kaliveach

I agree with your overall argument here but I would have liked to have seen some more research to prove your point. Possibly a compare and contrast of a review from Ebert and an opposing critic, or box office numbers from some of the financially successful movies after his death. Good points, but a little vague and need more backing.

I think the key point here is that different styles of criticism will appeal to different types of viewers, and hey, it takes all kinds. One thing I will say though, I see critics such as Nostalgia Critic (admittedly, pretty funny) as more of a niche critic. There are a lot of movies that work well with his humorous, informal style, but it restricts they types of films he can review. For example, a review in this style of something like Boyhood would probably be less effective. His reviews are mostly on sci-fi, action, some thriller and horror, with a few exceptions. This being said I don’t think it’s a bad thing, he definitely found what works for him, and he does it well. Seems like it’s not the quality of analysis necessarily that differs in these two styles, more so the delivery and the type of film being reviewed.

There’s a lot of great research here, and the use of using specific posters and the stars they portrayed was an effective way to prove your point concerning the importance of these images and their power on perception.
Actually, I like the topic a lot. I think this idea could easily be extended into an documentary film. Some more thoughts to ponder if the author ever wished to extend the idea:
Do these movie posters which are advertisement also function as artwork themselves?
Also, does the consolidation of these posters into the digital world change the emotional/intellectual response elicited from a viewer?
Great article, would love to read more on the subject.