As our 2nd Critic on the Spot, we welcome Carrie Rickey, film critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer for 21 years. Her reviews are syndicated nationwide and she is a regular contributor
to Entertainment Weekly, MSNBC and NPR. Rickey’s essays appear in
numerous anthologies, including “The Rolling Stone History of Rock
& Roll,” “The American Century,” and the Library of America’s
“American Movie Critics.” Carrie also hosts a spirited blog, Flickgrrl.
Every few days, we'll post a new Q&A between Carrie and one of us. Here's #1, this one from Mari Gorman.
Q:
Since critics now so often watch movies from home (and you were reviewing films before this was the norm), I'm wondering if this convenience has changed the way you view films - for example do you review certain scenes or even watch a film more than once before you write about it? Do you still make a point to see certain films on a large screen?
Does this in fact make any difference at all to you besides saving you the hassle of getting to a preview at a prescribed time?
A:
Mari: Movies are meant to be seen on the big screen. 98 percent of the time that’s the way I see them. Sometimes an independent filmmaker or documentarian can’t afford to pay for an advance screening. In those exceptional cases only will I agree to see a movie on my home screen (which, for the record is 60 inches). If a movie is complex – for instance, There Will Be Blood, I make a point of seeing twice before the review.
