Dana Stevens is Slate's Movie Critic

Skimming over a movie discussion board, I recently read a prescient comment: “The next Pauline Kael will come from the web.” Sound sketchy? Maybe not. It may have just happened. As of Thursday afternoon, with the posting of her review of United 93, former film blogger Dana Stevens is now Slate’s movie critic, giving her a massive audience (the site is in the web’s top 500 according to Alexa) and the prestige and influence of one of the most respected web-only pages. After stint’s as Slate’s TV critic and a last-string film reviewer for the New York Times, she’s finally stepping into a role that’s practically made for her—the unofficial chief film critic of the web.

Those who remember her work at The High Sign will be thrilled. For those of you who never had the pleasure of reading her semi-weekly long takes, the site’s archives are worth a click. Chatty, personal, academic, political, droll, snarky—she’s a perfect choice Slate’s stylistic blend of erudition and irreverence. Additionally, having arrived fresh from her stint as a TV critic, she’s got recent firsthand knowledge of the doldrums of pop culture sludge—it’s like coming back to D.C. to report on the state department after a year in Iraq.

Stevens isn't a critic who's great because she's always right (I've got issues with her United 93 review); she's great because she's always interesting to read. In one of her late High Sign reviews, she introduced the world to a movie term she’d invented, the “juicebomb,” which she defined as “a movie that's extremely pleasurable to watch without being in any way dumb or unchallenging.” Sounds like a perfect description of her reviews.