Which film critics do you trust (if any?)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1475 of them)

View Previous Page...

people like the guy cuz he's a bitch, but he's a willfully obtuse hack writer

― ‘•’u (gear), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 23:01 (nineteen years ago)

would only resemble videogame aesthetics for the most unsophisticated and -- dare we say -- cynical viewer

seems like this guy makes the leap that "resembling a videogame" automatically = "shitty movie"

I thought parts of CoM were gamelike in a good way

― dmr (Renard), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:20 (nineteen years ago)

haha my emoticon up top! i wz starin at it for three or four mins b4 i twigged

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:24 (nineteen years ago)

i hated him because he was a bitch, but not i'm starting to think he may be a pretty good critic

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 11 January 2007 01:16 (nineteen years ago)

he can be a pretty great contrarian but too often that's all he is (it's his M.O. as proven by that foolhardy "better than" list) - he's got me thinking quite a bit and nodding in fierce agreement more than any other critic other than, maybe, Gilbert Adair but when it comes to praising stuff like "world trade center" you have to cut him loose. i enjoy his writing but i don't think even he really believes more than about 50% of what he writes.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 11 January 2007 02:05 (nineteen years ago)

~~other~~

btw i really like that blog!

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 11 January 2007 02:07 (nineteen years ago)

from the blog's comments section:

Anonymous said...
Rivette is a bore.

January 10, 2007 12:19 PM

C'mon Morbius at least sign your name to it! besides doesn't it bore you to say how boring he is all the time?

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 11 January 2007 02:09 (nineteen years ago)

His expectations of liberal filmgoers (and filmmakers) is too chimerical if not incoherent to take seriously. I mean, this is a man who takes Stanley Kramer's politics seriously, never mind his films.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 11 January 2007 02:11 (nineteen years ago)

what are 'chimerical expectations' exactly?

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 11 January 2007 10:32 (nineteen years ago)

"i expect this lion to have the head of a goat" -- it is an expectation which only makes sense if your view of what exists (ie chimeras) is wack

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 11 January 2007 10:41 (nineteen years ago)

well in that case i must not take him seriously.

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Thursday, 11 January 2007 10:44 (nineteen years ago)

I thought parts of CoM were gamelike in a good way

hahah the accidental truth revealed!

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 11 January 2007 10:45 (nineteen years ago)

Jed, wasting more than 4 words on Rivette, never mind registering to sign my name (what name? Dr Morbius?), would bore me.

Alfred, what were Stanley Kramer's politics, aside from decent mainstream liberalism of his era?

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 11 January 2007 14:31 (nineteen years ago)

Lou Lummenick, you are an idiot. I mean, obviously he sucks, but.. i mean
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12292006/entertainment/movies/a_maze_ing_movies_lou_lumenick.htm

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Friday, 19 January 2007 05:11 (nineteen years ago)

this guy is a total douche:

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/film/features/article2160412.ece

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2007/01/the_great_unseen_films_of_2006.html

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Friday, 19 January 2007 10:42 (nineteen years ago)

From the beginning of cinema, film artists working in the new medium understood that its strength was not in straight narrative, something literature or the theatre could do better.

Good lord that's a wrong sentence.

― chap (chap), Friday, 19 January 2007 15:21 (nineteen years ago)

on so many levels. if anything it'd probably be more accurate to say 'from the beginning of cinema, film artists tried to find ways of contructing narratives.'

― the original hauntology blogging crew (Enrique), Friday, 19 January 2007 15:24 (nineteen years ago)

two months pass...

What every film critic should know

Well, I knew I wasn't one.

They should know their jidai-geki from their gendai-geki, be familiar with the Kuleshov Effect and Truffaut's "Une certain tendance du cinéma français", know what the 180-degree rule is and the meaning of "suture".

They should have read Sergei Eisenstein's The Film Sense and Film Form and the writings of Bela Balasz, André Bazin, Siegfried Kracauer, Roland Barthes, Christian Metz and Serge Daney.

They should have seen Jean-Luc Godard's Histoire du Cinema, and every film by Carl Dreyer, Robert Bresson, Jean Renoir, Luis Buñuel and Ingmar Bergman, as well as those of Jean-Marie Straub and Danielle Huillet, and at least one by Germaine Dulac, Marcel L'Herbier, Mrinal Sen, Marguerite Duras, Mikio Naruse, Jean Eustache and Stan Brakhage. They should be well versed in Russian constructivism, German expressionism, Italian neo-realism, Cinema Novo, La Nouvelle Vague and the Dziga Vertov group.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 17:21 (nineteen years ago)

They should be well versed in Russian constructivism, German expressionism, Italian neo-realism, Cinema Novo, La Nouvelle Vague and the Dziga Vertov group

Not much different from an English grad degree!

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 17:31 (nineteen years ago)

"I believe that every film critic should know, say, the difference between a pan and a dolly shot, a fill and key light, direct and reflected sound, the signified and the signifier, diegetic and non-diegetic music, and how both a tracking shot and depth of field can be ideological."

what the fuck is reflected sound? srsly. but anyway the guy is fairly obviously a 70s throwback.

imo film critics

They should know their Bill Pullman from their Bill Paxton, be familiar with the Vertigo shot and Beynayoun's "Les Enfants du Paradigm", know what the truffle-shuffle is and the meaning of "blue steel".

They should have read Paul Rotha's 'The Film Till Now' and the writings of Raymond Durgnat, Michel Ciment, Edgar Morin, David Bordwell, William Empson and Manny Farber.

They should have seen Michael Mann's 'Crime Story', and every film by Alain Resnais, Andy Warhol, Stanley Kubrick, Francesco Rosi and Humphrey Jennings, as well as those of the Berwick Street Film Collective, and at least one by Wong Kar Wai, Jim McBride, Antoine Fuqua, Thorold Dickinson, Olivier Assayas, Jonas Mekas and William Klein. They should be well versed in British documentarism, the New American Cinema, the Frat Pack, the Left Bank Group, London Filmmakers Co-op and SLON.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 17:52 (nineteen years ago)

I don't care what film critics know or don't know. I don't care whether or not their tastes are similar to mine. I don't even need them to get the basic facts right.

I want them to write well, in a manner that somehow engages my interest. And I want their writing to cause me to think about things that would never occur to me otherwise. That's it.

― Pye Poudre, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 17:56 (nineteen years ago)

it's all very arbitrary in the end--academic film studies are not the same thing as film criticism, though there is overlap; but ye gods a qualification in film studies in no way qualifies you to write about film professionally. not really sure what it *does* qualify you for, but this guy is equally confused, mixing up technical terms about filmmaking (180-degree rule -- does anyone even follow this rule now? they don't on 'the shield') and structuralist bullshit (signifier/signified). radically different discourses involved. and he doesn't see it.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 17:59 (nineteen years ago)

Beales OTM

― jaymc, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 18:10 (nineteen years ago)

I just wanna know HOW you see all the Straub-Huillet films.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:06 (nineteen years ago)

i dont think i read ANY film critics anymore. this saddens me.

― ryan, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:14 (nineteen years ago)

Thorold Dickinson

Heh, I love that original Gaslight.

I know *about* most of that film theory stuff -- I just keep forgetting what the Kuleshov effect is called -- but reading an entire book of it, even by Eisenstein, is too daunting for me.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:20 (nineteen years ago)

"I just wanna know HOW you see all the Straub-Huillet films.

Dr Morbius on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:06 (14 minutes ago)"

well this is the thing. i've had my eye out for them for i guess about five or six years. in that time in london, an art-house capital, the back film has played, and one of the later ones ('moses and aaron'?) but nothing else, literally. the back film and one short thing from '68 exist on dvd. and i'd assume this dude isn't so keen on dvds.

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:23 (nineteen years ago)

when i say 'played' i mean 'played about once to an audience of about 30.'

― That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:24 (nineteen years ago)

I think all film folx should watch Grease 2. Also all non-film folx.

― Abbott, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:33 (nineteen years ago)

"WHY DON'T I GET NO RESPECT?"

[img=http://static.flickr.com/23/27290493_c7e6067472.jpg[/img]

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:47 (nineteen years ago)

ILX! /sarcasm

― stevienixed, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 19:50 (nineteen years ago)

I somehow missed the douche-iness of the articles Enrique linked last month.

― Eric H., Wednesday, 28 March 2007 02:35 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

Dennis Lim, ex-Voice film ed, to supervise new film site/database

― Dr Morbius, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 20:49 (nineteen years ago)

three months pass...

Rob Nelson latest casualty of Village Voice Media bloodbath

― Eric H., Monday, 27 August 2007 14:25 (eighteen years ago)

Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton

― S-, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 03:04 (eighteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

Good if long Edelstein interview (thanks to Scott Woods). Revelations: Dustin Hoffman's overrated, Josh Hartnett isn't used enough, and this:

probably shouldn’t say this, but I really appreciated Jackie Brown, really appreciated its beauty and magnificence when I saw it high. I hadn’t seen it high the first time and I loved it. When I saw it high I never wanted it to end. It was the ultimate stoner movie. The violence in the movie was for the most part off-camera, for the most part pretty upsetting in its implications. In no way are you supposed to get off on the violence in that movie. [The violence] is absurd, it’s sudden, it’s horrific. Even Samuel L. Jackson’s death is presented as a betrayal. And the death of Robert De Niro is disgusting. And obviously the death of Bridget Fonda is hauntingly absurd. Poor Chris Tucker is the other one. I’m mystified by the level of hostility to Tarantino among serious film writers as well as mainstream film critics.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 17:39 (eighteen years ago)

morbius is gonna love that

― s1ocki, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 17:43 (eighteen years ago)

He's pretty OTM on Brokeback Mt.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 17:54 (eighteen years ago)

also, I liked Jackie Brown, straight.

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 17:55 (eighteen years ago)

what cinema needs is more josh hartnett

― omar little, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:01 (eighteen years ago)

Even I'm starting to get a little tired of the "omg why don't more people give Jackie Brown respect" thing, and I still think it's his best one.

― Eric H., Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:02 (eighteen years ago)

i wasn't aware ppl didn't give it respect!

― s1ocki, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:03 (eighteen years ago)

Precisely.

― Eric H., Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:07 (eighteen years ago)

I miss Edelstein in Slate.

― jaymc, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:08 (eighteen years ago)

He's right about Boys Don't Cry too.

on BBM: I remember your comment about the sex scene in Brokeback Mountain: Where are all the bodily fluids?

That was sex as sanctification. I don’t buy that. It was done on an entirely Platonic level.

It struck me as a gay sex scene written by a woman. It had no understanding of male animal desire.

That’s why my wife loved it. It’s a chick flick. Well the movie didn’t take place on that plane. It was the apotheosis of gay sex. It was gay sex as set against purple mountain majesties. It was set in this phony Americana, this exultation of the cowboy. It might have been the only way Americans would see a gay movie. These things happen in stages. I wrote a book with the gay producer Christine Vachon. She had a hit with Go Fish. She was trying to figure out why nothing she did had any chance of breaking through in the mainstream with anything that was gay. Not even Boys Don’t Cry was a real hit.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:08 (eighteen years ago)

Hey, Jackie Brown is the only tarantino one I like more than saying "yeah, it was ok"-- I wouldn't go as far as to say I 'loved' it (saved for only my top 20 flix OAT) but it was definitely my fave of the bunch.

― Will M., Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:28 (eighteen years ago)

Christopher Tookey in the Daily Mail is the most enjoyable to read. He just doesn't like films at all.

If gives a page full of one-star reviews, it's because he's in a generous mood. Normally he gives everything a little turkey symbol.

― PhilK, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:34 (eighteen years ago)

filmbiz friend finds Edelstein secretly gay

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:47 (eighteen years ago)

Is that why he admits to squirming during homosex?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:49 (eighteen years ago)

like John Simon?

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 18:51 (eighteen years ago)

Skipping 1375 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

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