Advice Cred is a resource we’ve created here at Film Cred, with the understanding that sometimes talented new writers need a push in the right direction to deepen their understanding of film criticism as an art form within itself. We’re not interested in just giving you the groundwork — we also want you to have access to the wisdom of writers and editors who have been a part of this community for years. Our subject today, Rob Hunter, is a prolific writer and reviewer who has been published in dozens of corners across the internet, with a particular nest at Film School Rejects, where he maintains a position as the site’s chief film critic.
Film Cred: Hi! Can you please introduce yourself and where you’ve been published? Feel free to mention any cool accolades.
Rob Hunter: Hi! My name is Rob Hunter, and while I’ve written for other sites including SlashFilm, Thrillist, and Crooked Marquee, it’s Film School Rejects that I call home. I’ve been there since 2007 and am currently the chief film critic at the site and am a Rotten Tomato-approved critic (for whatever that’s worth).
FC: What was your first published movie review?
RH: My very first review for FSR was for Antonia Bird’s Ravenous. A great film given a mediocre review as I was still a ways away from finding my own voice.
FC: How did you get into film criticism?
RH: I found myself with some downtime after a breakup left me with too much time to think, and one day while browsing movie sites I came across FSR. I emailed, sent a writing sample, and was accepted into the very small (at the time) fold. There was no pay, but one of my first assignments was to cover the DVD release of Zodiac — which means I was sent a free DVD of Zodiac! I get to share my opinions and get free movies? Heaven.
FC: Do you follow a particular film theory (formalism, structuralism, etc.)?
RH: I do not (for better or worse).
FC: What do you think the structure of a good review should be?
RH: I used to be a bit more rigid on the idea of a structure and still find myself falling into it, but ultimately I’d argue there really doesn’t need to be one outside of a couple key elements. One, I’m of the firm belief that a plot synopsis should be as brief as possible — like a single paragraph of your review — while the rest focuses on the film’s various aspects, strengths, and weaknesses. Two, you’re not critiquing what *isn’t* in a film, you’re critiquing what is there and how it’s presented.
FC: Who is a film critic you admire?
RH: Matt Donato is a friend, and I will deny it if anyone shares this with him, but he’s the first critic I think of in response to this question. His beat is almost exclusively horror films, but while he covers a lot of them his writing consistently finds ways to feel fresh and energetic. Might sound easy enough, but he covers multiple films that quickly grow redundant — did you know there were twenty-seven killer shark movies this year alone?! — and never lets his reviews grow redundant or stagnant.
FC: Do you read other reviews before you write your own review?
RH: I do not. More than that, I don’t read/watch interviews or stay for Q&As either. Some disagree here, but my job is to critique the film and discuss its themes, ideas, events — as I see them. This is my take on the film. Hearing other people’s thoughts beforehand can influence your own, and it can leave you untrue to your own reactions. A filmmaker might say what their film’s central theme is, but if you didn’t get that through your own viewing then it was arguably unsuccessful on that front. To be clear, this only applies to reviews as essays about movies should arguably be open to any/all information available.
FC: What is your method for note-taking for a movie review? Do you take notes as you watch films?
RH: I do take notes, sometimes, while actually watching a movie. My focus with them, though, is to get memorable/important quotes right. Most everything else can be found in a press kit or PR email after the fact.
FC: When sending a pitch to a publication, how long do you wait before checking in?
RH: I don’t really pitch these days, but in general I would say one week is enough time to wait before following up. If there’s no response to that follow-up I would then move on all together.
FC: How do you handle writer’s block and burn out?
RH: This is probably the obvious answer, but when I find myself at a brick wall in my writing (professional and personal) I like to just walk away from the laptop. Go outside, read a book, watch something purely for entertainment. The writing can wait because that white screen will always be there.
FC: Do you have any advice for aspiring film critics?
RH: Again, obvious, but watch a lot of movies. Watch movies you’re not covering, watch older movies, watch movies outside your wheelhouse, watch movies with friends/family and just enjoy the hell out of this amazing artform. All of that will inform your creative mind far better than a how-to guide.
FC: Are there any books or articles that you would recommend a new writer read?
RH: Well now I feel terrible as I just trashed the idea of how-to guides… but I stand by it. The best books related to film aren’t about critiquing them, they’re about making them. Seek out books by directors, writers, actors, cinematographers, etc. Learn how movies were made, the achievements, the compromises, the numerous paths to success and failure. The more you know about the art form the better you’ll be able to articulate your thoughts on it. Ideally.
FC: As a member of the Critics Choice Awards, do you have any advice for established writers/critics looking to become a part of a larger collaborative organization?
RH: This is a tough one as there’s a mixed bag aspect to it all. The bigger the group, the less of an individual voice you have there — but the more access you’ll find to films. I’m currently a member of the CCA, the OFCS, and the newly formed Portland Critics Association, so I’m straddling the size gap on critics groups. I’d recommend finding your way into the ones that appeal to you and agree with your values.
FC: As per your series for FSR, has the practice of watching director’s commentaries changed or recontextualized the way you think about your job of reviewing films?
RH: My Commentary column is one of my favorite things I write even if some of the commentary tracks are abysmal listens (I’m looking at you Taika Waititi and Jojo Rabbit). There’s not a direct correlation between listening to the tracks and my reviews as I don’t review films after I’ve listened, but as with books about movie-making there’s an insight and education to be gotten from them. The whys and hows behind various choices come clearer, and you find yourself noticing similar choices during first-time watches of other movies. That knowledge will unavoidably play a role in how you see and hopefully write about movies going forward.
FC: Do you ever find yourself conflating work and enjoyment because of how often you’re commissioned to talk about films? And if so, how do you combat that feeling?
RH: This is going to sound cliche, but I really and truly enjoy writing/talking about movies, so while it’s technically work it so rarely feels like it. I’m lucky to be at the point in my critic career where I’m not assigned films to cover and instead can pick and choose, and that goes a long way toward ensuring the job remains enjoyable for me. It helps too that I have people in my life who will call me out if I begin to sound too critical while watching something with them for fun.
You can read more of Rob Hunter’s thoughts on film and writing @FakeRobHunter on Twitter, as well as checking out some of his reviews and essays on Rotten Tomatoes, Slash Film, Thrillist, and of course, Film School Rejects. As for more advice useful to writers, editors, and everyone in-between, make sure to check out http://film-cred.com/advice.
