…the magazine and newsletter. Pseudo cinematic semi-scholarly blather via podcast. See a film. In roundtable discussions, once a speaker utters “like” ten times in a sentence, I come to realize the generation gaps are widening. Best of year roundups are fun, but ruined by having to listen through ludicrous laughter from the peanut gallery.

Absolutely love the podcast and cannot tell you how many times I have found some amazing films through listening. However - one complaint - and it’s a big one. Your year end list is always the one I am most excited about. However each and every year there is someone in the audience who has perhaps the most ANNOYING laugh I’ve ever heard. They laugh as if something uproariously funny has been said. Let’s be clear you all are funny - but these laughs are so self centered and annoying almost to the point I cannot listen. Hahaha. I sound silly even writing this but I CANNOT be the only one who thinks it.

Film comment used to be a must listen for me and I think Devicka Girish has interesting insights but she tends to steer the discussion in a very negative way and what makes it worse a lot of the guests on the podcast feel very ill informed about film in general. At times, the podcast starts to sound like an obnoxious conversation between film grad students at a university screening where obscurity is prized over knowledge of film Like the person on the episode I was listening to was saying that Paul Shrader is a bad director and his only good film was “First Reformed”. And you expect to be taken seriously as a critic after making such a statement? I guess the person has never seen “ light sleeper”. Or “ Blue Collar”.

I didn’t realize FC had so many haters! But then again most of yall have terrible taste :)

Much more insightful than other film podcasts I’ve listened to. Breath of fresh air!

When did Film Comment turn into NPR Pop Culture Happy Hour? Maybe since this podcast existed. Too bad.

I was a longtime listener, but I’m deleting more and more episodes. Why? The leftist bias and absolute OBSESSION with identity and trauma, as if it’s the only lens with which to view the moving image. This isn’t hyperbole — I’d love a single episode where we don’t hear the word identity. Let’s engage with other viewpoints every now and then. I dunno, the hosts know a lot about film, but one has to wish they’d leave their hyper-privileged ideologic bubble every now and then. As it stands, I don’t have much faith that they can approach an artist’s work without attaching qualitative judgements to his/her immutable traits. Spoiler alert, said immutable traits don’t inherently make an artist better.

I used to love this podcast, back in the Violet Lucca days. It once was a joyful bastion of true cinephilia: actual critics with real aesthetic engagement would explain their reactions to new art without dumb jargon or pomposity, at least a lot of the time. (There were always some dull events mixed in, often emceed by higher-ups and industry insiders rather than critics at the magazine.) But the staff turnover has been absolutely deadly. It’s now nothing but sycophantic, slobbering praise of interviewees, empty posturing, and dull wit couched in badly misunderstood faux-academic language. The new hosts are absolutely repulsive poseurs. Just awful.

Each episode never ceases to captivate every time I listen. I’m relatively new to the film realm and I absolutely love how this podcast covers such a diverse set of cinema. Keep up the fantastic work!

I listen to this when I’m unwinding or on a commute and it’s always such a good experience! Highly recommend it to everyone out there

They have the ability to make you uninterested in a movie even when they’re praising it. At least they are talking about better movies than most film podcasts.

Ridiculous conversation. The readings of the classroom scene are entirely too sensitive to the panelists’ political biases. One commentator actually complained it’s a problem he couldn’t identify the filmmaker’s opinion on the protagonist, as if ambivalence is automatically problematic and to be avoided. Great example of why film culture today is as irrelevant as it’s ever been.

Film Comment - sucking the joy out of movies since 1962.

I just found this and have started listening with the Sundance coverage. Looking forward to more episodes. So far so good, I love the cast and how varied their opinions are on different aspects of the films.

Ideally films being discussed wud have been watched by the commentators

The “At Home” shows since the Covid 19 lockdown have been awesome. Please keep them coming. Thanks!

Don’t get me wrong, I love the commentary and discussions on this show. I don’t mean to be rude, but please try to edit out the lip smacking while talking. It makes me cringe and turn the podcast off. But it is a good podcast if you can get past that.

i love the magazine and many of the connected lincoln centre interviews. wish the podcast had better voices and less ums and ahs in the presenters repertoire .. the audience is sophisticated and the vocal representation should be too .. often feels like college students getting g together to talk about films they like ..

I loved the Marriage Stories #2 interview. Especially Andrea Janes has a great voice presence and sense of humor. Please keep this hit series going, on different themes of marriage and relationships as viewed across several films.

Almost good for learning how one can analyze film, but doesn’t have anything provocative or thought provoking. A lot of softball and tiptoeing. (May change rating if I hear better ep.)

First off, some of the reviews on here are just asinine. This is a podcast for a long-running film journal that covers cinema as an art form, not pure entertainment. The fact that they’re not fanboys talking about “Avengers Pt. 24” isn’t their fault—it’s yours for not understanding the point of the podcast. And for having puerile taste in film. That said, this podcast is a pretty decent complement to the magazine (which I subscribe to). My one complaint is that I wish each episode was done by a single host instead of the “round table” format, which can get a bit silly and cause the hosts to lose perspective. Also, I won’t name names (others already have) but a couple of the hosts are just domineering and downright insufferable at times, and some tend to have a very singular approach to their criticism that lacks nuance (I.e. ever review is based in on a feminist perspective, or a Marxist perspective, etc. This is a common problem is film academia as well, and is antithetical to the complexity of film as an art form). This is rarely the case in the magazine, probably since an editor is involved. While I still listen to the FC podcast regularly, I much prefer the “Film at Lincoln Center” podcast (which I believe they produce as well) which includes some fantastic, challenging and thought-provoking interviews with some of the greatest filmmakers of our time. I wish this podcast took a similar approach in its format.

The words “if you aren’t interested in film this podcast isn’t for you” I love film, always have, always will, but I don’t have the privilege to attend a fancy festival. Get off your high horses! Unsubscribe!

Jusy because you whisper it doesn't mean what you are saying is deep.

Robert Sweeney couldn’t conjure up any believable emotion or a voice that goes above a light whisper if he tried. NPR hosts have more charisma than this guy.

Just listen to the Sleepover episode and give this podcast 5 stars.

Love the podcast - it's refreshing to hear such knowledgable and wide-ranging discussion on film. A great compliment to the magaizine, as well. The show would really be top-notch with a bit better production and a change of host (or, a rotation, possibly?).

This podcast is my favorite on the subject of film. Elevated discussions, but never stuffy. Violet is an awesome host and the regular contributors all bring something interesting to the conversation. Love it love it love it.

I learn so much listening to the Film Comment Podcast. But what is with that snarky comment about Violet’s laugh? I enjoy her laugh, but I am partial. heheheh

Since discovering The Film Comment Podcast only a few months ago, not only has my list of movies I need to watch expanded ten-fold, but so has my knowledge and awareness of apparently legendary critics like Manny Farber, Andrew Sarris, etc, which has improved my own understanding and ability to discuss things like form. It's also nice to hear people excitedly geek out over Barbara Loden instead of James Gunn.

The Film Comment Podcast is a weekly must-listen for me. It's the only podcast I know that engages serious cinema with both criticality and humor, as deeply knowledgeable guests with distinctive voices create lively and memorable discussions. Keep this going for a long time, please!

This is one of the very best podcasts on films and film culture. What sets this show apart is the diverse cast of characters featured, writers like Nick Pinkerton, Ashley Clark, Michael Koresky, Matt Zoller Seitz, Amy Taubin, Molly Haskell, J. Hoberman, Shonni Enelow, Aliza Ma, Kent Jones, Mark Harris, Farran Smith Nehme, K. Austin Collins and host Violet Lucca: bright, witty individuals with distinctive voices and personalities who know how to articulate their ideas about film compellingly. Smart without being stuffy. Standout episodes include: Streaming vs. Theatrical, Acting For All Ages, Women In New Hollywood, Identity, LGBTQ Representation, and The Marginalization Of Cinema.

I'm a big fan of the Film Comment magazine, so I'm partial to this podcast. The episodes are interesting and engaging.

...and I LIKE Violet's laugh.

The topics FC choose to take on are perfect and often unexpected. A nice balance of what needs to be covered from a source like this and what seems purely selected from their passions. Wonderful.

I've subscribed to this magazine since roughly 1995 and should be the target audience for this production, which is one of the few film podcasts that expects the listener to know who Pasolini is and rarely degenerates into what most podcasts revolve around exclusively - snarky neckbeards arguing over superhero minutia (I say rarely because I did just sit through an interminable stretch where three people sat around making fun of Star Wars character names... seriously? You target in 2017 the name of "Jar Jar Binks" for your derision? That's fresh material.) Don't get me wrong, there is snark, which sadly appears to be impossible to do without when discussing film anymore. Everyone must show how superior they are, I suppose. In that same episode one of the speakers mentions having seen Star Wars in 1977 and you could hear it coming for miles... she was NOT impressed. Again, fresh stuff. A cinephile saying they don't like Star Wars is about as groundbreaking as trashing disco. Not the kind of thing for which I go to Film Comment. But the real issue here is the ringleader, Violet Lucca, whose manner is so annoying I'm having a hard time justifying renewing my subscription to the magazine (the mail for which is still lying tentatively on my kitchen counter from a week ago) if this is what my dollars are supporting. She constantly interrupts, even while typically contributing nothing, is overly loud to the point of shouting, has what must be the most annoying and extended laugh I have ever heard (which the listener will treated to repeatedly no matter the subject...at material or thoughts that are not remotely funny), and she is constantly talking about herself and her college classes and projects. Recently she informed everyone she did a video essay on Altman for college and is always whipping out introductions to stories like this: "when I was in film school..." Nobody cares. All this does is serve to paint a portrait of a very typical kind of movie snob - the worst variety - who pretends to have truly seen a movie properly when in reality they watched two clips of it in the 90s in a class. She is also frequently wrong and is rarely called on it (I don't recall any corrections but another reviewer here does). A good example: she recently said that if you want to hear some great use of Tangerine Dream in a film, see Michael Mann's Heat... There is no Tangerine Dream in that movie, but the other two speakers replied "yes, yes, certainly, excellent." I hate to trash the show, and because of that still give it three stars simply because every episode is not a discussion of Zack Snyder's effect on DC.

Smart episodes, great topics, amazing guests -- I love this show. Thematic episodes, where guests mine their deeper knowledge of cinema history, are my favs.

The podcast uses its constantly rotating cast to cover a breathtaking variety of subjects, and is consistently funny and always informative and interesting.

A wonderful podcast that takes the art of film seriously. You may disagree with their opinions, but one cannot deny the passion and attention to form that is typically displayed in episodes that revolve around wonderfully idiosyncratic topics.

Volume and sound quality are a bit dodgy sometimes, but seem to be getting better. Content is eclectic and more off the beaten path than say something like Film Spotting. Good stuff.

No more sound issues!

Great content but can't hear half of it. Speak up, or get better recording equipment.

I have never heard more of a realization of that SNL "NPR -Shweaty Balls Sketch" in real life than in this podcast. Interesting content, but there were moments, where I wondered if the hosts had fallen asleep. Maybe add someone with a little more energy. Maybe some wacky sound effects…I don’t know...something. Definitely jack up the volume! At the very least, have these very scholarly dry New York critics sit closer to the mic. Things pick up toward the end.

Great discussions going on in this podcast, the only problem is we can't hear them! The volume has to be turned to max on my phone for me to even hear anything. Turn it up, please.