Which film critics do you trust (if any?)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

i like elvis mitchell - he's at the ny times, but somehow he actually manages to be cool. plus he liked "like mike", which is the litmus test of any good reviewer obv

― geeta (geeta), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

I read "The Altering Eye" by Robert Philip Kolker, and it was quite good, though he came down hard on some films that strayed from the doctrines of the nouvelle vague and italian neorealism.

I HEARTILY recommend the movie "Il Mio Viaggio en Italia" directed by Scorcese. It is not of the "consumer guide" school of criticism, but rather "such and such makes me feel magical, and I want you to feel this way too". Magic!

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:34 (10 years ago) Permalink

I frequently read Roger Ebert's reviews and am fairly familiar with his particular tastes. Therefore, I can usually tell if I won't like a film even if he gives it a positive review (and vice versa), but more often than not, I agree with him.

Ebert's tastes:
* Usually thinks favorably of documentaries. He named Hoop Dreams the best film of the 90s, and he called Gates of Heaven (a *wonderful* doc about a pet cemetery) one of his all-time favorite movies.
* Usually overlooks flaws in favor of experimentation. He was very impressed with Natural Born Killers because of the risks it took, and didn't penalize it for being, uhm, self-indulgent.
* Likes sexy movies. The guy WROTE Beyond the Valley of the Dolls fer cryin' out loud.
* Doesn't buy into hype. He (or his paper) pays for all his own expenses at press junkets, instead of enjoying their freebies, I heard. Sometimes I think he actually penalizes hype. For example, he liked Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels but didn't like Snatch (which I thought was nearly as good).
* Usually likes philosophical movies.
* Likes Drew Barrymore, Neve Campbell, and Angelina Jolie. This explains the positive reviews for Tomb Raider, Original Sin, Riding in Cars with Boys, Scream 2, etc.
* Reviews films within their genre. If I'm not mistaken, he caught a lot of flak for recommending some Benji movie and giving a thumbs-down to Full Metal Jacket the same week. I think his stance was that Benji, as a kids' movie, was good. Full Metal Jacket, being uneven and unsatisfying, was a Vietnam movie that didn't deliver.

The movie reviewers for the Onion's AV Club are usually pretty tough customers, so when they strongly recommend something, I usually take note.

Also recommended: Vern. See for yourself.

― Ernest P., Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:38 (10 years ago) Permalink

Jonathan Rosenbaum is very good.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 16:47 (10 years ago) Permalink

stephanie zacharek at salon gets it more right than wrong

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:15 (10 years ago) Permalink

Damien Love. Finally... you see!

― david h (david h), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:17 (10 years ago) Permalink

Chris Fujiwara is really good. Very lucid, clear, and knowledgable, maybe a little dry. Very unforgiving about Hollywood. His bits in the Hermenaut are really good, I mean, a calm, well-reasoned inquiry into trash nun movies? How fantastic is that?

― g.cannon (gcannon), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

He was very impressed with Natural Born Killers because of the risks it took, and didn't penalize it for being, uhm, self-indulgent.

Removing the self-indulgence from "NBK" would remove 70% of the satire.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

"love scenes shot to look like douche commercials"

this is what s. zacharek said abt attack of the clones. it is just one of MANY reasons why she is grebt

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

Oh, and everyone should read his parallel essay on the restorations of Raw Power and Touch of Evil.

and yes lucid and clear is redundant.

― g.cannon (gcannon), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 17:33 (10 years ago) Permalink

Removing the self-indulgence from "NBK" would remove 70% of the satire.

I agree completely. Well, make that 75%. The film *had* to be completely unrestrained. That said, watching Oliver Stone masturbate is not agreeable to everyone. Some care, some don't.

― Ernest P., Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:33 (10 years ago) Permalink

owen gliberman.

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 18:39 (10 years ago) Permalink

Walter Monheit. (He would have had something good to say about Like Mike, geeta!)

― rosemary (rosemary), Wednesday, 4 September 2002 19:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't usually trust film critics, but I like to read film reviews by people like Elvis Mitchell or J. Hoberman for background information. I trust more film theatres, repertory, etc. Film curators like, in New York, Film Forum, Anthology Film Archives, etc. Btw, anyone see the review in the New Yorker wondering about the propriety of releasing such an "anti-American" film as Godard's new one near the anniversary of that date that I don't want to name? WTF??

― Mary (Mary), Thursday, 5 September 2002 00:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

Salon's Charles Taylor is pretty good, despite the fact that he appears to never review a pre-1995 movie without first checking to see what Kael thought about it.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 5 September 2002 01:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

Lucius Shepard. I just wish he wrote more reviews.

― Chris Barrus (xibalba), Friday, 6 September 2002 05:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

in the past, the film reviewers in the Melody Maker and NME were pretty reliable as they were broadly people like me and thus liked the same kind of films that I do. I seldom read the NME so I can't say whether this is still the case.

I do think that in general most film reviewers are cockfarmers. They seem to fall into two camps - either they are Empire-style chasers of whatever's popular, or else they are up their own arses pretentious film afficionados.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Saturday, 7 September 2002 10:54 (10 years ago) Permalink

NME doesn't review films, books, art exhibitions, or whatever anymore. I think this was one of Steve Sutherland's many "innovations".

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Saturday, 7 September 2002 10:56 (10 years ago) Permalink

Jonathan Rosenbaum is very good, always thought-provoking. I won't necessarily see something because he plugged it - I just like to read him. His reviews are always about lots of other things besides the film itself.

― Kerry_, Saturday, 7 September 2002 13:23 (10 years ago) Permalink

Film critics almost don't exist in my life. I have, purely by chance, caught the end of The Movie Show on SBS perhaps 3 times in my life and the critics on that disagree with each other unless the movie they are discussing is about Aboriginals, in which case they both like it.

I don't think I've ever read a written movie review except to glance across it when browsing a (usually outdated) newspaper.

It wouldn't matter anyway because I like (almost) everything I see (I don't watch suspense movies, so I don't get a chance to not like them).

I do like analyses of movies though, no matter how the author has read the movie. Analyses rock!

― toraneko (toraneko), Saturday, 7 September 2002 14:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

Isn't it like, 4AM in the morning in Australia, toraneko? Haven't you got work to go to?

― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 7 September 2002 14:13 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's like 2:15 am and tomorrow's Sunday. Oh, and I don't work.

― toraneko (toraneko), Saturday, 7 September 2002 14:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

I was thinking it was Sunday. OVER HERE. I am an idiot. And anyway - no work anyway as you say. I was being presumptious..

― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 7 September 2002 14:17 (10 years ago) Permalink

Actually, it is Sunday but it's 2:18 am on Sunday and until I've woken up on Sunday it still feels like Sunday is tomorrow.

I think I will go to bed now though. Thanks for reminding me of the ungodly o'clock that it is.

― toraneko (toraneko), Saturday, 7 September 2002 14:19 (10 years ago) Permalink

Further idiocy - I can't spell presumptuous. I thought it looked wrong. And I just got 9/9 on MSN's grammar test, too. 'Do you diagram sentences in your spare time?' it asked me. I don't even know what that means.

― N. (nickdastoor), Saturday, 7 September 2002 14:23 (10 years ago) Permalink

theo's century of movies

This guy consistenly blows me away with very short capsule reviews. And since there is a very high chance I fucked that link up here it is again: http://leonardo.spidernet.net/Artus/2386/

― ryan, Saturday, 7 September 2002 16:54 (10 years ago) Permalink

"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

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

He's also awesome in that scene where she smacks down the Vice assholes.

― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 8 June 2012 17:18 (11 months ago) Permalink

well now we know he likes to say ridiculous things about film criticism.

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 8 June 2012 17:32 (11 months ago) Permalink

yeah. Carr is worth reading though.

― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 8 June 2012 17:43 (11 months ago) Permalink

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/scottharris/100064232/lets-drag-film-criticism-out-of-the-snark-ages-2/

― old people are made of poop (Eric H.), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:23 (11 months ago) Permalink

One email even linked to its author’s “takedown of Paul Blart: Mall Cop”, a piece that had been posted about three months after that movie was released, which is to say about two months after it was forgotten.

Way to avoid open-mike-night stylings.

― old people are made of poop (Eric H.), Thursday, 14 June 2012 03:24 (11 months ago) Permalink

Should he even be calling it criticism since he is mostly referring to internet flash mob? Also, lol at someone writing in Britishes newspaper complaining about snark.

― Can we be shown Zardoz + Nick Lowe? (James Redd and the Blecchs), Thursday, 14 June 2012 10:40 (11 months ago) Permalink

post in here in case people missed the other thread: RIP Andrew Sarris

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/movies/andrew-sarris-film-critic-dies-at-83.html?pagewanted=all

― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Wednesday, 20 June 2012 18:14 (11 months ago) Permalink

I admired AS's unapologetic Francophilia. In '96-97 he even did top-10 French lists for the year.

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/critics/sarris.html

Also, he helped me learn to love silents, screwball, and Fassbinder.

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 20 June 2012 18:19 (11 months ago) Permalink

Andrew Sarris RIP

― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Wednesday, 20 June 2012 18:20 (11 months ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

Didn't realize Hoberman has a new collection coming out:

http://www.versobooks.com/books/1042-film-after-film

(Big photo.) He's going to be in Toronto for a signing on the 9th, so, even though I hate getting mixed up with that whole film-festival crowd, I will make an effort to get out to that.

― clemenza, Saturday, 1 September 2012 01:59 (8 months ago) Permalink

First Andrew Sarris, then Judith Crist also died this summer.

― Josefa, Saturday, 1 September 2012 04:58 (8 months ago) Permalink

podcast with extensive interviews with film critics/bloggers. i've listened to the Keith Uhlich one and it was enjoyable. http://www.thecinephiliacs.net/

― Legendary General Cypher Raige (Gukbe), Saturday, 1 September 2012 05:41 (8 months ago) Permalink

He's a bro and super gay.

― Eric H., Saturday, 1 September 2012 06:27 (8 months ago) Permalink

he goes hard after A Single Man. it was funny.

― Legendary General Cypher Raige (Gukbe), Saturday, 1 September 2012 06:28 (8 months ago) Permalink

we all should

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 1 September 2012 08:37 (8 months ago) Permalink

where does Hoberman write now? (after being dismissed from Village Voice?)

― nostormo, Saturday, 1 September 2012 09:01 (8 months ago) Permalink

Rosenbaum @ Reddit right now:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/znx0q/iam_jonathan_rosenbaum_writer_film_critic_ama/

― Sandy Denny Real Estate (jaymc), Monday, 10 September 2012 19:23 (8 months ago) Permalink

the hoberman is just a collection of previously-published essays.

nowadays he writes for various online and offline sources, e.g. art forum, the guarian....

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Monday, 10 September 2012 19:24 (8 months ago) Permalink

Rosenbaum @ Reddit right now:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/znx0q/iam_jonathan_rosenbaum_writer_film_critic_ama/

― Sandy Denny Real Estate (jaymc), Monday, September 10, 2012 3:23 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark

[–]thetrustymule -4 points 1 day ago
Has your fame ever gotten you laid? Level it up to anal?
permalink

― Hungry4Ass, Wednesday, 12 September 2012 19:51 (8 months ago) Permalink

rosenbaum didnt respond

― Hungry4Ass, Wednesday, 12 September 2012 19:51 (8 months ago) Permalink

Love how he's such a caricature of himself.

― Sandy Denny Real Estate (jaymc), Wednesday, 12 September 2012 19:57 (8 months ago) Permalink

He's always refusing to answer questions about anal.

― Ham Lushbaugh (Eric H.), Wednesday, 12 September 2012 19:58 (8 months ago) Permalink

omg, I could poll each and every one of these blurbs: https://twitter.com/FakeShalit

― Ham Lushbaugh (Eric H.), Monday, 17 September 2012 15:58 (8 months ago) Permalink

4 weeks pass...

g news here:

The Circle also announced three new members in Bilge Ebiri (New York Magazine), Nick Pinkerton (Village Voice) and Keith Uhlich (Time Out New York).

http://www.indiewire.com/article/new-york-film-critics-circle-move-awards-vote-to-december-3rd-add-new-members

― cancer, kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 16 October 2012 18:53 (7 months ago) Permalink

I trust all three. De Palma's best director award is all but certain now!

― Bobby Ken Doll (Eric H.), Tuesday, 16 October 2012 19:19 (7 months ago) Permalink

bet he would trade it for functioning software at the NYFF.

― cancer, kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 16 October 2012 19:23 (7 months ago) Permalink

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 (3 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 (3 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.