I go to the AV Club for all my TV and movie reviews. http://www.avclub.com/
I really like the AV Club. I find writing about movies on the Internet to fall (really broadly speaking) into one of two categories: First, there are the reviews of mainstream films in a mainstream way that appeal to the average person. These typically focus on a few details relevant to the people trying to determine if they want to see the movie -- so-and-so actor was good, these jokes are scatological, the plot is compelling, etc. Sometimes these are well written, but often they're meandering.
Then there are the more serious film studies people with their own, somewhat segregated sites, and those reviews are generally more insightful, but sometimes not very well argued, maybe because they assume the reader is already with them. These are often not very well written, but for different reasons than the mainstream reviews -- usually these are more focused, but often they're unnecessarily long-winded. (I think this might have something to do with the way academics vs. professional writers think about writing).
The AV Club combines the best of both these worlds. They're insightful about the whole gestalt of the movie, instead of just focusing on an assortment of details as mainstream pop-culture critics do, but then they write better than the film studies people because, well, it's more fun to read that way.
this guy is pretty good tbh
I seem to be the only person -- high- or low-brow -- who doesn't like Roger Ebert. I could (briefly) pick apart a review if you're curious. He's in the unfortunate position of needing to write a page-ish about crappy movies that don't deserve that much attention but then also needing to keep his analysis of great movies that deserve lots of attention to the same 1 page (or so) limit. More or less, I think his analyses suffer from the problem I'm ascribing to mainstream reviewers above.
