Worst Film Critics Ever...
Davey
Howdy. I have a topic that has been bugging me for a while... that is the
total dolts that are popular critics of film. I was just wondering if we
could discuss and list some of the worst Critics of all time. Here's my
short list, starting with who I see as the worst...
1. Leonard Maltin
He gave _Laserblast_, the last MST3K movie with no plot two and one half
stars. Also gave such absolute drivel movies as _Mitchell_ fairly good
reviews. He doesn't understand sci-fi AT ALL. He's a total poser when
talking about film history. He doesn't watch the movies he reviews (yes,
it's true!). His reviews are annoying and not to the point. Etc.. etc..
2. Roger Ebert
Tends to give good ratings to films with blondes with big tits (except for
Barb Wire, that would be too obvious). He had the nerve to say that
_Blade Runner_ had no human element to it (I guess we can't identify with
Roy Batty's questions about death and creation, eh?).
3. Justine Kael
Again, no understanding of Science Fiction. I also think she goes after
directors she personally doesn't like (because of her extremely constant
inflamatory comments about _Zardoz_).
4. Paul Hardy
Editor of Science Fiction and Horror Encyclopedias. Can hardly ever find
anything good to say about any movie except those that are certified
clunkers (he really liked _Stargate_ I believe). Constantly gets plot
summaries totally wrong
All thes of these reviewers, INHO, tend _not_ to understand the films that
they watch. They don't care about what the films were tring to say and
they judge their reviews on constantly changing criteria. These are just
my four ideas...
--davey
dav...@in.net
Michael Brooke
Davey (dav...@in.net) wrote:
: Howdy. I have a topic that has been bugging me for a while... that is the
: total dolts that are popular critics of film. I was just wondering if we
: could discuss and list some of the worst Critics of all time. Here's my
: short list, starting with who I see as the worst...
: 3. Justine Kael
: Again, no understanding of Science Fiction. I also think she goes after
: directors she personally doesn't like (because of her extremely constant
: inflamatory comments about _Zardoz_).
: 4. Paul Hardy
: Editor of Science Fiction and Horror Encyclopedias. Can hardly ever find
: anything good to say about any movie except those that are certified
: clunkers (he really liked _Stargate_ I believe). Constantly gets plot
: summaries totally wrong
: All thes of these reviewers, INHO, tend _not_ to understand the films that
: they watch. They don't care about what the films were tring to say and
: they judge their reviews on constantly changing criteria. These are just
: my four ideas...
Well, first of all, if you're going to attack critics for alleged
inaccuracies, I recommend getting their names right: try Pauline Kael
and Phil Hardy. Secondly, blaming Leonard Maltin and Phil Hardy for
the entire content of their extremely extensive encyclopaedias, which
are written by large numbers of people (which may explain the
"constantly changing criteria", is pointless. I'm not going to comment
further on Leonard Maltin and Roger Ebert, because I'm not that
familiar with their work (I'm far more familiar with Ebert's
screenplays for Russ Meyer films!), but you get far too much wrong
about the others to let them pass unanswered.
Your comments on Phil Hardy don't stand up to scrutiny for a moment -I
have used all three of Mr.Hardy's encyclopaedias extensively - the
third being 'Westerns', and while I've certainly spotted a fair number
of factual errors (show me an encyclopaedia that doesn't have them),
this claim that his team only praise films that are "certified
clunkers" is just ludicrous - following your logic to its conclusion
and sticking to just one of his books, 'Psycho', 'The Texas Chainsaw
Massacre', 'The Shining', 'Night of the Living Dead', 'Rosemary's
Baby' and 'Suspiria' all come under this category. The encyclopaedia
also has good words to say about the more likes of 'Return of the
Living Dead', 'Razorback', 'The Company of Wolves', and the Japanese
films that inspired 'Shogun Assassin'. Individual directors who come
in for particular praise include the likes of Dario Argento, Amando de
Ossorio and Harry Kumel. In short, it strikes a very good balance
between highlighting the major work in the genre and drawing attention
to more marginal work that's worth tracking down. As for this claim
that he "constantly" gets plot summaries "totally wrong", would you
care to cite a few examples? And provide proof that Phil Hardy is
responsible for writing them in the first place?
I'm also distinctly unimpressed by your denigration of Pauline Kael -
given that you can't even get one of the most famous names in film
criticism right, I suspect you've only read a tiny smattering of her
work in an attempt to find something to attack. Despite being an
unashamed Kael fan (who has read pretty well everything she ever
wrote), I'd be the last person to say that she's always right - when
she gets it wrong (her review of 'The King of Comedy' is a classic
example), she gets it spectacularly wrong. But through all her reviews
is a fanatical love of the film medium that you rarely see in most
critics, and this image of her (which you're by no means the only
person to put forward) as a fanatical harridan who loathes and
despises everything on celluloid is so far from the truth as to be
laughable.
If she hates and "misunderstands" sci-fi so much, can you explain why
the likes of 'Close Encounters', 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'
(1978 version), 'E.T.', 'Repo Man', 'ReAnimator', 'The Fly'
(Cronenberg version) and most of Tim Burton's output come in for
pretty well unqualified praise? Not to mention - and here she and I
part company with a vengeance - 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan'? And
her far from negative review of the original release version of 'Blade
Runner' hits the nail on the head: the visuals and overall vision of
the future and Rutger Hauer's performance come in for extravagant
praise; plot, characterisation and unconvincing dialogue are
criticised -rightly, in my view. Those are by no means intended as
definitive examples: I plucked them at random out of a few of her
books, though my skimming certainly seemed to suggest that of the
sci-fi films she reviews, more come in for praise than condemnation.
As for your other comments, your citation of 'Zardoz' (which she's by
no means the only person to be rude about!) seems to suggest that she
"personally doesn't like" John Boorman. If that's remotely true, can
you explain why she praises 'Deliverance' ("the most powerful and
remarkable American movie I saw this past summer"), 'Hope and Glory'
("it's hard to believe that a great comedy could be made of the blitz,
but John Boorman has done it") to the skies and even has plenty of
good things to say about the far less critically-lauded 'Excalibur',
rightly slamming it for its many faults (chiefly, appalling dialogue
and rickety plotting, though unlike most critics she has a good word
for Nicol Williamson's controversial Merlin) while praising it for its
extraordinary visuals and overall tone. And as for 'Exorcist II', one
of the most critically-slaughtered films ever made, try this for size:
"I loved watching [it], but I couldn't recommend it to anyone without
starting to grin shamefacedly."
If anything, Boorman's films get a better ride with her than they do
with most critics: looking through her review of 'Zardoz', while she's
certainly rude about the film, she's generally very polite about
Boorman, describing him at least twice as "gifted", while bemoaning
the fact that he made a mistake with this particular film - the last
sentence in particular could be applied to most of Boorman's films:
"On this evidence, he is a greater artist as a director than he will
ever be as a writer-director". Far from being the work of a "total
dolt", that seems to me to be a very astute observation.
Michael
Dark Penguin
In article <davey23-2405...@pm1-16.in.net>, dav...@in.net
(Davey) wrote:
>2. Roger Ebert
>
>Tends to give good ratings to films with blondes with big tits (except for
>Barb Wire, that would be too obvious). He had the nerve to say that
>_Blade Runner_ had no human element to it (I guess we can't identify with
>Roy Batty's questions about death and creation, eh?).
While I'm not too sure about your criticism of "Justine Kael" (I do think
some ribbing is in order, although everyone makes mistakes), I have to
agree with you about Roger Ebert. Sometimes he really hits the nail on
the head, but all too often he pans a movie based on a completely
erroneous or shallow reading. I seem to recall Ebert panning Fast Times
at Ridgemont High because the sex scenes were portrayed in an ugly,
un-erotic light. Of course, this was the whole point -- the film was
attempting to de-glamorize teen sex (and show its unfortunate
consequences), but all ol' Rog seemed to get from the experience was that
his woody didn't get hard, therefore it was a bad, bad film. He also
seems to have a poor sense of absurd comedy, as he showed when he panned
Raising Arizona.
I can't prove this conclusively, but Ebert seems to give good reviews to
films with either lots of sex scenes, attractive female stars, or films
that take place in or have something to do with Chicago. I can understand
these biases, coming from a Chicago journalist who once wrote a Russ Meyer
flick -- wasn't it "Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens"? -- but they
really have little to do with the merits of a film and are therefore
rather annoying.
As long as we're on the subject, I'm also a little peeved at Peter
Travers, who writes for Rolling Stone. Here is a guy who fawned all over
Forrest Gump when he originally reviewed it, back when it was a sleeper
waiting to happen, but just a few months later, after Gumpmania took over
the country, he started hacking away at the film, essentially negating
everything he'd written about it previously. Not that a critic can't
change his or her mind, but in this case it seems so clear that Travers is
just following the critical trends, supporting Gump when it was hip to do
so, then going along with the backlash as well.
Bryan Byun king...@concentric.net
___________________________________________________
Life is a minefield, and the only place that isn't a minefield is where
they make the mines. -- Michael O'Donoghue
Dark Penguin
>2. Roger Ebert
>
>Tends to give good ratings to films with blondes with big tits (except for
>Barb Wire, that would be too obvious). He had the nerve to say that
>_Blade Runner_ had no human element to it (I guess we can't identify with
>Roy Batty's questions about death and creation, eh?).
By the way, I read that Blade Runner review, and you're right -- he
totally missed the boat on that one.
David Schuttenberg
(MAJOR SNIPS)
>I can't prove this conclusively, but Ebert seems to give good reviews to
>films with either lots of sex scenes, attractive female stars, or films
>that take place in or have something to do with Chicago. I can understand
>these biases, coming from a Chicago journalist who once wrote a Russ Meyer
>flick -- wasn't it "Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens"? -- but they
>really have little to do with the merits of a film and are therefore
>rather annoying.
(MORE SNIPOLAS)
I'm pretty darn sure the movie Rogert Ebert did with Russ Meyer was "Beyond
the Valley of the Dolls" An excellent piece of trash if I may say so. I
believe, as well, Russ Meyer produced this film while Ebert wrote and
directed. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm doing this from a severely
shortened long term memory.
Dave
Michael Brooke
Dark Penguin (king...@concentric.net) wrote:
: I can't prove this conclusively, but Ebert seems to give good reviews to
: films with either lots of sex scenes, attractive female stars, or films
: that take place in or have something to do with Chicago. I can understand
: these biases, coming from a Chicago journalist who once wrote a Russ Meyer
: flick -- wasn't it "Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens"? -- but they
: really have little to do with the merits of a film and are therefore
: rather annoying.
He actually wrote or co-wrote at least three Russ Meyer films,
including 'Beyond the Valley of the Dolls', 'Beneath the Valley of the
Ultravixens' and 'Up!', though the latter two were under pseudonyms.
The fact that they're just about the most deranged films that Meyer
ever did in terms of plot is presumably not a coincidence...
Michael
Frank M. Miller
> Howdy. I have a topic that has been bugging me for a while... that is the
> total dolts that are popular critics of film. I was just wondering if we
> could discuss and list some of the worst Critics of all time. Here's my
> short list, starting with who I see as the worst...
>
>
> 1. Leonard Maltin
>
> He gave _Laserblast_, the last MST3K movie with no plot two and one half
> stars.
Actually, there are several quite reputable critics who have found
something worthwhile in this film. Just because it got MST3Ked doesn't
mean its a turkey. In fact, Kim Milford's performance in the lead and the
animation of the lizard-like aliens are both well worth the time it takes
to watch the film.
> 2. Roger Ebert
>
> Tends to give good ratings to films with blondes with big tits (except for
> Barb Wire, that would be too obvious). He had the nerve to say that
> _Blade Runner_ had no human element to it (I guess we can't identify with
> Roy Batty's questions about death and creation, eh?).
I would hardly disagree on Ebert. He and Siskel really are the Burke and
Hare of film criticism. But I'd hardly stick him with your accusation,
which could be easily refuted. Rather, I'd compare his reverence of Russ
Meyer with his foaming-at-the-mouth condemnations of "Night of the Living
Dead." For that matter, his and Siskel's campaign against anti-woman
horror films was totally bogus. They had no idea what they were talking
about most of the time, but simply latched onto a hot topic they could
milk to promote themselves.
> 3. Justine Kael
For one thing, it's Pauline.
>
> Again, no understanding of Science Fiction.
That's really a hasty conclusion on your part. See her comments on films
like "La Jetee" and and "ET" and "Close Encounters" and "Flash Gordon" and
the first "Superman." Her tastes simply differ from the mainstream.
>I also think she goes after
> directors she personally doesn't like (because of her extremely constant
> inflamatory comments about _Zardoz_).
Then why did she give such strong reviews to several of Boorman's other
films, including "Excalibur," "Hope and Glory" and the much maligned "The
Exorcist II." Rather, Kael is a vehement anti-auteurist. Although she
has some favorite directors, she does not hesitate to let them know it
when she does not like a particular work. And unlike a true auteurist,
like Andrew Sarris, she finds little of interest in bad movies by
directors whose good movies she likes.
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Frank Miller, ASGTRP #18 |
| frn...@mindspring.com | "I'd love to kiss you, |
| Atlanta, Georgia | but I just washed my hair." |
\________________________|__________________________________________/
Dustin Francis McIntyre
Siskel And Ebert have both become whores. They're a given.
In the San Francisco Bay area, the winner is Mick La Salle, HANDS DOWN.
He has given glowing reviews to:
Dracula-Dead And Loving It
On Deadly Ground
The Specialist
Johnny Mnemonic
and a host of other irredeemable films. He is truly a fool of the
grandest proportions. He recently claimed that the ending of Mission
Impossible held no suspense and had been resolved by the time the
climactic train scene takes place. He is, of course, wrong, seeing as how
the identity of every intelligence agent for the U.S. was on the verge of
being sold to the highest bidder and provided the threat.
Michael Brooke
Dark Penguin (king...@concentric.net) wrote:
: As long as we're on the subject, I'm also a little peeved at Peter
: Travers, who writes for Rolling Stone. Here is a guy who fawned all over
: Forrest Gump when he originally reviewed it, back when it was a sleeper
: waiting to happen, but just a few months later, after Gumpmania took over
: the country, he started hacking away at the film, essentially negating
: everything he'd written about it previously. Not that a critic can't
: change his or her mind, but in this case it seems so clear that Travers is
: just following the critical trends, supporting Gump when it was hip to do
: so, then going along with the backlash as well.
Critics certainly have the right to change their mind, and I respect
them when they do so in public (I have very fond memories of the
Observer's Philip French reviewing Jan Svankmajer's 'Faust' and openly
retracting his previous negative comments after a Cannes screening on
the grounds that the Cannes madhouse was really not the right place to
appreciate what was a far more complex film than it appeared at first
sight), but I agree with you: just changing allegiances to majority
opinion without offering an explanation is more than a little
suspicious.
There were similar cases of critical amnesia (a mass strain in this
case) when 'Heaven's Gate' came out, and many critics were falling
over themselves pointing out "obvious flaws" in 'The Deer Hunter',
which they'd praised to the skies only two years earlier (it also left
critics like John Simon and Pauline Kael, who were two of the only
people to pick holes in 'The Deer Hunter' when it originally came out,
looking very smug).
And I *guarantee* that if Tarantino's next film as director is a
disaster, at least half the critics who praised 'Pulp Fiction' to the
skies will start pointing out flaws in that film as well (which some
of us - and whether you agree or disagree with my views of the film,
at least they're consistent - spotted way back in 1994). I also
strongly suspect that several of the people behind the current
Tarantino backlash were precisely those people who were foaming at the
mouth about his work all over this newsgroup just over a year ago.
The worst kind of critic is the kind that first tries to get an
impression of the general consensus on a film, and then tries to match
it with the subsequent review; reviews like that are a total waste of
space and money. I frequently disagree with the likes of Pauline Kael
or Alexander Walker (the London Evening Standard) and nearly always
disagree with John Simon, but I respect them for being genuinely
independent, even if it means they sometimes end up on their own. And
in both cases their fanatical enthusiasm for the film medium is never
in any doubt whatsoever. Good criticism is about enthusiasm,
provocation and stimulation, not about going along with the rest of
the herd: that's just journalism. Not that I've got anything against
journalism, but when reading about films I prefer to read the author's
*own* opinions, not other people's reported ones.
Michael
Kim Graff
> Howdy. I have a topic that has been bugging me for a while... that is the
> total dolts that are popular critics of film. I was just wondering if we
> could discuss and list some of the worst Critics of all time. Here's my
> short list, starting with who I see as the worst...
Though I agree with your opinions on Maltin, Ebert, Pauline [sic] Kael,
and Hardy, I can't believe you omitted Michael Medved from your list. You
know, he's the idiot who rails on and on in _Hollywood vs. America_ that
nudity, violence, and rap music are the reason society is so completely
out of wack. (As if bad things never happened before the invention of
cinema). He's the cretin who advocates a return to the Hays Code of
censorship. Etc. etc. And what's even worse, people actually seem to
take him seriously!
Michael Medved isn't just lacking the intelligence to understand cinema,
he's actively trying to destroy it.
Kim Graff
Gondola Bob
Seems very dubious to judge film critics almost entirely upon how they
respond to sci-fi movies....
GB
In article <davey23-2405...@pm1-16.in.net>, dav...@in.net
(Davey) wrote:
> Howdy. I have a topic that has been bugging me for a while... that is the
> total dolts that are popular critics of film. I was just wondering if we
> could discuss and list some of the worst Critics of all time. Here's my
> short list, starting with who I see as the worst...
>
>
> 1. Leonard Maltin
>
> He gave _Laserblast_, the last MST3K movie with no plot two and one half
> stars. Also gave such absolute drivel movies as _Mitchell_ fairly good
> reviews. He doesn't understand sci-fi AT ALL. He's a total poser when
> talking about film history. He doesn't watch the movies he reviews (yes,
> it's true!). His reviews are annoying and not to the point. Etc.. etc..
>
>
> 2. Roger Ebert
>
> Tends to give good ratings to films with blondes with big tits (except for
> Barb Wire, that would be too obvious). He had the nerve to say that
> _Blade Runner_ had no human element to it (I guess we can't identify with
> Roy Batty's questions about death and creation, eh?).
>
>
> 3. Justine Kael
>
> Again, no understanding of Science Fiction. I also think she goes after
> directors she personally doesn't like (because of her extremely constant
> inflamatory comments about _Zardoz_).
>
>
replac...@delphi.com
Michael Medved is the worst. Whatever minor fragments of film knowledge he
has are destroyed by his political agenda. It's hard to write a meaningful
movie review when you're obsessing over the number of S-words. Medved is
making a lucrative career out of fronting for the fascist right. Pat Buchanan
said in 1992 that there's a cultural war in this country. He was right.
Medved's on the wrong side.
Lyger
Ella Taylor and Peter Raenier on National Public Radio! OH MAN! I love NPR
but these film critics are so snooty and uptight that they rip apart every
film that doesn't fill the soul with deep and complex life questions!
YECCCH!
CyberNaught
David Schuttenberg wrote:
>
> (MAJOR SNIPS)
>
> >I can't prove this conclusively, but Ebert seems to give good reviews to
> >films with either lots of sex scenes, attractive female stars, or films
> >that take place in or have something to do with Chicago. I can understand
> >these biases, coming from a Chicago journalist who once wrote a Russ Meyer
> >flick -- wasn't it "Beneath the Valley of the Ultravixens"? -- but they
> >really have little to do with the merits of a film and are therefore
> >rather annoying.
>
>
> I'm pretty darn sure the movie Rogert Ebert did with Russ Meyer was "Beyond
> the Valley of the Dolls" An excellent piece of trash if I may say so. I
> believe, as well, Russ Meyer produced this film while Ebert wrote and
> directed. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm doing this from a severely
> shortened long term memory.
>
> Dave
Hands down, the worst fim critic still living (unfortunately) has got to
be Gene Shalit. My wife and I have found that if he hated it, it's got
to be worth watching.
CyberNaught
Support world peas - Stop the Violins
Jerry R. Blevins
1. Pauline Kael
2. Pauline Kael
3. Michael Medved
4. that wuss that does that show with Medved (Jeffrey Lyons?)
5. Pauline Kael
6. Rex Reed
7. Gene Shallit
8. anyone that will give a crappy movie a good quote just to see their
name in print (you know you're out there)
9. Pauline Kael
10. Danny Peary when he tries to imitate Kael's style and liberally
quotes Kael's reviews
My problems with Kael? She comes off as smug and self-satisfied, not to
mention overly nit-picky. She seems like the absolute worst person on
Earth with whom to watch a movie. Worst of all, she thinks she's
witty. News flash, Pauline: you're not witty. You're whiny. And it
just so happens that I disagree with about 80% of her reviews. And her
unfortunate influence has cast a dark cloud over Dann Peary's otherwise
wonderful CULT MOVIES books. Every now and again, Kael-ian thinking
enters into Peary's reviews, which just ruins them for me.
I don't think I even need to say why I think Rex Reed, Gene Shallit,
Michael Medved, and Jeffrey Lyons are bad critics.
I *like* Leonard Maltin for a few reasons. He doesn't seem to have any
grudges against any performers, directors, or genres. His reviews are
usually pretty close to accurate. He's bland but reliable, and he isn't
always straining to show how much smarter he is than you. His reviews
aren't intended as social commentary or satire, just no-frills
assessments of how well the film in question accompishes what it sets out
to do. I don't always agree with Maltin, but he never infuriates me the
way the critics on my list do.
As for Siskel and Ebert. Well, their "rivalry" bit seems a bit cartoony
and undignified. They can't seem to decide whether they're legitmate
critics or exaggerated caricatures of "critic" stereotypes. And their
reviews? Well, both are given to some EXTREME lapses in judgment.
Neither is even close to reliable, and I would never go to a film or
avoid a film based on what S&E say about it.
Oh, you can take one of those "Pauline Kael"s off my list and substitute:
Any critic who writes for PEOPLE or ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY or US. Those
guys and gals have NO clue.
--Joe--
--
Lye Berry
100%!
I've mentioned this in another newsgroup, and I'd like to add my voice to
yours here. Michael Medved is no film critic. He judges films and actors
by their "moral" content (and/or lifestyles). If he had his way, all films
would be censored in the U.S. before we (poor slobs) would have the
opportunity to judge the films for ourselves. He is anathema to Libertarians
(capital "L").
AND...
Any so-called "reviewer" that considers Richard Burton the "worst actor
of all time," as Medved claims, really ought to return to the planet
from which he came.
Lye Berry
Laura A. Miller
How about anyone who reviews a review for a fashion magazine. I read a
review for Pulp fiction that only talked about Uma Thurman's hair! Just
a little background info for anyone who doesn't read these magazines
-they always recommend the cheesy romantic comedy du jour, as well as
anything with a good-looking guy in it. Talk about ignoring everything
but your demographic audience! Give me Pauline Kael any day -I've never
read anything of hers that talks about Winona Ryder's "luminous skin" or
that uses the word "hunky".
Bill Binkelman
Jerry R. Blevins wrote:
>
> 1. Pauline Kael
> 2. Pauline Kael
> 3. Michael Medved
> 4. that wuss that does that show with Medved (Jeffrey Lyons?)
> 5. Pauline Kael
> 6. Rex Reed
> 7. Gene Shallit
> name in print (you know you're out there)
> 9. Pauline Kael
> 10. Danny Peary when he tries to imitate Kael's style and liberally
> quotes Kael's reviews
>
> My problems with Kael? She comes off as smug and self-satisfied, not to
> mention overly nit-picky. She seems like the absolute worst person on
> Earth with whom to watch a movie. Worst of all, she thinks she's
> witty. News flash, Pauline: you're not witty. You're whiny. And it
> just so happens that I disagree with about 80% of her reviews.
(remaining comments snipped)
Well, I used to agree with you about Pauline Kael, until I changed
how I read her. I think she is the only critic in print who actually
analyzes films. Now, don't everyone go saying, "Ole Billy Boy has
gone and gotten pretentious on us." I'm just saying that the more I
read of her critiques, I developed a theory...which is this:
There are movie reviews, and then there is film criticism, and
they are different. I am not saying "movie reviews, bad" or "film
criticism good." I just mean that if you READ Pauline Kael's stuff
with an open mind, even when you disagree with her, you may learn
some stuff about film. There has to be some difference in a three
page review of a film versus a three paragraph review besides just
mere mental (or written, in this case) masturbation. What's funny
(both odd funny and ha-ha funny) is that sometimes, after reading one
of her reviews, I don't even know if she liked the film.
So, I consider myself a fan of her work. I happen to, subjectively,
enjoy her writing style. And, even when I think she is off the mark
on a film, she never fails to support her argument with some logic.
The way some of our threads really pull apart films and analyze them,
I have to think that some of us like her work (c'mon Michael B, you
gotta be one of us!)
Bill
Brandi Weed
zi...@batech.com (Lye Berry) mathelode:
>Any so-called "reviewer" that considers Richard Burton the "worst actor
>of all time," as Medved claims, really ought to return to the planet
>from which he came.
I hate like hell to *defend* Medved-- I think he's a fool-- but if you
read through the Golden Turkey Awards, he described Burton as "the
proverbial Little Girl with the Little Curl: when he's good, he's
very, very good, but when he's bad he's just the pits." He then added
"To watch a bad performance by Agar, Curtis, or [forgot his third
nominee-- Sonny Tufts?] can provide one with an evening of unintended
jollies, but to watch Burton at his worst is positively painful."
To me, it seems clear that Medved doesn't think that Burton was
*always* a bad actor, just that the string of dumb roles he did from
the 60s on (stopping just before his death with IMO an excellent
performance in _1984_) were among the worst thingd he'd seen.
--
Brandi Weed
bra...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~brandi
Michael Brooke
Laura A. Miller (laur...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: How about anyone who reviews a review for a fashion magazine. I read a
This reminds me of a copy of the British newspaper The Guardian a few
years ago, when the arts editor decided, on a whim, to ask the paper's
critics to review anything they wanted provided it *wasn't* part of
their usual field of specialisation. Virtually everyone chose film,
surprise surprise (film criticism has always been thought of as "easy"
compared with theatre or art criticism for some reason, which is
probably why there are far more truly bad film critics out there), and
I remember vividly their record critic reviewing a Merchant-Ivory film
and spending at least half the review going on about the quality of
the soundtrack recording! It was apparently the first time he'd been
to a cinema in about thirty years, and was shocked to discover things
like Dolby Stereo and wide dynamic ranges...
Michael
shred
In article <4oglb2$r...@newshub.atmnet.net>, zi...@batech.com (Lye Berry) wrote:
: In article <JxMPSHf.re...@delphi.com>, replac...@delphi.com says:
: >
: >Michael Medved is the worst.
[snip]
: I've mentioned this in another newsgroup, and I'd like to add my voice to
: yours here. Michael Medved is no film critic.
Agreed. Hands down, Medved is the biggest insult to film criticisms ever
to reach a mainstream audience.
I wish I could remember the source (The Village Voice, possibly?) but a
few years ago I read an article/expose on his Sneak Preview's program. It
seems the whole thing is funded by a moralist group (right wing or
religious probably, but I can't recall) and receives little or no money
from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. They fund the show to give
Medved a platform for his "let's bring back the Code" moralizing. The
article went on to say that Medved totally runs the show, to the point
that any time "cohost" Jeffrey Lyons makes a good point, Medved says "cut"
and they reshoot it with Medved making the same comment. Lyons puts up
with it since Medved is paying the bills on his beach house and his kids'
college educations.
If anyone can track down this article and summerize it better than I did,
I would appreciate it. I may have exaggerated some of its claims (but
probably not).
- shred
Lye Berry
Point taken. And it isn't my intention to malign Medved as a terrible
human being either - he appears to be a nice guy (although a censorship
nut).
But I still diagree that Burton belongs in the category he placed him in.
I've seen Burton's "turkey" films and found the *direction* to be the
biggest letdown, not Burton's performances. Actually, I think Burton's
weakest performance was in "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold," which
is an excellent film.
I spoke to Medved on a radio call-in show in 1993 and challenged him on
his Golden Turkey for Burton. He still defended, although he admitted
some embarrassment because Burton died shortly afterward.
Michael Brooke
Bill Binkelman (bink...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: Well, I used to agree with you about Pauline Kael, until I changed
: how I read her. I think she is the only critic in print who actually
: analyzes films. Now, don't everyone go saying, "Ole Billy Boy has
: gone and gotten pretentious on us." I'm just saying that the more I
: read of her critiques, I developed a theory...which is this:
: There are movie reviews, and then there is film criticism, and
: they are different. I am not saying "movie reviews, bad" or "film
: criticism good." I just mean that if you READ Pauline Kael's stuff
: with an open mind, even when you disagree with her, you may learn
: some stuff about film. There has to be some difference in a three
: page review of a film versus a three paragraph review besides just
: mere mental (or written, in this case) masturbation. What's funny
: (both odd funny and ha-ha funny) is that sometimes, after reading one
: of her reviews, I don't even know if she liked the film.
: So, I consider myself a fan of her work. I happen to, subjectively,
: enjoy her writing style. And, even when I think she is off the mark
: on a film, she never fails to support her argument with some logic.
: The way some of our threads really pull apart films and analyze them,
: I have to think that some of us like her work (c'mon Michael B, you
: gotta be one of us!)
I am indeed, and I've already defended Kael at some length (not for
the first time!). And, like you, I frequently disagree with her (in
fact, my first reaction to being exposed to her work was "doesn't she
like *anything*?"), but when you actually read what she has to say, as
opposed to skimming it (these are not snappily simplistic "seven out
of ten" reviews), you realise that she has an overwhelming love for
the medium that few other critics can match. And she's not afraid to
go out on a limb, whether it's being rude about something that other
critics are nearly unanimous about ('Raging Bull', for example) or
praising something to the skies after it's been dismissed by others.
I remember when I saw the Taviani brothers' 'La notte di San Lorenzo'
('The Night of the Shooting Stars') and thought (and still think) it
was one of the very greatest Italian films of the last twenty years -
but when I looked up some contemporary reviews, they were mostly fair
to mediocre. It took Pauline Kael's passionate four-page eulogy
(which begins with "this is so good it's thrilling" and goes on to
compare it with Renoir's 'La Grande Illusion') to convince me that my
own opinions weren't quite as off the mark as I was beginning to
suspect they might have been.
She was also great at spotting talent early; her review of Spielberg's
debut 'The Sugarland Express' is incredibly far-sighted - she said
that the film itself wasn't up to much, but that Spielberg's immense
talent was obvious in every frame. She was similarly far-sighted with
Bertolucci, De Palma, Jonathan Demme (she was comparing his work with
Renoir's way back in 1977!) and countless other then new directors.
I'm distinctly wary about quoting Quentin Tarantino in this newsgroup,
but I think I've got to cite this brief extract from a conversation
between Tarantino and Brian De Palma:
QT: I loved Pauline Kael's review of 'Blow Out', which is actually
one of the best reviews she's ever written, and that's saying a
hell of a lot!
BDP: It's an unfortunate thing for your generation of film-makers, but
we had Pauline Kael, and whatever you say about her, whether you
liked her opinions or not, she wrote with such passion and such
excitement about movies. And for the life of me, I cannot find a
writer today who I can read with as much interest and excitement.
QT: Actually, I've a lot of respect for the critical profession. Not
for all the people who practice it, but for the profession
itself, because I could easily see myself being a film critic if
I hadn't been a film-maker. When I meet critics, I know their
reviews, and I know if I agree with them or if I don't, or if I
like their style or if I don't. But when I talk to other
film-makers about different critics, they don't seem to have any
respect for them at all. They just regard critics are people who
take pot shots at them.
BDP: Four stars, three stars, thumbs up, thumbs down.
QT: I'm not really talking about those TV guys. I mean, I'm friends
with Terry Gilliam, and when I brought up the subject of Pauline
Kael with him he said "Oh, she hated 'Brazil'!" And I said, "But
I read that review, and she didn't hate 'Brazil'. She had
problems with it, but she didn't slam you." And he said, "Well, I
couldn't help but look at it that way." That's what I find with
other film-makers, that we read things differently.
BDP: I always read reviews, and I've had some really great ones and
some really horrendous ones. But Pauline Kael was a great
reviewer who wrote with such passion about cinema in her era.
When a movie comes out today, I don't know who to read, because
you know from the first paragraph whether they liked it or not.
Also, they write in such a lackluster, shovelling-dirt kind of
way, and their perceptions, whether they're off or on, are not
written about interestingly.
QT: In some ways, Pauline Kael was as influential to me as any
film-maker. She helped me at a young age to develop my
aesthetic, which doesn't mean I didn't disagree with her, but
that she was like a teacher to me.
BDP: Exactly.
Another great virtue of her pieces is that the later ones would all
presumably have been run through the legendary New Yorker Fact
Checking Department, so the factual information is almost invariably
spot on. Which, given the number of pieces I've read that aren't quite
that scrupulous, is a welcome relief. The all-time classic in the
latter department, incidentally - in fact, the only time I've ever
been sufficiently annoyed to write in to the publication in question -
was a piece by Toby Young in the short-lived Modern Review called
"What's wrong with Britain's film critics?" I was not unsympathetic to
the basic theme, but the piece was so riddled with the most
elementary factual errors that it became increasingly annoying, and
finally hilarious. The whole opening argument was based on the
critical response to 'My Cousin Vinny', the first film that Young
reviewed in his thankfully short-lived stint as deputy film critic of
the Guardian - he said that it got bad reviews because the critics
were "biased against it". In actual fact, it got very good reviews for
the most part (it just so happened that I opened something else that
week, so I had them all on file to check), and one of the few bad ones
was by <drumroll> Toby Young. He then went on to make the sweeping
allegation that "if films are commercially successful, the critics
automatically hate them", which means I must have badly misread the
reviews of 'The Godfather', 'E.T.', 'Unforgiven' and 'Schindler's
List' (just to cite four obvious counter-examples). Three years ago,
I would unquestionably have nominated Toby Young for the title of
Britain's worst film critic, but thankfully he seems to have given up
(or editors have given up on him).
Michael
Keith Bailey
The article that exposed Michael Medved as being funded by some
church group, and Jeffry Lyons going along with him, was in "Spy"
magazine a few years back. I forget which issue.
wcw...@delphi.com
Pauline Kael certainly has a distinct point of view - even if it is sometimes
incredibly stupid.
Michael Brooke
wcw...@delphi.com wrote:
: Pauline Kael certainly has a distinct point of view - even if it is sometimes
: incredibly stupid.
And that's all that matters. When I read a Pauline Kael piece, I know
that whether I agree with it or not (and I frequently don't), I know
that it's *her* opinion; she hasn't been swayed by media hype or a
desire to curry favour with the filmmakers.
Michael
Mike D'Angelo
Michael Brooke (mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk) wrote:
[praise of Pauline Kael elided]
: I'm distinctly wary about quoting Quentin Tarantino in this newsgroup,
: but I think I've got to cite this brief extract from a conversation
: between Tarantino and Brian De Palma:
:
: BDP: It's an unfortunate thing for your generation of film-makers, but
: we had Pauline Kael, and whatever you say about her, whether you
: liked her opinions or not, she wrote with such passion and such
: excitement about movies. And for the life of me, I cannot find a
: writer today who I can read with as much interest and excitement.
[Other fawning remarks by De Palma [and Tarantino] also elided]
I feel compelled to note that De Palma's love for Kael should be taken
with a grain of salt or two; she was one of his greatest admirers, and
almost always wrote of his work favorably. She certainly wrote the most
rapturous review that CASUALTIES OF WAR likely received anywhere on
earth...going so far, if I remember correctly, as to call it a
masterpiece, and to compare it to the aforementioned-but-I-deleted-it-oops
NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING STARS (and maybe RULES OF THE GAME as well -- if not
that film, it was something equally legendary).
Mike "wonder how she liked MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE?" D'Angelo
Tisch School of the Arts, NYU
http://pages.nyu.edu/~mqd8478
Andy Gump
While we're talking about about bad critics, doesn't Michael Medved get
any mention?
wehu...@infinet.com
In article <agump-02069...@ip055.lax.primenet.com>,
ag...@primenet.com (Andy Gump) wrote:
> While we're talking about about bad critics, doesn't Michael Medved get
> any mention?
Uh...did you READ the THREAD? (snicker).
OF COURSE HE DOES!!!!!!!!!!
I confess I always used to vote for Pauline when this question came up, but
That was before I read "Hollywood vs. America"
MM is the pits.
Bill
KMonaco830
Yes, let's make Michael Medved our #1 choice for this "distinction"-- did
you ever read the SPY piece about this bullshit show of his? He tells
Jeffrey Lyons what to say, and the funding for this (worthless and
little-watched) show apparently (if I read it right) comes from the
Catholic church, in order to give Medved an easy way to earn $100000 a
year, the better to free up his time for his so-called political
activities (like hosting the Rush Limbaugh show).
Lucas Stults
In article <wehughes-020...@cmh-p021.infinet.com>,
wehu...@infinet.com wrote:
> I confess I always used to vote for Pauline when this question came up, but
> That was before I read "Hollywood vs. America"
>
> MM is the pits.
So you're letting a book he wrote set your judgement of him as a critic?
Rather odd, if you don't mind me saying so. =) I rather liked Medved
when he was regulated to doing the Turkey awards on Sneak Previews. It
was his calling in life.
-
Frank M. Miller
In article <LSTULTS9183-03...@206.81.140.14>,
LSTUL...@mediform.com (Lucas Stults) wrote:
Well, for one thing, that book has become the defining work in Mr.
Medved's sorry career and demonstrates two very major failings that would
affect his work as a film reviewer: 1) a lack of interest in reporting
facts accurately (in other words, he lies in several cases to promote his
political agenda) and 2) an inability to read plot elements in context.
As for his Turkey awards, I fear you are confusing third-rate stand-up
comedy with criticism. Although critics do occasionally slam films,
plays, etc., and can do it with high wit, it is a mistake to confuse that
with their primary function, which is to provide a bridge between the
audience and the work criticized. Mr. Medved's little "Golden Turkey"
performances, though sometimes very funny, are more about promoting his
Mr. Medved than about dealing with the subject under consideration.
Davey
In article <960531083...@everyman.demon.co.uk>, Michael Brooke
<mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The only Problem that I have with this is that in what I've read of her
she has made broad claims and judgements without backing them up in her
articles. In order to read the backing for her opinions if you own one of
her overview books (like what is included in the Cinemania series) you
have to read one of her longer books. She uses those great terms like
"hollow," "shallow," or "compelling." Great marketing gimmick, Pauline,
but it really frustrates your readers and it makes it look like your
opinions are on the level of the man-on-the-street.
Even what I see of her longer work is calims that seem poorly backed up.
I think that her image of being someone who "analyses" movies is basically
and illusion. I'm a film student and read real film analysis and only the
structure is similar. Film analysis is like literature analysis, you
figure out what the filmmaker was tring to do and discuss how well he/she
did it. Pauline Kael NEVER does that.
Second, I continue to belief that she tends to majorly belitlle genres,
directors, and actors she personally doesn't like without any real backing
up in the movie. From what I've seen she's never liked a sci-fi film and
she has a problem with anything that doesn't follow the strick Hollywood
movie. Even most of those she doesn't seem to like.
Go figure. Best way to understand a movie is to see it yourself and
forget all the critics...
--davey --Goodbye Timothy Leary... you will be missed--
dav...@in.net --"He's just outside looking in"--
Bill Binkelman
Davey wrote:
(earlier anti-Kael comments snipped)
I'm a film student and read real film analysis and only the
^^^^
> structure is similar. Film analysis is like literature analysis, you
> figure out what the filmmaker was tring to do and discuss how well he/she
> did it. Pauline Kael NEVER does that.
That's a subjective statement, IMO. And I disagree with it. One
of the things I don't like about some analysis is this concept of
figuring out what the film-maker/writer is trying to do. As if.
Also, I think Pauline Kael is the only film critic who even comes
close to film analysis (i.e. actually trying to understand the
film, not just saying, "yeah, I liked it.")
>
> Second, I continue to belief that she tends to majorly belitlle genres,
> directors, and actors she personally doesn't like without any real backing
> up in the movie. From what I've seen she's never liked a sci-fi film and
> she has a problem with anything that doesn't follow the strick Hollywood
> movie.
I wish I had one of my Kael books here at work, because I know the
statement about SF movies isn't true. Admittedly, Kael seldom
"totally" endorses any film. That's what makes her interesting
(sometimes). But, I know I have read some positive comments about
some SF films. And, I also don't think she adheres to any formula
about Hollywood-style movies. God knows the woman reviewed scores
of obscure films and so many foreign films that I couldn't ever
hope to see more than a fraction of what she has reviewed.
Bill
Michael Brooke
Bill Binkelman (bink...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: Davey wrote:
: (earlier anti-Kael comments snipped)
: I'm a film student and read real film analysis and only the
: ^^^^
: > structure is similar. Film analysis is like literature analysis, you
: > figure out what the filmmaker was tring to do and discuss how well he/she
: > did it. Pauline Kael NEVER does that.
: That's a subjective statement, IMO. And I disagree with it.
So do I.
: One
: of the things I don't like about some analysis is this concept of
: figuring out what the film-maker/writer is trying to do. As if.
: Also, I think Pauline Kael is the only film critic who even comes
: close to film analysis (i.e. actually trying to understand the
: film, not just saying, "yeah, I liked it.")
What I like about her pieces is the way she strikes a balance between
the need to be readable and accessible while still finding room for a
surprising amount of in-depth analysis. We're not talking an overly
theoretical Cahiers du Cinema or Sight and Sound approach here, but
I've never exactly been too fond of that style of criticism (Luis
Bunuel once memorably said "sometimes I weep with laughter when I read
'Cahiers du Cinema'"), not least because the critic in question is
usually so wedded to an ideological position that he or she can't
admit deriving any pleasure from films at all. With Kael, I always
feel the passion of her writing, and respond to it - even if I
completely disagree with her.
In any case, her pieces aren't aimed at film students - they're aimed
at film enthusiasts.
: >
: > Second, I continue to belief that she tends to majorly belitlle genres,
: > directors, and actors she personally doesn't like without any real backing
: > up in the movie. From what I've seen she's never liked a sci-fi film and
: > she has a problem with anything that doesn't follow the strick Hollywood
: > movie.
: I wish I had one of my Kael books here at work, because I know the
: statement about SF movies isn't true.
It isn't - not even remotely. In fact, the statement about sci-fi
films is so clearly and demonstrably untrue that I'm amazed that Davey
has the barefaced cheek to continue to promote it, despite my detailed
refutation (backed up with copious easily checkable examples) a few
days ago (to which I can't help noticing he hasn't responded). At the
very least a few citations of examples to back *his* argument up would
have been nice, but I suspect he can't find any.
I've already posted a list of sci-fi films she openly likes (and they
include the likes of 'Close Encounters', 'Star Trek II', 'ReAnimator'
and 'Batman', as well as many others), and I can't think of any case
for any assertion that she is biased against a particular genre - if
anything, her track record of championing talent in its low-budget
early stages is rather stronger than that of most critics at her
level.
The second allegation - that "she has a problem with anything that
doesn't follow the strick [sic] Hollywood movie" is even more bizarre
(quite apart from being incoherent) - just a flick through '5001
Nights at the Movies' should disabuse anyone of that notion. And the
claim doesn't remotely square with her outspoken championing of Robert
Altman's films in the Seventies, just to cite one random example. Or
her praise of 'Drugstore Cowboy' towards the end of her reviewing
career.
Incidentally, I can't help noticing that Davey's approach to
criticising Pauline Kael's work is more than a little hypocritical. He
claims her pieces aren't "analytical", and yet never makes anything
but the most superficial comments about her work. Furthermore, he
makes sweeping claims about her alleged prejudices and claims that she
doesn't "back her statements up". Whether this is true or not (and as
far as I'm concerned it isn't), I find it rather hard to accept that
kind of criticism from someone who so noticeably fails to back his
arguments up himself. And the only citation he *has* made - her
alleged prejudice against John Boorman, mentioned in an earlier
posting - turned out on closer examination to be almost totally
inaccurate, and that far from revealing a prejudice against Boorman's
work, shows that Kael unfashionably championed the likes of 'Exorcist
II' and 'Excalibur', neither of which are exactly critical favourites.
Michael
wehu...@infinet.com
> In article <wehughes-020...@cmh-p021.infinet.com>,
> wehu...@infinet.com wrote:
>
> > I confess I always used to vote for Pauline when this question came
up, but
> > That was before I read "Hollywood vs. America"
> >
> > MM is the pits.
>
> So you're letting a book he wrote set your judgement of him as a critic?
> Rather odd, if you don't mind me saying so. =) I rather liked Medved
> when he was regulated to doing the Turkey awards on Sneak Previews. It
> was his calling in life.
>
> -
Well . . . yeah. When its a book of criticism about movies that helps
describe and define his way of looking at them, I think its rather
relevant to the whole issue. Why wouldn't it be? I'm not sure why you
find it odd, to tell the truth. I've seen some of his other stuff, and,
frankly, it seems rather consistant, too, with the principles that he lays
out in the book, so its not like his theory is one thing and his practice
is another.
Sure the turkeys were fun. But that was a rather limited field, really.
And its when he's branched out from there that's he's displayed a
narrowness of vision that, to my mind, severely curtails his value as a
critic.
just my thoughts.
Bill
Jeremy Lassen
The worst critic, imo, writes for the San Diego Union. His name is David Elliot
I know most of you out there have local critics like him... every time
he likes a movie, you refuse to see it, and if he hates a movie, it is usually
a favorite of yours.
Example: He declared taht "The Mangler" was the best horror film of the year,
and gave it 4 stars... ye gawds...
Chris Pierson
In article <jlassen.834087497@mindcrime>,
Jeremy Lassen <jla...@mindcrime.ax.com> wrote:
>
>Example: He declared taht "The Mangler" was the best horror film of the year,
>and gave it 4 stars... ye gawds...
I have rarely, in my life, been "aghast." This guy sounds like he could
make it a full-time state.
--
****************************************************************************
Chris Pierson ** "No one hands me my gun and says, 'run.' _No one_."
Freelance Editor ** --Britt (James Coburn), The Magnificent Seven
****************************************************************************
Scott D. Hamilton
In St. Pete we have Steve Persall of the St. Petersburg Times. He can
hardly go a week with out making some factual error.
Last week:
He described Ray Harryhausen as being 'the late.' This was, of course, in
a review of Dragonheart.
This week:
In a capsule review of Rear Window, Persall describes Grace Kelly's role
as "[Stewart's] doubting wife." Any one who has seen this film will
remember that much is made of Stewart's confirmed bachelorhood.
[Exit, pursued by a bear]
------------------------------------------------------
This Missive Was From:
ScoPi in St.Petersburg
hami...@eckerd.edu
"Don't you realize that you are all the scum of humanity?!"
--- Jackie Chan, in Rumble in the Bronx
Ewe35
good thoughts Joe. I am tired of people trashing Leonard Maltin, a
workmanlike, movie lover who certainly provides a clear , consise
service. Also, I agree with your comments about Kael who posterity has
proven wrong about dozens of movies (e.g.- Kael trashes Grapes of Wrath,
West Side Story,Jaws among many other beloved classics). At least Andrew
Sarris writes with genuine love (often adoration ) not snide,
condescension that I often get from Kael. I usually respect John Simon and
Stanley Kauffman too, as often as I disagree with them. At least they
write with intelligence and wit. My favorite has to be David Shipman, who
just died recently. His Story of Cinema is an indispensible book in any
movie lovers library. incidentally, I liked what you said about Danny
Peary. Of course he cribs from Kael. But he is fun to read. I especially
liked his Alternate Oscar book. Yummy! Marc.
Richard Von Busack
For his influence and his willingness to be used by the forces of repression
in the country, for his rigidity and his lack of scope, for his taste for
sentimental family fare over anything that might scare a 6 year old, I hearby
nominate Michael Medved for the honorary post of worst critic in America.
Hollywood Versus America should be enough to get him post; I admit I felt
sorry that someone who sort of pioneered the study of cine mauvais should
turn into such a reactionary, but we can't be like Medved and let sentiment
cloud our judgement.
-=---
TRANSMITTED via LiveWire, a Virtual Valley/Metro Newspapers service
San Jose, Calif. USA voice: 408.777.8700 e-mail: onl...@livewire.com
modem: 408.298.8646 (FirstClass, VT-100, TTY) fax: 408.777.8701
Robynne Llewelyn
As for print critics, the worst I've seen by far is Mick LaSalle of the
San Francisco Chronicle. In his review of "Star Trek: Generations" he
actually said that William Shatner was a better and more appealing actor
than Patrick Stewart.
-Robynne Llewelyn
--
Hurry back, and be sure to bring your death certificate.
Michael Brooke
Ewe35 (ew...@aol.com) wrote:
: good thoughts Joe. I am tired of people trashing Leonard Maltin, a
: workmanlike, movie lover who certainly provides a clear , consise
: service. Also, I agree with your comments about Kael who posterity has
: proven wrong about dozens of movies (e.g.- Kael trashes Grapes of Wrath,
: West Side Story,Jaws among many other beloved classics).
Having just reread her review of 'Jaws', which reads to me like a
pretty well unqualified rave, I'm very intrigued to know how you
interpret it as "trashing" the movie. Something tells me it's not
Pauline Kael's critical faculties at fault...
And I prefer living in a world where it *isn't* considered taboo to
make legitimate criticisms of so-called "classics".
Michael
frank
chuck kramer is a feature editor on the local abc affiliate in boston;
he's pretty awful.
Thratchen
d
Yeah, just don't pick apart "Howard the Duck" and we'll all get along
okay....
Thratchen
mayamak
> In article <agump-02069...@ip055.lax.primenet.com>,
> ag...@primenet.com (Andy Gump) wrote:
>
> > While we're talking about about bad critics, doesn't Michael Medved get
> > any mention?
>
> Uh...did you READ the THREAD? (snicker).
>
> OF COURSE HE DOES!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I confess I always used to vote for Pauline when this question came up, but
> That was before I read "Hollywood vs. America"
>
> MM is the pits.
>
> Bill
now Pauline Kael ain't that bad! And Michael, when he sticks to the
business at hand on his lil' sneak previews gig, isn't that bad either. I
just saw him recently and he has vastly improved from the old days of that
show, when he really was the worst critic in america.
Speaking of which, how do you determine a winner from all those assholes
who slobber over every mainstream pic that comes out so they can make a
name for themselves, no matter how dubious?
David Hildebrand
Micheal Medved--hands down, a sell-out film critic who reviews movies--and
gets paid by Disney. He's also a big queen, and as a gay guy, I can't stand
sell-out gay men who play moral watchdogs for the homophobic right (Medved
always shows up on the 700 Club, etc.). Plus, his taste in films is
tremendously weak.
Pauline Kael gets my vote, too, because she dissed DAVID LEAN (one of my
favorite filmmakers of all), and hurt his feelings so bad, that he didn't make
a movie for almost a decade. She also wrote a book dissing Orson Welles,
arguing with his claims of authorship of Citizen Kane--a stupid charge, plus,
she didn't even BOTHER to interview the man.
Kenneth Turan is pretty bad (the idiot liked Broken Arrow), also...
-dave-
Dustin Francis McIntyre
In article <4pb0hu$r...@cello.gina.calstate.edu>,
rll...@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Robynne Llewelyn) wrote:
> As for print critics, the worst I've seen by far is Mick LaSalle of the
> San Francisco Chronicle. In his review of "Star Trek: Generations" he
> actually said that William Shatner was a better and more appealing actor
> than Patrick Stewart.
Yes Robynne! When this thread was first introduced a week or so ago, I put
Mick right up there. He is the stupidest, foulest, poor reasoning-ist
speck of critical faculty out there today. Thanks for the validation.
PJK
In article <dfm-110696...@sport27.microweb.com>,
on 11 Jun 1996 23:19:15 GMT,
Around here in New Jersey there is Joyce Persico. Here are exerpts from three
of her reviews...
1. Alien. "If you want to see Sigorney Weaver prance around in her undies, this
is the movie for you."
2. The Crying Game. "There's this cross-dresser ... "
3. Terminator. "A cyborg from the future ..."
Sheesh. Talk about ruining movies for people.
Pjk
frank
pauline kael was the best and also the last film critic. studio
marketing has made film crititism obsolete.
the only thing critics do is tell us working slobs which movies will
give us more bang for the buck. and bang is the best we've been led to
expect from movies.
how many people saw--or bought tickest to--'Carrington" or 'safe' or
'what happened was' or 'laws of gravity?' how many people can even
remember an ad campaign for them? it's a sad situation.
ni...@capecod.net
Oshun
In article <dfm-110696...@sport27.microweb.com>, d...@microweb.com
(Dustin Francis McIntyre) wrote:
> In article <4pb0hu$r...@cello.gina.calstate.edu>,
> rll...@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Robynne Llewelyn) wrote:
>
> > As for print critics, the worst I've seen by far is Mick LaSalle of the
> > San Francisco Chronicle. In his review of "Star Trek: Generations" he
> > actually said that William Shatner was a better and more appealing actor
> > than Patrick Stewart.
>
>
> Yes Robynne! When this thread was first introduced a week or so ago, I put
> Mick right up there. He is the stupidest, foulest, poor reasoning-ist
> speck of critical faculty out there today. Thanks for the validation.
Let's lynch the Bastard!
The trees themselves should go after him for wasting the paper his reviews
are written on.
Down with Mick LaSalle. Anarchy, anarchy, burn the Chronicle down if we
have to, but let's get the scoundrel before he leads anymore children
astray. Afterall, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and Mick LaSalle
is probably responsible for crossing up the wires in quite a few. That
is, if anyone out there actually takes him seriously. Let us protect the
young so that they may live to see a day when only decent movies get
decent reviews -- and decent opening weekend ticket receipts. (The factor
that decides what movies will be financed in the future, a factor very
much influenced by critical reviews.)
-- Oshun
Oshun
In article <4pb0hu$r...@cello.gina.calstate.edu>,
rll...@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Robynne Llewelyn) wrote:
> As for print critics, the worst I've seen by far is Mick LaSalle of the
> San Francisco Chronicle. In his review of "Star Trek: Generations" he
> actually said that William Shatner was a better and more appealing actor
> than Patrick Stewart.
> -Robynne Llewelyn
> --
> Hurry back, and be sure to bring your death certificate.
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES! This man is the Anti-Critic incarnate. He at
least is consistently clueless, so can be well utilized as a negative test
for movie viewing. If he recommends it, and you possess an IQ above 75,
skip this movie. If he disses it, see it the first weekend.
Among his many ridiculous reviews, the most recent that floored me was his
highly recommending The Arrival, a film that naturally would appeal to
him, since it is an anti-movie. If only I had read his review before I
saw it I could have saved myself $3.75 and an afternoon. I would have
been better off seeing a third installment of Grumpy Old Men, Grumpy Old
Men Go to Mars. That will probably be Mick's all-time favorite. In fact,
maybe he should star in it. At least that way people would know his face
so he could get the tomato and rotten egg facial he has so fully earned
over the years. How did this many ever convince a human resources
official that he knew something about entertainment, let alone film? and
expertise in evaluating good film? Please.
What exactly qualifies a person to be a film critic anyway, the ability to
consistently spot and reject movies baring even a hint of creativity,
original viewpoint or, God forbid, plot? This man has missed his
calling. If he wants to have anything to do with celluloid, it should be
sweeping it off the cutting room floor. At best, he could perhaps be
Lorenzo Lamas's agent.
-- Oshun
Heath Davis Hudson
My vote goes to the unbelievably muddleheaded and stupid
Roger Ebert, who is all the more odious because of his
continuing vast influence. A friend of mine once described
his critical approach by way of the old MGM slogan : "More
stars than there are in the heavens." Witness the sheer bulk
of films to which he doles out undeserved 3 1/2 and 4 star ratings
to pratically everything in sight. If Ebert's reviews are to be
trusted, we can safely assume we are living in a new Golden Age
of Hollywood, since everything that worms its way off the
celluloid assembly line is (according to Ebert) an instant
classic.
I do not know if Ebert has ever been co-opted by
the major studios and gives out unconscionably high ratings
because he is somehow secretly on the payroll of publicity
or marketing departments, but I would not be in the least
bit surprised, since his every word can safely be reduced
to an auto-blurb that is eventually splashed across video
boxes and movie posters.
If you don't believe me, just peruse his reviews
for witless dreck such as Attenborough's abomination, Gandhi,
Milos Forman's tour de worst Hair, and Oliver Stone's vastly
overpraised monstrosity Platoon. I could submit hundreds of
other examples to back up the claim that Ebert is the worst
critic of this or any other decade, a worthy successor
to the callow Charles Champlain.
Scott Tobias
frank <ni...@capecod.net> wrote:
I agree entirely with your point about the overabunance of critics who
act as extensions of studio PR campaigns. But to say Pauline Kael is
the last film critic is to ignore the many brilliant ones still
writing today. Off the top of my head... Terrence Rafferty and
Anthony Lane (New Yorker), Georgia Brown and J. Hoberman (Village
Voice), Andrew Sarris (New York Observer), Stanley Kauffmann (The New
Republic), Dave Kehr, David Denby (New York), Gavin Smith and Richard
T. Jameson (Film Comment), Jay Carr (Boston Globe)....etc. And that's
just in America.
The point about not many people seeing specialty films is related more
to a studio's concerns rather than a critic's. But, for those who
really care about gems like "Laws of Gravity" or "Safe," sweet revenge
lies ahead. Fifty years from now, when the former is held up as a
model of hand-held photography and efficient low-budget moviemaking
and the latter is seen as perhaps the seminal film on the AIDS crisis,
the blockbusters of the moment will have faded into obscurity.
Scott
s...@negia.net
Richard Von Busack
for people who are sick of mainstream cheerleading, try Michael Sragow
(Seattle Weekly and occasionally the New Yorker), the brilliant David Thomson
(whose enclopedia, A Biographical Dictionary of Film, is a must-read,
particularly the article on John Ford) and Jonathan Rosenbaum (the latter
rigid in his opinions, but usually enlightening; he can be read in the
Chicago Reader.) Having just met Mick La Salle I have to say that he wasn't a
snob, which is one thing that recommends him I'm grateful for him for
plugging the Roxie Theater on tv, but that I've found his lack of opinion on
a lot of films even more frustrating than his opinion on a lot of films. His
real name is Albert, by the way.
larry ward
TIME MAGAZINE and NEWSWEEK.
Franknseus
There's a horrible "critic" on NBC's obsolete video show "Friday Night."
I don't know her last name but she has a segment called "Rita's Reviews."
First, she "reviews" several movies by showing clips from them and saying
"that looks good" or "I don't think I'll see that!" Then she chooses a
couple to actually talk about. She shows a clip, then reads off a list of
puns about them which are written on the screen. Not only are they bad
puns, but she sounds like she's not aware that they are. I won a bet that
she would say Mission:Impossible was "impossible to follow."
The funniest thing is that she appeals to the average
movies-as-a-distraction filmgoers, the kinds of people who drive to the
theater and look at the sign to see what's playing, then leave several
times during the movie to go to the bathroom or buy popcorn or make a
phone call. Her mediocre rating is called "okay if desperate for a movie."
Her lowest rating is "avoid at all costs" which goes to all the quirky
movies that are over her head, like The Quick and the Dead which
unsurprisingly confused her.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
When on Earth, visit BUCKETHEADLAND, where all your dreams and nightmares
can come true.
Dustin Francis McIntyre
In article <1187311613...@virtualvalley.com>,
Richard_V...@virtualvalley.com wrote:
> Having just met Mick La Salle I have to say that he wasn't a snob
That's nice. Now if he could work on not being so perennially wrong headed
in his reviews.
Dustin Francis McIntyre
In article <4q6hl2$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, frank...@aol.com
(Franknseus) wrote:
> There's a horrible "critic" on NBC's obsolete video show "Friday Night."
> I don't know her last name but she has a segment called "Rita's Reviews."
This is right on the money. She is the worst. She typifies "surface" and
"LA". Truly, utterly, maddeningly grotesque, vexing and vapid (and that's
quite an achievement; maybe I'm selling her short?..).
David Hango
overbearing, arrogant, and an absolute pompus jackass.
Wasn't he in the film "Myra Brekenridge"?
Franknseus
In article <mayamak-0906...@ppp103.henge.com>, may...@henge.com
(mayamak) writes:
>And Michael, when he sticks to the
>business at hand on his lil' sneak previews gig, isn't that bad either.
I
>just saw him recently and he has vastly improved from the old days of
that
>show, when he really was the worst critic in america.
I enjoy Sneak Previews because it's entertaining to make bets on Michael
Medved's reactions to movies. When I saw The Phantom I bet my friends that
Medved would love its wholesomeness but be outraged by the use of the word
"shit." Sure enough, he even counted how many uses of "harsh language"
there was and said that it was very "disturbing!" Now I liked the Phantom,
but if there's one word to describe it it wouldn't be disturbing. Any guy
who's that hung up on not using certain vocabulary words really shouldn't
be a writer.
>Speaking of which, how do you determine a winner from all those assholes
>who slobber over every mainstream pic that comes out so they can make a
>name for themselves, no matter how dubious?
I prefer to pretend that those critical whore guys don't exist. I never
read their reviews or see them on TV, I just see their horrendous
pun-filled quotes on ads. Why do they use those, anyway? It seems like
anyone who listens to movie critics knows that those sorts of quotes are
frauds, and most of the other people have that, "if the critics say it's
good, it must be BAD, ha ha ha" attitude. So who exactly do they expect to
go see the latest crappy comedy because it has quotes from unknown
"critics" about how hilarious it is?
Franknseus
In article <Oshun-12069...@ppp059-sf2.sirius.com>,
Os...@noreply.com (Oshun) writes:
>Among his many ridiculous reviews, the most recent that floored me was
his
>highly recommending The Arrival, a film that naturally would appeal to
>him, since it is an anti-movie. If only I had read his review before I
>saw it I could have saved myself $3.75 and an afternoon.
I'm not familiar with this critic, and I'm willing to believe you that
he's bad, but not based on him recommending The Arrival. It was an
enjoyable B-movie and it has received considerable acclaim from decent
critics (including two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert, if you'll accept
them). I thought it looked gawd awful from the trailer, and I still
thought it looked bad after seeing Siskel and Ebert rave about it. But
when I saw it I was pleasantly surprised. It was a very small film with
some good ideas and a real likeable spirit.
I've talked to a whole lot of people who saw it and were pleasantly
surprised. I suppose we are all idiots like this Mick fellow, though.
Dusty70129
Anyone that lives in Toronto and watches Global tv knows that Bob Mcadorey
hates nearly every movie that comes out. The only things he does like are
things that end up nominated for Oscars. Only a few I remember him giving
3 or more stars(actually he did give Sleepless in Seattle ***, go figure)
Two films I do remember he absolutly hated were Jurassic Park and Batman
Returns(I don't blame him on both counts)
Charles Cassady Jr.
My turn to speak! I got the conch!
hdhu...@whale.st.usm.edu (Heath Davis Hudson) wrote:
>My vote goes to the unbelievably muddleheaded and stupid
>Roger Ebert, who is all the more odious because of his
>continuing vast influence. A friend of mine once described
>his critical approach by way of the old MGM slogan : "More
>stars than there are in the heavens." Witness the sheer bulk
>of films to which he doles out undeserved 3 1/2 and 4 star
>ratings to pratically everything in sight.
Maybe the trouble is your friend's only source is the self-
explanatory paperback "Ebert's Four-Star Movie Guide" which BASF
evidently gave away as a premium. (Hey! LESS THAN ZERO is in
there! So's MAD MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME)
>I do not know if Ebert has ever been co-opted by
>the major studios and gives out unconscionably high ratings
>because he is somehow secretly on the payroll of publicity
>or marketing departments, but I would not be in the least
>bit surprised, since his every word can safely be reduced
>to an auto-blurb that is eventually splashed across video
>boxes and movie posters.
Ebert actually has confessed that such a thing actually happened,
back when he was a young and innocent critic and one of his very
first assignments was THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE. The studio
publicity flacks wined, dined and generally schmoozed him until
he wrote a glowing review that had nothing to do with the quality
of the film (which is pretty terrible to behold these days, and
I'm sure `Pat' Morita wishes it wasn't in revival). Anyway,
Ebert said he soon realized he'd been bought off, and has thus
walked the straight and narrow ever since. I should have such
problems.
I must perhaps disclose that Ebert is the syndicated critic for
my own newspaper, relegating me to position of low-paid
freelancer whose columns are cut to nothing if the Big E wants to
rant for 3,000 words about inadequacies in THE PEBBLE AND THE
PENGUIN. Thus if it weren't for Ebert, I might actually have a
job, prestige, friends. Oh, how I wish he would go back to full-
time screenwriting.
"I am a sick man. A spiteful man. An unattractive man." -
Stanley Matis/COMPLEX WORLD
...
.' `.
(| o o :) Charles Cassady Jr./writing wrongs each week
<`. 0 ,'> in the movie column of ARCADE/Friday
88`...88 entertainment supplement of the Morning
88 888 88 Journal of Lorain, Ohio. Statements
88888888888 contained herein do not necessarily reflect
88888888888 the views and policies of the Morning Journal
888888888 Company; actually, they're more like thinly-
8888888 disguised screams of mingled rage and pain.
8888888
8888888
Chris Markle
>Frankly, I've always hated Rex Reed. I've found him to be obnoxious
>overbearing, arrogant, and an absolute pompus jackass.
>
>Wasn't he in the film "Myra Brekenridge"?
yes he was (although I can't remember who he played). Tom selleck was also
in that flick.
P Matwychuk
He played Myron Breckinridge--the pre-op Raquel Welch. There's a
notoriously awful ending to the movie with Reed waking up in a hospital
and, realizing the entire sex-change plot was a dream, screaming, "Where
are my tits? Where are my tits?"
I-yi-yi.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like criticism, so long as it's unqualified praise." - Noel Coward
-------------------------------------------------------------------------