Has YouTube Film Criticism Surpassed Magazine Criticism

By: Dominic La-Viola

For decades, film criticism lived in the pages of magazines and newspapers. Siskel and Ebert were household names, publications like Rolling Stone, The New Yorker, and Sight & Sound shaped cinematic taste, and a small number of critics determined which films became “important.” But that era has quietly slipped away, and in its place, a new center of influence has emerged: YouTube.

Today, YouTube film criticism reaches more people, shapes more opinions, and sparks more conversations . And it isn’t because magazines suddenly got worse—it’s because YouTube changed what criticism is.

The first major shift is accessibility. Magazine criticism always relied on gatekeepers: editors, publishers, word counts, and institutional voice. YouTube eliminated all of that. Anyone with a camera—or even just a phone—can deliver a perspective with no filters. The result is a landscape where film analysis comes from all angles: academics, hobbyists, video essayists, comedians, animators, and people who just love talking about movies. Criticism became democratized. Suddenly, everyone had a seat at the table.

But the deeper change is emotional. YouTube critics build parasocial relationships with their audiences. They aren’t distant cultural authorities speaking from a page—they’re faces you see, voices you trust, personalities you understand. A viewer doesn’t just agree with a creator; they follow them, anticipate their takes, and value their taste as part of their routine. That level of personal connection makes their influence far stronger than anything a magazine writer could achieve.

Then there’s sheer reach. A mid-sized YouTube film channel—say 200,000 subscribers—can deliver a video that reaches more eyes in 24 hours than many magazines reach in a month. YouTube videos circulate on TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, movie forums, Discord, and recommendations algorithms. One strong video can ignite a cultural conversation. A magazine article can be brilliant, but its impact is limited by distribution. On YouTube, distribution is not a barrier; attention is the currency.

Another surprising shift is form. YouTube criticism often blends analysis, editing, humor, aesthetics, and storytelling. It’s not just a written argument—it’s audiovisual criticism using the language of the medium itself. When a creator breaks down a shot, they can show the shot. When they analyze pacing, they can recreate the pacing. That makes the critique experiential in a way print never could.

Of course, traditional criticism isn’t dead. It still holds prestige, rigor, and historical context. But influence has moved. Teens discovering film culture today aren’t reading RogerEbert.com. They’re watching videos from creators who upload consistently, speak directly, and understand the rhythms of online culture. The new tastemakers don’t sit in editorial meetings—they sit in their bedrooms, editing timelines into meaning.

This doesn’t diminish magazine criticism; it expands the ecosystem. But it does signal a shift in power. Film culture is no longer shaped from the top down. It’s shaped horizontally—by communities, creators, and viewers in conversation with each other.

And that’s why YouTube film criticism isn’t just “as influential” as magazines ever were.

It’s more intimate, more dynamic, more democratic—

and for the first time, the voice defining cinematic taste might actually sound a lot like your own. 

Although written critique, will always have and hold a higher regard. YouTube and its film reviewers are finally being seen as credible, and taken seriously by not only fans but marketing teams for films. 

Not to mention with the rise of TikTok film influencers. YouTube’s movie reviews are not only, more important than ever. But are becoming the go to for most people looking for honest reviews. 

For a moment, TikTok appeared to be the next YouTube. Creating and giving the opportunity for new comers to compete with the household names of YouTube. Getting seen by hundreds of thousands, without the mass following count. 

Although that died out as quickly as it sparked. For now TikTok “film influencers”. Are just that. “Influencers” people whom once build a following talking about movies. 

Are now just paid spokesman or spokeswoman, for hire. No longer are there honest and insightful reviews, by cinephiles, who didn’t obtain a masters in journalism. But, simply people being paid to promote movies, in which from what I’ve seen don’t know how to market themselves to the masses.