Last week, Anupama Chopra deleted her review. She’d been a film critic for decades, chair of the Film Critics Guild, host on The Hollywood Reporter India and she pulled a video because people wouldn’t stop threatening her. The movie was Dhurandhar. She didn’t love it. Online, that became unforgivable.
This happened in December 2025. Other critics got death threats. R*pe threats. Over a movie review! The Film Critics Guild released a statement on December 11th calling it “coordinated abuse” and warning about threats to editorial independence. Film criticism just became dangerous work in real time.
Which makes finding trustworthy critics more necessary than ever. You need voices that won’t fold when the mob shows up. People who’ll tell you a movie sucks even when saying so might wreck their comment section. Here are ten critics who do exactly that.
10 Film Critics Worth Following in 2025
1. Roger Ebert.com
Roger Ebert passed away in 2013. His website is still the most trusted name in film criticism. Current contributors include Chaz Ebert, Matt Zoller Seitz, Brian Tallerico, and Simon Abrams, people who write 1,000-word reviews about craft and meaning instead of hot takes optimized for clicks. They named Paul Thomas Anderson’s “One Battle After Another” the best film of 2025. Their year-end list mixed established directors with newcomers, exactly like Ebert would’ve done. What separates RogerEbert.com from the noise is that they still treat cinema like art worth serious attention. Every review asks not just “is this good?” but “what does this mean?” They assume you came for depth. If you want someone to tell you whether a Marvel movie is worth twelve dollars, you can find that anywhere. If you want to understand why a film succeeds or fails at what it attempts, this is where you start. Their consistency matters. Blockbuster or festival film, same intellectual rigor.
2. The Film Critics Guild of India
The Guild became 2025’s most important critical institution not through awards but through their December 11th statement. After members faced coordinated harassment over Dhurandhar reviews, they didn’t back down. They called out attempts to police opinion and defended the right to dislike movies. Founded August 2018. Fifty-seven members across thirteen cities. Anupama Chopra chairs it. Members review in all Indian languages, Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Bengali. Their statement wasn’t defensive; it was a manifesto. Quote: “Criticism cannot be reduced to one-line social media reactions or expected to align with promotional narratives.” That took guts. In an industry where positive reviews can be financially incentivized and negative ones bring mob harassment, the Guild drew a line. They said critics have the right to honest opinions even when those opinions hurt box office. For anyone following Indian cinema or interested in how criticism survives institutional pressure anywhere, the Guild’s 2025 work matters. They showed what courage looks like when entertainment gets weaponized.
3. Chris Stuckmann
Over 2 million YouTube subscribers. 779 million views as of May 2025. Started reviewing in 2009 from Ohio and became YouTube’s most respected film critic by never chasing trends or selling out to studios. Big shift in 2021: Stuckmann announced he’d stop reviewing bad films. He was making his own movie, Shelby Oaks, which came out October 2025 and decided trashing other filmmakers felt wrong. That decision cost him half his potential content and revenue. He picked integrity anyway. Stuckmann’s reviews run 7-10 minutes. Spoiler-free. He discusses story, craft, emotion without academic language. His grading system (A+ through F) gives clear guidance without reducing films to simplistic verdicts. He proved YouTube criticism could match traditional media in depth while being more accessible. His influence extends beyond numbers. He taught a generation to expect substance from video reviews, not just reactions and clickbait. If you want serious YouTube film analysis that respects your intelligence, Stuckmann set the standard.
4. Jeremy Jahns
Jahns has 2.06 million YouTube subscribers and that red background everyone recognizes. He reviews movies with energy and humor, but unlike casual reactors, he actually knows film history and technique. Started in 2007 as a theater projectionist, which meant he saw movies before everyone else. Built his channel on honest reactions, if a movie sucks, he says so. If it’s great, same thing. No studio access to protect. No filter. That authenticity built trust. What makes Jahns work: comedy doesn’t replace analysis. He contextualizes films, discusses production, evaluates craft, all while keeping you entertained. His weekly release schedule and consistent quality created an audience that trusts his judgment across all genres. He trained viewers to expect both entertainment and thought from reviews. Critics can be funny and smart. Jahns proved it weekly for almost two decades. For people who find traditional criticism stuffy but still want substance, Jahns splits the difference perfectly.
5. Filmspotting
Adam Kempenaar and Josh Larsen have been doing this since 2005. Weekly podcast. They review new releases and classics, host Top 5 lists, interview filmmakers. 4.6/5 rating on Apple with 5,200+ reviews. The New York Times called them “affable, insightful.” Episodes run long, often 90+ minutes because they assume listeners want depth. They don’t rush through takes. Guest critics offer different perspectives. The chemistry between hosts makes challenging films accessible without dumbing them down. Why Filmspotting matters: they treat cinema as conversation, not verdict. They explore what films mean culturally, not just whether they entertain. Perfect for commutes or background listening. They’ve maintained quality for twenty years, over 1,000 episodes, while podcasting evolved around them. Their approach works because they respect both film and audience. They know you’re smart enough to handle nuance. If you want episodic, thoughtful analysis that treats you like an adult, Filmspotting has been delivering since most podcasts were called “audio blogs.”
6. Screen Rant
One of the web’s highest-ranked film sites. They combine entertainment journalism with actual criticism, rare combo these days. Screen Rant’s strength: they take blockbusters seriously. Their Marvel and Disney reviews acknowledge that popular cinema shapes culture as much as prestige films. They don’t condescend to genre entertainment while maintaining analytical standards. That balance is harder than it looks. For audiences wanting criticism that honours entertainment without requiring a film studies degree, Screen Rant nails it. They proved you can cover mass-market films with intelligence. Accessibility doesn’t require compromising standards. Their reviews make complex films understandable without oversimplifying them. The site’s authority comes from taking popular cinema seriously when plenty of critics still treat it like guilty pleasure trash.
7. Collider
Among the web’s most authoritative film outlets for one reason: they understand cinema as industry and art. Collider critics blend cultural analysis with production knowledge. They explain not just whether films work but why they exist, how they were financed, what their performance means for future projects. Their 2025 Dhurandhar coverage connected the harassment controversy to wider industry pressures on independent criticism. For viewers wanting to understand the ecosystem, not just individual movies, Collider provides context others miss. They treat film as business and artistic medium simultaneously. That perspective helps you see patterns, why certain films get made, why others don’t, how economics shapes what reaches screens. Their combined critical and business angle is unmatched online. They assume you care about the whole picture.
8. The Playlist
Became the internet’s go-to source for international cinema coverage by championing films most American outlets ignore. The Playlist excels at festival coverage and world cinema. Their 2025 coverage of directors like Jafar Panahi and Joachim Trier showed commitment to cinema as global conversation, not Western monopoly. Reviews balance accessibility with depth, they make challenging international films approachable without patronizing readers. For audiences interested in cinema beyond Hollywood, The Playlist remains necessary. They assume the most interesting work often happens outside English-language productions and prove it consistently. Their writers understand that American blockbusters represent maybe 10% of world cinema. If you care about film culture broadly, not just what plays at your local multiplex, The Playlist covers what matters.
9. Blank Check Podcast
Not another bad-movie podcast. Griffin Newman and David Sims examine complete director filmographies episode by episode. They study auteurs whose early success earned them Hollywood “blank checks” for passion projects. 4.7/5 on Apple from 7,300+ reviews. Episodes average 157 minutes. Deeply researched. They trace how directors’ visions evolved across careers, treating filmmaking as long-term artistic practice instead of discrete products. Sometimes they spend six months on one director. Blank Check’s value in 2025: as studios tighten control over narratives, their archival approach reminds audiences what personal vision looks like. They excavate directorial intent from commercial pressures. For critics-in-training and serious enthusiasts, Blank Check models rigorous, compassionate analysis. They prove exhaustive doesn’t mean exhausting. Their podcast is film school for people who learn by listening.
10. Rotten Tomatoes Editorial
Yeah, the algorithm site. But stick with me. Rotten Tomatoes, highest among film sites gets criticized plenty. Their editorial section deserves attention. The editorial staff, actual human critics write articles exploring trends, defending criticism against harassment, interviewing filmmakers. They provide institutional legitimacy the algorithm alone can’t deliver. Their 2025 challenge: proving quantity doesn’t require sacrificing quality. For people already using RT scores (and millions do), reading editorial analysis prevents reducing complex films to percentages. The platform’s ongoing tension between algorithmic aggregation and human judgment mirrors wider questions about criticism’s future. Their editorial voices shape global discourse whether traditional critics like it or not. Better to engage with quality analysis there than just scroll for numbers.
What Comes Next
These ten voices represent 2025’s best criticism. But the future depends on readers like you. Subscribe to Movie Podcasts, Cinephiles Podcasts, Movie Review Blogs whose analysis challenges you. Engage with perspectives different from your own. Most importantly, defend critics’ right to disagree with you. When we silence critical voices, we don’t get peace. We lose the ability to think clearly about stories we consume. The conversation continues. Whether it stays honest depends on whether audiences value truth over validation.