the breadth of the field. This article is written for lay people and there is no value in clarifying some esoteric job title.

2. There is much evidence to suggest he works in some field that is covered under the umbrella of the 'electrical engineer' job title.Lord of the Ping 06:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Berardinelli is educated"

Where? What in? To what level? Everyone is educated. As it is, this phrase is meaningless. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire phrase: "Berardinelli is educated and works as an electrical engineer." In other words, he studied electrical engineering at university, and works as an electrical engineer. On Berardinelli's website he answers the "where" and "to what level" questions [6]. Perhaps the phrase should be reworded and some additional content added.--Lord of the Ping 16:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

ReelViews.net- Berardinelli's personal website- I think is reliable for personal information. I doubt a professional journalist or editor would look for sources outside the person in question when inquiring about their marriage. Similarly, I think his education would be considered personal information, and ReelViews would be an adequate source for information on it. However, for more public information, such as his place of employment and the number of hits to his site, I think ReelViews would not be suitable.Lord of the Ping 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

His critics

Are there sources to allegations like "opponents claim that his engineering background is an impediment to substantial commentary on film as a legitimate art form"? Sounds like something that was just made up.

Infobox

I've added an infobox for Berardinelli per the request at the top of the page. I assigned an arbitrary day of birth to make the code in the infobox work; if someone has his correct DOB, please update. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable?

Is he notable? A google of his name reveals his name only appears in a small number of online movie sites (as does any username on these sites), and this article. I only came here because I saw his name in the "Screamers" article on wikipedia and thought "Hey, who is that?".

Unless he writes for a publication or has a TV show, I'd say he is not notable in the field of film critique, and tbh I can't see any other areas of note in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not notable. His website, Reelviews, receives 150 hits per day, raises 50 cents daily in ad revenue, has an Alexa traffic ranking below 7 millionth place, and an estimated worth of $350. Despite this, agenda-oriented wiki editors continue to list him first or second in the critical response section of every film page on Wikipedia. He meets the criteria for speedy deletion and should be removed. 68.62.3.43 (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? He's been called the net's foremost film critic by Roger Ebert, and is also one of a handful of internet-only "Cream of the Crop" reviewers at Rotten Tomatoes. That seems sufficient to me. JohnA (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

His wikipedia page reads more like a self-written biography than even a resume. Nominate for deletion, seconded. Ebert mentioned him on a Yahoo post (in 1998). Hard work, dedication, doesn't make someone worthy of their own entry, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.158.34.201 (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with the anon IP above. From what I gather from his own bio, he's not a professional film critic but does this as a hobby. He's got a self-published site, and I would take the Alexa stats and other quantifiable information over one other film critic's personal opinion. No publisher or producer seems to share Ebert's opinion or he'd be writing in some professional arena now and not solely on his own website. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If he's notable, then it sure isn't clear why from the article. If the article itself doesn't make it evident why he is noteworthy, that suggests maybe he isn't notable after all, and the page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.152.12 (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above voting for deletion. References to this non-notable joker have been edited into many film articles in what I suspect is a bid on his own part or the part of his advocates to use Wiki as an advert for his site. Rpundurs (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree - all the above criticism still applies. Also his reviews are an intrusive presence on various films' wiki pages, mainly serving to increase his 'notability'. 188.66.70.252 (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Berardinelli's birthday

According to a post by Berardinelli on the Reelviews.net forum, his birthday is September 25.

http://www.reelviews.net/reelviewsforum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=599

Since the Wikipedia guidelines say we should not cite to forum postings, I am not sure how to deal with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.217 (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Accreditation as proper term of film criticism

A user, who has displayed what I would opine as biased and antagonistic feelings towards the subject of the article, going insofar as to refer to a film critic with 20+ years of experience as "an amateur with a blog", has claimed that "accreditation" is a "vague" term, further stating "There's no such thing as film-critic 'accreditation'", when in reality it is a rarely used but accepted phrase to refer to a critic that receives acknowledgement from studios and is allowed to, among other things, attend press (advance) screenings of films in order to review them ([7]), as Berardinelli did in 1997, a claim which is backed up multiple times. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

[e/c] I was writing this at the same time. I'm entering it now and I'll read the above afterward.

There is no single body that give film critics accreditation. Just because this or that studio may invited to screening and this or that one doesn't, you're not "accredited" in any formal sense of the word, and an encyclopedia does not use a term like that in an offhand way or colloquially. We need to state exactly what he's talking about, and as the "vague" tag I entered suggests, I'm not sure what that is. Once again, I'm seeing an amateur film critic with his own blog and self-published books, which anyone can have. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What, exactly, designates a non-amateur film critic to you? There aren't degrees for film criticism you can get from college, and even if there were, who would have them? Would working at a newspaper denote professionalism? Hardly -- it's a dying form of news information. What does denote professionalism, according to you? Not being James Berardinelli? --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Simple: Being paid to write film criticism as part of your profession. Not doing it as a hobby or for extra pocket money. If you're not good enough to get paid for something, then you're not a professional, and by giving it away for free you drive down rates for those who are actually making a living from journalism and criticism.

In any event, I said your edit solved the problem, so I'm not sure why you keep coming back to let me make more of a case for non-notability. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. I think there are some great folks out there getting jack for what they do and some people who do poorly getting far too much cash, and in journalism/writing even moreso, but I'll agree to disagree and put this issue to bed. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I'd like to ask this other editor to refrain from the personal attacks. I could just as easily opine that this editor is the subject himself or a meat-puppet friend, but I had not done so.

Having 20 years experience writing for free doesn't mean anything. Anyone can put reviews on their own web site or self-publish books. When it comes to amateur bloggers, studios have no consistent policy over who gets invited to screenings and who doesn't; often it depends on the whim of the head of publicity or even individual studio publicists in any given regime.

But that's an argument over notability, and for now it looks like this article is staying. That has no bearing whatsoever on calling the subject an "accredited" film critic. Call him what he is: a self-published critic with a long-running blog. Trying to twist words around to suggest that an amateur blogger is somehow "accredited" when no such formal designation exists is simply self-aggrandizing. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As for the Film.com article the other editor linked to ... "cigarette-smoke drenched room"? Has the author ever been in a screening room? I haven't been in one in decades where anyone's allowed to smoke. Regardless, to bolster her claim about "accreditation," the author uses fictional dialog from the movie Notting Hill ! And even in the context of this, she's not talking about amateur bloggers: She says, "If you’re lucky enough to be a member of the accredited press and actually work for a recognized media outlet" — i.e., a newspaper, magazine, TV show, professional website, etc. The only kind of "accredited press" I've ever heard of (and it's not even called that) is crime-beat reporters or political correspondents who get police or governmental press passes. And let's not quibble over "recognized" — the author doesn't mean "oh, I recognize that it exists." --Tenebrae (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

And in any event, it looks like the problem is solved: The other editor simply removed the vague phrase. All is fine. --04:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)