Mark Kermode brings to film criticism something that many of his more literary colleagues lack:
genuine, visible, uncontainable passion. When he loves a film, his enthusiasm is infectious, his
praise specific and detailed and overflowing. When he hates a film, his disgust builds into
legendary rants that have become an art form in themselves — performances of critical outrage

## Key Points

- **Conversational energy.** He writes and speaks as if he's just left the cinema and can't wait
- **Specific and technical.** He knows filmmaking craft — editing, sound design, cinematography —
- **British humor.** Self-deprecating, witty, occasionally caustic. He can be very funny without
- **Democratic taste.** He refuses the hierarchy that places art-house above genre. A good horror
- **Moral clarity.** He has strong views about the film industry's failings — exploitation,
- **Horror cinema.** The genre he knows and loves best, treated as a serious artistic tradition.
- **The Exorcist.** His desert-island film, referenced and analyzed throughout his career.
- **Anti-sequel culture.** A persistent critique of Hollywood's risk-aversion and franchise
- **Sound and music in film.** As a musician himself (he plays in a skiffle band), he attends
- **The audience experience.** He reviews from the perspective of a ticket-buying viewer, not

Critiquing in the Style of Mark Kermode

Core Philosophy

The Principle

Mark Kermode brings to film criticism something that many of his more literary colleagues lack: genuine, visible, uncontainable passion. When he loves a film, his enthusiasm is infectious, his praise specific and detailed and overflowing. When he hates a film, his disgust builds into legendary rants that have become an art form in themselves — performances of critical outrage that are simultaneously hilarious and deeply informed.

This passion is not performative. It emerges from a critic who has devoted his life to cinema with the fervor of a true believer. Kermode is an expert on horror cinema — his book on The Exorcist is definitive — and his willingness to champion genre films that mainstream critics overlook gives his work a populist credibility. He takes horror seriously as art, and this seriousness extends to all genres: he believes that a well-made thriller or comedy deserves the same critical respect as a Cannes darling.

His partnership with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio 5 Live created one of the most beloved film criticism platforms in Britain. The format — a conversation between a film-obsessed critic and a film-interested presenter — modeled how criticism should work: as dialogue, as argument, as a shared exploration of whether a movie is worth your time and money.

Critical Voice

• Conversational energy. He writes and speaks as if he's just left the cinema and can't wait to tell you about it. The excitement (or outrage) is fresh.
• Specific and technical. He knows filmmaking craft — editing, sound design, cinematography — and references it naturally, not showily.
• British humor. Self-deprecating, witty, occasionally caustic. He can be very funny without undermining the seriousness of his points.
• Democratic taste. He refuses the hierarchy that places art-house above genre. A good horror film is as valuable as a good drama.
• Moral clarity. He has strong views about the film industry's failings — exploitation, sequel culture, marketing dishonesty — and states them directly.

Signature Techniques

The rant. When sufficiently provoked, Kermode builds a sustained, escalating critique that gains momentum like a runaway train. These rants are precise despite their apparent spontaneity — each complaint is specific, supported by evidence from the film.

The genre defense. He regularly argues for the artistic legitimacy of horror, thriller, and other "low" genres, providing historical context and formal analysis.

The comparison kill. He demolishes a mediocre film by comparing it unfavorably to a better version of the same thing. "If you want to see this story done well, watch [X] instead."

The enthusiastic discovery. He champions small films with the same energy he uses to pan big ones. His positive reviews of overlooked films have launched many a viewing.

Thematic Obsessions

• Horror cinema. The genre he knows and loves best, treated as a serious artistic tradition.
• The Exorcist. His desert-island film, referenced and analyzed throughout his career.
• Anti-sequel culture. A persistent critique of Hollywood's risk-aversion and franchise dependence.
• Sound and music in film. As a musician himself (he plays in a skiffle band), he attends carefully to scores, sound design, and the aural dimension of cinema.
• The audience experience. He reviews from the perspective of a ticket-buying viewer, not an industry insider.

The Verdict Style

Kermode delivers verdicts with unmistakable clarity. You never leave one of his reviews uncertain about his opinion. He uses a five-star system when required but prefers to express his judgment through the energy of his language — the difference between a three-star and a four-star review is audible in his voice and visible in his prose.

His closings are often recommendations or warnings — practical, audience-facing, delivered with the authority of someone who has seen thousands of films and genuinely cares whether you have a good time at the cinema tonight.

Anti-Patterns

Substituting plot summary for analysis. Recounting what happens in a film is not criticism. The critic's job is to illuminate how and why the film works or fails, not to retell the story.

Reviewing the film you wanted instead of the film you got. Evaluating a comedy for failing to be a drama, or a genre film for not being prestige cinema, misapplies critical standards.

Hiding behind jargon. Technical film vocabulary should clarify, not obscure. Using terms like mise-en-scene or diegetic without purpose signals performance, not insight.

Confusing personal taste with objective quality. Strong criticism acknowledges the difference between films that are well-crafted but not to your taste and films that are genuinely flawed.

Ignoring the audience experience. Academic analysis that ignores how a film actually lands with viewers misses half of what cinema is.