Which film critics do you trust (if any?)

Manny Farber said "whether you LIKED it is the last thing I care about."

(which admittedly is part of why I've never totally gotten Farber)

<3 vadim rizov <3

― Hey girl, what's up? Yo? What's up? What's up? What's up? (Tape Store), Wednesday, December 23, 2009 1:44 AM (3 months ago)

i can now say 'dope guy irl, too' :)

xpost I was thinking precisely of Farber after reading Eric's last comment. The Film Comment piece he wrote with Patricia Patterson on Taxi Driver makes it difficult to tell whether they dug it or not in any absolute sense. Certainly leaning towards "not. But the leaning is soooooooo so brilliant that the piece eclipses the film itself (which I'm no fan so caveat emptor and all that).

"not."

which I'm no fan OF

yeah the farbs is notorious for that

been dipping into dwight macdonald recently -- str8 up awesome

not shedding many a tear for steph z

yeah the farbs is notorious for that
And also for being able to coinlessly start an old kinetoscope viewer by striking it with his fist.

well, Zacharek is not vanishing:

http://www.movieline.com/2010/04/welcome-stephanie-zacharek-movelines-new-chief-film-critic.php

been reading olden sarris articles via google news archive:

http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=0tMQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CYwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6490,5674023&dq=new-york-film-bulletin&hl=en

lol a fictional nikke fink tv show: http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2010/04/12/diane-keaton-hbo-tilda/

this is good blogging: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/04/times_critics_t.php

punishing panorama of pessimism
Ha!

Few filmmakers are as achingly earnest in their political views, and as deeply in touch with the soul of the proletariat, as Ken Loach is.

stephanie zacherak is terrible

yup

izzat bcz u think Loach is terrible?

that's a corny phrase, actually "soul of the proletariat" is an awful (and condescending to my ears) phrase. but loach is a really down-to-earth dude, a true progressive. who makes more-or-less dull films more often than not.

I agree. And I'm not sure his movies are clear about who/what the "proletariat" are.

p'haps cuz he's not all that doctrinaire

http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/2015

seems like a chill bro

never seen one of the films he's recommended, to my knowledge

would be sweet to be on the festival circuit

too many film reviews waffle on and on about the narrative. i really dont need to hear it broken down for that long. they should stick to REVIEWING rather than describing. which is why sight and sound has the right idea by separating the synopsis and review.

There are ways to intertwine narrative recountings with criticism. Some of the best BFI monographs did it.

André Bazin
― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, December 30, 2002 7:47 AM (7 years ago) Bookmark

this is a solid choice, but can the bazin fans out there read french?

i just read richard roud's review of 'what is cinema?' from 1968 and it is pretty astonishing how poor the translation was. and amazingly it's been unchanged ever since.

there are new translations for this book, no?
i read it in both french and portuguese, never looked in english.

yeah some canadian firm has done it proper. but the widely disseminated uni of cali version is still the standard in anglophone countries.

it frightens me the lack of accuracy and care in a lot of these translations.

where did you read that review, nrq?

sight and sound, spring 1968

can't c+p

ic thx!

geoffrey howell-smith goes as far as to say the translation "may have done more harm than good" here
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/polls/film_books_full.php (and also points out the canadian edition is only available in canada due to copyright) Ian Christie also points out it's a poor translation, and rosenbaum says there's no one good volume to recommend. but a lot of anglo critics there seem as ignorant of major problems as i was (i read volume ii & some anthologized stuff), and the french of course have no compunctions.

Eberts looking for an Elvis Mitchell replacement

http://www.slashfilm.com/roger-eberts-movies-premieres-january-21-seeks-host/

Hit it, Morbs! Otherwise we're left with this:

However, the Chicago Sun-Times is now reporting that Mitchell has been dropped and they’re considering replacing him with “a young male in his mid-20s with little or no experience as a movie critic or as a TV talent.”

I think I qualify.

Qui est Christy Lemire? Is she any good?

you certainly do not, Eric. mid-20s

i, on the other hand...

anyhoo I read this as a description of an individual who is already far along in the audition process. maybe donna rouge just confessed!

i saw maybe five new movies this year which means i'm totally qualified to do this

mid-20s?

“a young male in his mid-20s with little or no experience as a movie critic or as a TV talent.”

Weird, considering how much shit Ebert gave Ben Lyons.

Qui est Christy Lemire? Is she any good?

She's the film critic for the Associated Press.

Don't really know anything about her on-air skills, but here's her 2010 top 10.

well, this is her co-host, from Mubi:

http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/2723

I am curious to verify that Spread is a great movie.

As a writer I find him careless, but he's got a good eye for film. A friend sent me this post on Renoir not long ago.

it's true, Renoir was a badass.

I was amused by his Social Network aside envisioning a Marx Bros biopic where Eisenberg plays Groucho/Chico and Michael Cera plays Harpo/Zeppo.

He's good for his age.

No surprise, it was obvious this was in the works, but David Thomson has officially joined Stanley Kauffmann at The New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/81011/stanley-kauffmann-david-thomson-at-the-movies

I'm always a little surprised how Kauffmann seems to barely warrant a mention when those contentious Kael-Sarris arguments arise, like on the Kael thread here. Lots of people love Farber, Simon is at least infamous, but Kauffmann is generally overlooked or kept at arm's length. (Even Kael and Sarris used to keep him at arm's length to a degree.) I've long believed that his collections covering the '60s, '70s, and '80s are more or less the equal of Kael's; he couldn't have been more different in how he wrote (or, sometimes, in the films he advocated for), but he was totally great for that period of time. He's never stopped writing at TNR, although he's slowed down a lot the past decade (he turns 95 this year!). I still read him now and again, but he almost always writes about films I haven't seen and don't know, half the time you can only get part way through his reviews before you're asked to subscribe, and I just haven't felt connected to his writing in general. At some point, I'm sure there'll be a final collection, and I will catch up.

Wow--Kauffmann's Wikipedia page is epic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kauffmann

I really dig Halliwell's old stuff, but I usually find that Ebert is pretty spot-on in most his commentary. I realize people get pretty irate at the condensation of an entire criticism into a system composed of thumbs (or as on the website, 4 stars) but the guy writes quick, entertaining and thoroughly informative reviews without being condescending. All great qualities.

This is the kind of thing that gets talked about ALL THE TIME and yet I'm always kind of happy when people point out the influence of marketing/corporate money.

I'm surprised to see Neal Gabler sounding like Palin. It's been a while, but I read books by him about celebrity culture and Walter Winchell, and remember both as being really good. Never mind Palin--he sounds just like Winchell, and I remember him being suitably horrified by Winchell's reckless populism.

... is jason solomons REALLY going to be the observer's man then

rmde