It really must be a sign of the times that Entertainment Weekly has laid off its second great film critic, after Lisa Schwarzbaum took a buy off earlier this year. This one hurts worse than many others because Gleiberman has been writing film reviews for EW as long as I’ve been reporting on film criticism, going on 15 years now.
When a movie comes out there are only a few voices that matter. I know many self-invented film critics (really, bloggers who have decided they can be called critics) are filling the gaps and taking jobs because they’ll work for less, or in some cases, for nothing. I know that we live in a time where everyone is, quite literally, a critic. I know that film reviews read like user reviews at Amazon or Yelp, just a general take that hovers around “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it.” But film criticism — GOOD film criticism — expands and enriches our experience of cinema itself. At its best, it opens up closed minds. It inspires. It can teach. Only a few writers out there know this. Even fewer who know it still have jobs. One of the best just lost his.
The truth of it is Entertainment Weekly needs Gleiberman more than he needs them. I know what their site is becoming. You can read the writing on the wall. They’re going to offer blogs for “prestige,” like the hideous Huffington Post has done (ruining the internet along with aggregate sites that do nothing but show us primates where the like button is). They’re going to be user-driven, comment-driven, splattered with cleavage shots of Kim Kardashian, just like the HuffPo. After all, survival is all that matters. Quality, worthiness, must then take a backseat. You can say it’s justified for that reason and maybe it is. I don’t know. After twenty years online I’m seeing a wasteland. A once vibrant place of discovery that the internet once was has devolved into sites that will do anything, say anything, show anything, fire anyone to ensure smooth traffic to their sites. Hysteria tweets, headline grabbing tweets, slide shows — click here! Drive up traffic, make money. It seems easy enough, right?
I remember when film criticism really mattered. Film critics aren’t “friends” with filmmakers the way bloggers are. We’ve lost so many good ones. Some writers have launched their own sites. I don’t know where Gleiberman will land but I do know I’ve been reading him, and linking to him, for 15 years now and this represents, to me, a major blow to the good fight. We can’t give up our support for good, unbiased film critics. If we do that, movies will take a giant crap even more than they have. Critics — the good ones — are the gatekeepers. They aren’t fanboys. They are “movie buffs.” They are writers. They are illuminators. They bring their life experience, and their experience seeing and writing about film, their knowledge of film history to their work. Gleiberman pushed the edges. He changed my mind more than once about a film. And he wrote beautifully. Here’s hoping he lands somewhere capable of recognizing how valuable he is.
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
I almost never agreed with him. He was one of the reasons I dislike the magazine.
I usually get my reviews just by searching internet by regular movie fans they tend to be more honest and not have any kind of agenda to the studios.
What a shame! Not since the day when EMPIRE magazine stop being publish in the US,i have felt so dissapointed!
This is a beautiful lament. Thanks for writing it, Sasha. Here’s hoping film criticism continues to be pursued as a worthy and viable profession by passionate and talented cinephiles.
Mac,
I feel old when I complain about the kids-just-out-of-school generation of criticism and analysis. Unlike generations before them, they write with no historical references. Like the world didn’t exist before Tarantino.
OB and LS were the ONLY thing I read in ET for years.
I’m watching that wasteland expand. I was inspired to go into journalism because of Lester Bangs and Kael, writers who’s words lived and breathed with passion for their subject matter. Now it’s all about generating ‘traffic’. That’s why I came here: Sasha reminds me that content and heart still can matter and thrive on the Internet.
But it’s still depressing news.
Ugh, I just bought a subscription from a co-worker’s kid’s school fundraiser. What a waste. EW used to be a solid read, a pop magazine with substance. It never lingered too much on gossip and seemed to promote quality, for the most part, while acknowledging fads (Star Wars, Harry Potter, 50 Shades, American Idol). Owen and Lisa were proof of the quality part. It was enjoyable when they dug waaaay back and wrote pieces on classic movies and television – they used to dare to write about Hitchcock, Mary Tyler Moore, and film noir.
Now, there isn’t much in the way of a mature voice. It seems as if their “writers” are fresh out of school, and heavy into reminiscing about the Nineties, at the latest. I agree, it’s veering toward Huff Post territory. Gross.
(will be following Owen wherever he goes)
countries that still have actual movie magazines
I want to go to there
(although we’re lucky to have Film Comment)
People automatically create logical reasons for something like this, but the fact is that there is not logic to the inevitable lowest-common-denominator race of corporatization. The same thing happens in every industry, energy, food, news, entertainment, music, textiles. Monopolized, bottom-line-for-short-term-shareholder-profits is basically gospel, THE unifying religion in these United States. I talk to a lot of entertainment journalists from around the world, from countries that still have actual movie magazines, and what you see are laws that still protect some level of diversity and independence. The Sherman Anti-Trust Law is still on the books but hasn’t been exercised since Reagan relaxed it. When six multinational vampire squids own everything we see, read and hear, you can bet anything wholesome or true will, in the middle of the night, be replaced by pink slime.
Schwartzbaum was bought out in Feb 2013. That wasn’t earlier this year. It was early last year.
EW has been dumbing down their magazine a few years ago. First, they change the layout (i.e. less words, more pictures), and then they started firing good critics and replacing them with unintelligent critics. Sad day indeed.
Yes – my suggestion goes beyond that of being just a catalog/archive that is RT.
Could be blog form, owned by the critics involved so all the revenue would be their own, and featuring regular reviews (maybe sometimes a “duel” of opposing views), more in depth essays, a place to champion come awards time, and some retro reviews re-published to keep the quality and style at a classic level.
I never understood why EW kept him in the first place. Hopefully Peter Travers gets the boot next.
I took Steve50’s suggestion to mean a site for critics, owned and operated by critics, so that they have their own revenue stream. As webmasters an aggregate site, the owners of Rottentomatoes don’t share ad revenue with the writers they use to attract RT traffic.
I agree with Steve50 that a compilation of critics on one site might be a smart move. But isn’t that what Rottentomatoes is? That’s where I go for my reviews — and IMDB. I rarely read a single columnist anymore. I might read Michael Phillips and Tom Long, but that’s about it. I watch for the reviews out of the film festivals.
But we do need critics or bloggers that champion one or two movies with a passion. That’s what Siskel and Ebert did. They DROVE the audience to see a movie.
He, along with the late, great Roger Ebert, influenced my perception of what should be considered interesting cinema. He championed some ofmy favorite movies. If not for his writing, I doubt I would have discovered ‘Sweetland’, one of my favorite movies of the past decade.
I’ve been reading EW ever since 1995 or earlier. Lisa Schwarzbaum and Owen Gleiberman are certainly one of the main reasons I’d been almost religiously reading the mag — its non-digital, conventional version — and supporting its entertainment-related activities.
One thing of note that seems to have made Gleiberman a bit more special than many critics (especially the high-horsed, holier-than-thou type) in addition to the beautiful reviews of his in general, as well as his own **unique style is his down-to-earth approach. And when I say down-to-earth approach, I’m not talking about the preconceived down-to-earth strategy; rather, it seems to me that he’s been genuine about it ever since. So, I really appreciate it when reading some of his reviews for that matter in particular, as well.
(**Both Schawarzbaum and Gleiberman [et al] are truly professional writers with their own spectacular singularity — wannabe self-proclaimed critics can do whatever they want on the internet but it’s a daunting task to imitate a real pro.)
[Edited by myself (originally ranting)]
—
Owen,
Thanks for a good time having read your professional reviews at EW. Both Lisa and you are my favorite film critics.
See you soon.
—
“It really must be a sign of the times that Entertainment Weekly has laid off its second great film critic, after Lisa Schwarzbaum took a buy off earlier #this year.”
Not to be nitpicky, I understand that it was meant to be read as #last year (or so).
“The truth of it is Entertainment Weekly needs Gleiberman more than he needs them. I know what their site is becoming. You can read #the writing on the wall.”
Ditto.
To my mind, the sign o’ the time has been witnessed ever since before mid-2000s or so — originally from the time the whole world started being crazy about reality-tv phenomena, I think.
The internet also changes everything – whether or not one fancies it. [sigh . . . . ]
EW just did a foolish thing by dismissing Gleiberman,who is a common sense guy and fine wordsmith. There are few critics worth reading these days,Gleiberman was an exception.The interesting aspect of this situation is that EW doesn’t realize his value. Too bad now EW has the unpleasaqnt Nashawaty,who is hardly an astute reviewer.
The same thing/reaction happened many years ago when Variety removed Todd McCarthy, another one of the best reviewers around. Everyone was in shock. The Hollywood Reporter snapped him up pretty quick, thankfully. Another publication will employ Owen hopefully
So who is doing their reviews now??? Chris Nashawaty??? I just listened to Owen on EW Live today and am psyched to go see Grand Budapest Hotel this weekend. I don’t always agree with him but he was still a great reviewer.
What?! I just signed up for a two years subscription to this freaking magazine!!!
I’m optimist that he’ll find a gig soon enough. I really like his writing. Like with most critics, I disagree with him all the time, sometimes even when he praises stuff I like as well, but what I value the most is that he’s never venomously snarky in his negative reviews like many others (i.e., O’Hehir)
Horribly depressing as it seems like a wave that can’t be stopped, save for a few lone holdouts.
yeah…. Gleiberman is/was well worth reading. One of the few I have considered authoritative.
nuts for EW. he was one of the only things I ever read in the magazine. he represents an opportunity for instant credibility for anybody that might hire him.
It’s a shame in the short term (esp for those of us who have recently renewed our subscriptions), but it might be time for serious critics (and critics groups) to consider ditching the entertainment arena and concentrating on a combined effort where their reviews can be read, discussed, etc. by serious readers.
The audience is out here – just give us a place to go.
Why did they fire him? He was fantastic so I’m really shocked.
Such a shame. It is a wasteland.