Which film critics do you trust (if any?)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1212 of them)

View Previous Page...

"love scenes shot to look like douche commercials"

sound pretty good to me;

anyway, that critic can't talk: she has actual commercials splattered ludicrously through her text.

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 10 September 2002 16:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

I guess the question implies critic-as-consumer guide, but...

the best British newspaper film writer is Romney in the IoS, I think...

...but only because David Thomson now has an American passport.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Tuesday, 10 September 2002 16:17 (10 years ago) Permalink

The guy in the SF Weekly whose initials are GW is good.

― Kris (aqueduct), Tuesday, 10 September 2002 16:28 (10 years ago) Permalink

Everything Ernest said about Roger Ebert. Stanley Kauffman at The New Republic does a great job too.

― dan (dan), Tuesday, 10 September 2002 16:53 (10 years ago) Permalink

Ebert too soft-headed; loves self-important movies like Dancer in the Dark and Memento which the top critics, from the Salon populists to arch-egghead Rosenbaum, expressed major reservations over. Siskel was better. Salon's minor flaw is that they'll often pan too viciously to make a point (as Kael did); Rosenbaum values technique over, say, character a little too much. Closest to my taste are the NY Times crew, especially the Scott kid.

― B:Rad (Brad), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 05:19 (10 years ago) Permalink

Ebert is inconsistent, sloppy on details, too easily swayed by beautiful women, expects too little from kids' movies, and can't ever seem to get comfortable in the high culture/low culture cleft he's inserted himself into, but when I read his reviews, I can guess pretty accurately whether I'll like the movie or not -- and not in a "he loves it = I'll love it" or "he loves it = I'll hate it" way, either. What I like about him, and what makes prediction possible for me, is that Ebert does a very good job of conveying the tone of a movie in his reviews, even (and this is quite a trick) if he just doesn't get the movie.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 06:53 (10 years ago) Permalink

I've always liked Phillip French ("it is a Western = it is grate") and Alexander Walker even (I disagree w/ him pretty much 100% of the time, but again he has amazing knowledge, esp of classical Hollywood cinema, and can often surprise you w/ his passion...)

David Thomson is the king of kings but he does suffer a bit from Meltzer's disease - ie modern cinema is rub. Bradshaw continues the great Guardian tradition of utterly shite film critics (Malcolm, Richard Williams etc.) Does Nigel Andrews still write for the FT? He wrote a fantastic slag job of 'Phantom Menace' (which I know = shooting fish in a barrel, but in this case his criticisms were utterly OTM and made w/ gd humour).

Antonia Quirke in the IOS is prob. the worst 'serious' newspaper critic that I know abt.

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 07:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

But I lerve her.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 07:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

Has anyone read AQ's BFI 'Jaws' book? Thomson plugged it remorselessly the other week.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 08:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

I went to the launch at the ICA where her, Kim Newman and a psychologist talked about it and they showed a pretty ropey print. I haven't read the book yet but will. She seems quite keen to distance it from dodgy sexual readings (vagina dentata does not appear in the book) - but overly keen in showing how Quint is the sexiest man to ever walk the planet. From what I remember much of her criticism can occasionally fall into the "Leading star is georgeous = a film worth seeing" (she slags Keanu Reeves movies and then says they were grate). I'm not convinced though this is a flaw if you know her style.

The shark fin canapes were nice afterwards and she had a nice pink top on.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 08:38 (10 years ago) Permalink

Romney is a great read. So is Bradshaw though. I dont see many films so I don't care if theyre right or not.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 08:45 (10 years ago) Permalink

anyway, that critic can't talk: she has actual commercials splattered ludicrously through her text.

Yeah, because that's her doing, not Salon's.

Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times is pretty solid, and deserves respect for having raised James Cameron's ire for panning Titanic when it first came out. Also, Paul Tatara used to do a good job reviewing movies for cnn.com, but it appears that he's not writing for them anymore.

― Nick Mirov, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 09:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

>>> David Thomson is the king of kings but he does suffer a bit from Meltzer's disease - ie modern cinema is rub.

Not really: he is always praising new films. His sense of the moral is one thing that sets him apart from many; so, as my editor once said re. Fast-Talking Dames, is his ability with ambivalence.

>>> Bradshaw continues the great Guardian tradition of utterly shite film critics (Malcolm, Richard Williams etc.)

I don't think I see what's so awful about Bradshaw. Certainly Malcolm became a slug, but I don't think Williams awful either.

>>> Antonia Quirke in the IOS is prob. the worst 'serious' newspaper critic that I know abt.

She's still in the IoS?? I thought she'd moved on. I heard her on Stuart Maconie's R2 show (!!), where she was irritating re. S&S Top Movies etc. Is she meant to be foxy? (I am going by comments above.)

Actually, AQ's worst flaw surely = too much casual swearing in print. Unforgivable.

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 09:48 (10 years ago) Permalink

I heard she likes hiphop, pinefox.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 11 September 2002 09:59 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't care what anyone says, Armond White is one of the most interesting critics around.

― ryan, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 15:13 (10 years ago) Permalink

3 months pass...

thread revival!!

Surprisingly, among the NYT crew, I've really been digging A.O. Scott's writing lately. I wish he'd write about music in the same earnest, bookish way. Seriously! He's great. Elvis hasn't been doing much for me these days. End of year best-of lists comparison!

A.O. Scott

1. Talk to Her
2. The Fast Runner (Atanarjuat)
3. Adaptation
4. Far From Heaven
5. The Pianist
6. Spirited Away
7. Storytelling
8. Gangs of New York
9. Lovely and Amazing
10. Punch Drunk Love

Elvis Mitchell

1. Bloody Sunday
2. Catch Me If You Can
3. Morvern Callar
4. Paid in Full
5. Personal Velocity
6. Spirited Away
7. Talk to Her
8. 24 Hour Party People
9. What Time is it There?
10. Y Tu Mama Mambien

― geeta (geeta), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

I trust Dennis Lim (at the Voice). He's also a very nice person. Hey, I think I'm getting the hang of this name dropping thing.

― Mary (Mary), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:36 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't care what anyone says, Armond White is one of the most interesting critics around.

I haven't read him in a while. But I was always of the opinion that he was a good writer and a terrible critic -- very impetuous and hotheaded, and his theories on race were either honest and incisive or paranoid and overreaching, depending on how willing I was to go along with him. The other regular New York Press film critic, Matt Zoller Seitz, is often very good (haven't read him in a while either -- I've kinda given up on the Press because the conservatism over there is getting really out of control).

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:40 (10 years ago) Permalink

Thumbs up on Dennis Lim. And Amy Taubin.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

André Bazin

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:47 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I like Lim too. And Hoberman, of course, is pretty much always solid.

For comedic value, I like these guys. Ever wonder what the 'moral rating' of the film you were watching was?

― geeta (geeta), Monday, 30 December 2002 07:47 (10 years ago) Permalink

Seitz' review of Gummo = classic.

― kieran, Monday, 30 December 2002 07:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

Roger Ebert is the only one I trust. Very intellegent, reviews are well written, and although he often goes too easy on some films (pretty much every comedy made by or about black people, he's sure to love, even if it's just 2 hours of Martin Laurence saying "BLACK PEOPLE ARE LIKE THIS... AND WHITE PEOPLE ARE LIKE THIS!!")

The others are far, far too pretentious... (I'm looking at you Michael Atkinson of the Village Voice, IM LOOKING AT YOU)

― David Allen, Monday, 30 December 2002 07:59 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, film critics and feminists just need to shut up.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 08:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

Gilbert Seldes

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 30 December 2002 08:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

Atkinson's good, but he's a bit too dry. You can sort of tell that he's a film studies professor.

Ebert can be useful to me occasionally as a buying guide but I generally don't read him for his prose. And Roeper...good god, man, how did that guy get his job?

― geeta (geeta), Monday, 30 December 2002 08:15 (10 years ago) Permalink

Another film critic to watch is this guy -- an ex-boyfriend of mine who's done very thoughtful criticism for some online and print publications (and he's written a few things for Southside Callbox, the webzine I edit). Linked above are two of my favorite pieces of his.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 30 December 2002 08:17 (10 years ago) Permalink

B-but Geeta, Dave Kehr (whoever he is) picked all these nice J-movies:

1. SPIRITED AWAY
2. ABOUT SCHMIDT
3. TALK TO HER
4. PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE
5. TME OUT
6. IN PRAISE OF LOVE
7. I'M GOING HOME
8. MAHAGONNY
9. WINDTALKERS
10. WARM WATER UNDER A RED BRIDGE

― Mary (Mary), Monday, 30 December 2002 09:19 (10 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

Rex Reed says The Butterfly Effect "seems to have been written with a No. 2 soft lead pencil on Big Chief tablet paper." Still got it, baby!!!!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 02:47 (9 years ago) Permalink

BIG PIMPIN

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 02:53 (9 years ago) Permalink

SATAN!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 02:55 (9 years ago) Permalink

Jonathan Rosenbaum says Julia Roberts reminds him of Raymond Chandler's line from The Long Goodbye: "She opened a mouth like a firebucket and laughed. . . . I couldn't hear the laugh but the hole in her face when she unzippered her teeth was all I needed."

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 03:05 (9 years ago) Permalink

I like the Onion's movie reviews because they hate just about everything.

― NA (Nick A.), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 04:13 (9 years ago) Permalink

Wow, people on this thread gave some love to Stephanie Zacharek, and there wasn't much fuss about it. Last time I mentioned I liked her, a couple people pounced on me. But she can really be quite witty.

I'm realizing, though, that in some cases, I tend to trust publications more than I trust individual critics. When I'm looking for reviews on MRQE or Rotten Tomatoes, I'll click on any critic at the New York Times, Village Voice, New Yorker, Salon, or the Chicago Reader (which is mostly Rosenbaum but sometimes J.R. Jones). Beyond that, I also read Ebert and David Edelstein (Slate), both of whom are the only critics their publications employ.

In most cases, Ebert is the first critic I'll check. Last night, looking for reviews of The Company, I read (in order) Ebert, Charles Taylor, and Elvis Mitchell.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 04:33 (9 years ago) Permalink

The only critics I don't trust for a second fall into two very easily spottable groups... a) shameless press junket hoes (alright, this one isn't so easily spottable as it might seem in the day where a critic can risk get fired for writing a positive review for Gigli or a negative one for Lord of the Rings)... and b) neo-con "think of the children" sex-violence-checklist-tickmark-maker sub-Medveds. Unfortunately, there's far more of the second group than I realized (including Mr. Strickler at the Minneapolis Strib).

I like many internet pseudo-critics. And reading Armond White is usually a good time, though more so after seeing the movie. Actually, to my taste in criticism-reading, the best critics are the ones to be read after seeing the movie rather than before. Maybe this is why I don't like reading Ebert so much.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 05:02 (9 years ago) Permalink

Actually, to my taste in criticism-reading, the best critics are the ones to be read after seeing the movie rather than before.

Agreed. I never read full-length reviews before I see a movie -- only capsules. This, of course, is what makes Rosenbaum such a compelling critic -- if a part of the movie that would ordinarily be considered a "spoiler" is worth discussing, he'll discuss it without apology.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 05:06 (9 years ago) Permalink

Though Ebert's reviews are generally short and heavy on plot synopsis, there are often one or two unique insights that make it worthwhile. In his review of Monster, he makes the case that Christina Ricci's performance is not bad so much as the character she's playing is a "bad actor." Not sure if I agree, but interesting. His review of The Company is structured around his assertion that it's Altman's most autobiographical film ("Mr. A" = Mr. Antonelli [the Malcolm McDowell role] but also Mr. Altman). Neither of these ideas seem to have surfaced elsewhere.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 05:10 (9 years ago) Permalink

Ebert's good because he's predictable - if I see a movie (sometimes even just hear a synopsis), I can usually guess his star count. I don't read him for criticism or insight that much, mostly just as a 'reviewer.'

I don't pay much attention to actual reviews until after I see a film. I'm more interested in seeing how my thoughts compared to Zacharek, the NY Times and VVoice people, the Washington Post, Chris Vognar of the Dallas Morning News (my professor one semester) and a few others (though not all of them for every film I see).

I like reviewers who are willing to judge movies on their own merits rather than against some perceived 'greatness' standard. Zacharek, especially, is good at this, and Ebert.

Rosenbaum, I feel mixed. The moralistic tone he takes on some films (Mystic River comes to mind) bothers me. It's too simplistic and black and white for me.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 05:46 (9 years ago) Permalink

grrr salon movie critics grrr

― s1ocki (slutsky), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 16:55 (9 years ago) Permalink

Oh yeah it was you, s1ocki!

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 17:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

hahaha yes -- zacharek especially...

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 17:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

S. Zacharek and C. Taylor would be OK if they were banned from using the words "deliciously," "scrumptiously," "wickedly" (etc) for the rest of their movie-going days.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 03:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

the only film critic I like much is Dave Kehr - I wish he'd publish a book of his capsule reviews, they're probably the best film writing I've read anywhere.

usually, the more I read of a critic's work, the less interesting I find them, eventually. even a lot of Pauline Kael's stuff doesn't hold up as well as I'd like it to - good as the writing is, a lot of her reactions to movies seem flaky and ill-thought-out.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 03:12 (9 years ago) Permalink

otm! the word "delicious" I have a specific objection to, it's funny that you should bring that up

(I think for the time being it should only be applied to food, at least until everyone straightens their heads out)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 07:47 (9 years ago) Permalink

Oh man, now I have images of Zacharek and Taylor saying "delicious!" and "scrumptious!" in bed together.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 07:58 (9 years ago) Permalink

Namedrop 101: Roger Ebert used to date my step-aunt (aka daughter of my grandfather's second wife), which I find odd (but she was 6 feet tall and was Robert Redford's PA at the time Sundance was founded).

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:40 (9 years ago) Permalink

"this food is really...searching"

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 09:26 (9 years ago) Permalink

Ebert had something to do with the Sex Pistols 'Swindle' movie.

― Enriq (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 13:17 (9 years ago) Permalink

He and Russ Meyer were supposed to write and direct. Russ however took exception to Johnny R.'s manners.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:02 (9 years ago) Permalink

Armond White is the Trife of movie critics.

― Gear! (Gear!), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 18:19 (9 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 1112 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

Ebiri did an episode of the Cinephiliacs and talked about Barry Lyndon. I liked him.

― Legendary General Cypher Raige (Gukbe), Tuesday, 16 October 2012 19:37 (7 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

J.Ro on the late Elliott Stein

And his monumental essay “My Life with Kong,” which appeared years later in the February 24, 1977 issue of Rolling Stone, had impressed me so much that I wanted to include it in my first book, a personal memoir...

http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=32473

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Monday, 12 November 2012 16:21 (6 months ago) Permalink

http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/republican-election-woes-blamed-on-pauline-kaelism

At Politico, Jonathan Martin has a long essay on the reasons for Republicans' poor showing at the 2012 elections. While older GOPers are wallowing in shock and denial, younger Republicans are looking inward, and accusing their own party of cocooning itself inside a bubble of its own hype and manufactured outrage. "The party," Martin says, "is suffering from Pauline Kaelism."

― Bobby Ken Doll (Eric H.), Monday, 12 November 2012 16:43 (6 months ago) Permalink

Think they might have a bit of a John Simon problem too--a little out of step with this newfangled world. (Not necessarily a bad thing in a critic.)

― clemenza, Monday, 12 November 2012 23:51 (6 months ago) Permalink

The problem is the reference is wrong. Every fool who cites Kael omits the rest of her quote.

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:06 (6 months ago) Permalink

clem, i can't believe someone who gives Iranian and Asian films from the '90s no cred would take such a stance.

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:08 (6 months ago) Permalink

I didn't even get the bollixed reference, having swatted it aside here

Pauline Kael

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:10 (6 months ago) Permalink

I have nothing against Iranian or Asian films of the '90s--I'm working my way through these things, lots of time. (I assume you're extrapolating from the '90s list I posted yesterday.) Anyway, if it seems I'm agreeing with the Kael-Republican analogy, I wasn't--just wanted to make the Simon comparison.

― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 November 2012 00:20 (6 months ago) Permalink

When I first looked at the Politico quote yesterday, I thought it meant cocooned in the sense of Kael surrounding herself with like-minded Paulettes (exaggerated or not). But you're right, it's in reference to the alleged Nixon quote.

― clemenza, Tuesday, 13 November 2012 12:36 (6 months ago) Permalink

Best Elliott Stein obit I've seen (I went to a number of those BAM Cinemachats):

"After the chat for Exorcist II, someone stood and said how much they didn't like the film when they saw it on first release, how they didn't like it years later when they saw it on TV, and how they still didn't like it. I think the guy was half-expecting a defense, but at that point Elliott just said 'So, why are you here?'"

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/11/post_36.php

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 15 November 2012 17:48 (6 months ago) Permalink

Almost put this in a Greil Marcus thread, but I suppose it more properly belongs here--long interview with David Thomson:

http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?type=&id=1162&fulltext=1&media=#article-text-cutpoint

Great anecdote from Marcus about the '78 Invasion of the Body Snatchers and his daughter Emily.

― clemenza, Saturday, 24 November 2012 16:33 (5 months ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

I never knew John Simon had another life as an editor. Here are his recollections of editing Lionel Trilling, W.H. Auden, and Jacques Barzun. (This surprised me enough that I first clicked around to confirm it was the same John Simon.)

http://magazine.columbia.edu/features/winter-2012-13/unedited-man

― clemenza, Wednesday, 6 February 2013 23:02 (3 months ago) Permalink

He learned cattiness from Auden, middlebrow-ness from Trilling, and god knows what from Barzun.

― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 6 February 2013 23:03 (3 months ago) Permalink

RIP Donald Richie

― Gukbe, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 22:21 (2 months ago) Permalink

I guess he introduced the world to Kurosawa and Mizoguchi before anyone else--turns up in the Mark Cousins' documentary a few times.

― clemenza, Tuesday, 19 February 2013 23:08 (2 months ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

Excellent documentary from 1992 by and about Raymond Durgnat:

http://vimeo.com/62431429

― Ward Fowler, Friday, 10 May 2013 21:53 (1 week ago) Permalink

Sounds great, thanks. Will take a look.

― Retreat from the Sunship (James Redd and the Blecchs), Friday, 10 May 2013 23:04 (1 week ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.