FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Phantom Hugger on January 01, 2008, 06:15:20 PM
-
The other day I was thinking how great it is to hear Tom pan the darling new movie du jour when most other observers are singing its praises. Usually I'm on Tom's side, so Ive come to trust most of his suggestions.
The majority of film critics seem to have some sort of agenda, be it payola, politics, narcissism, nepotism, sycophantic fanboyism or just plain bad taste.
Which critics do the FOT think are class acts and which ones are a part of the problem.
Class Acts.....
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m1/theimann/GeneRoger.jpg)
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m1/theimann/Seigel.jpg)
Part of the Problem...
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m1/theimann/Knowles.jpg)
-
I can't say I'm familiar with too many film reviewers, but all the writers at the A.V. Club do a great job.
-
If I might expand the discussion to reviewers of all kinds, I generally like The New Yorker, Salon, Harper's, Time Out, and The Village Voice, dislike The New York Times and Rolling Stone (I actually have a subscription that I can't figure out how to cancel). There are exceptions to this - I'll take A.O. Scott at the NYT over David Denby any day, and while I like Anthony Lane I can see why he gets on peoples' nerves... And I don't read Sasha Frere-Jones at all.
Probably my favorite critic of any kind is Douglas Wolk, who mostly reviews comics and music.
-
I wouldn't say Siskel was much of a critic, although he and Ebert were entertaining together. Ebert's taste is notoriously suspect (see his rapturous Juno praise for the latest example) but he's a thoughtful, interesting writer, which is ultimately more important.
I can't think of any current film critics that I find consistently enlightening or persuasive as far as recommendations go. Maybe the previously mentioned AV Club writers (except Tasha Robinson, who maligned The Big Lebowski and thus is dead to me). The House Next Door (http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/) sometimes has interesting content --- especially their weekly Sopranos and Deadwood reviews they were running -- although they just ran a petulant review (http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2007/12/american-crude-there-will-be-blood-take.html) of THERE WILL BE BLOOD that I consider to be part of the "problem" (one of them, anyway). I actually only skimmed it to avoid spoilers but honestly you can grasp the overall tone from the opening paragraph and the comments section alone.
-
I like Dana Steven's film reviews at Slate.com, and a few UK reviewers, particularly the BBC's Mark Kermode, who went to the same high school as me, and gets very angry where it's deserved. They have a podcast (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/kermode/) every Friday which I recommend subscribing to, and you should watch his Pirates of the Caribbean rant here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Q5FESHol0).
-
Second Samir's reco - Mark Kermode is very entertaining. He's at his best when he's complaining about something, but he's also very knowledgable and witty, and passionate about things he likes. As with all great critics, once you get to know him and his preferences, you can listen to what he has to say, agree or disagree, but always know where he's coming from - and hopefully you learn something along the way. The same could be said about guys like Jonathan Rosenbaum.
Kermode's slam of Pirates 3 is great, but his rant about Tarantino/Grind House is even more insightful. I actually isolated that segment when it aired back in September - here it is (http://www.divshare.com/download/2077457-2e9).
-
That Mark Kermode is great fun. I just subscribed to his podcast. Thanks!
-
Peter Travers from Rolling Stone is the worst.
to wit :
Chocolat is a sinfully scrumptious bonbon!
He always has to make a lame pun with the movie's title in it.
As they say in MAD magazine BLECHH.
-
I haven't read his review of Juno, but Roger Ebert is pretty much my go to guy just because I've become so familiar with his reviewing style over the years. There are times when I completely disagree with him, but I don't find him to be the kind of reviewer as cultural weather vane, generally. When Reservoir Dogs came out for example, I think he gave it 2 stars and said that Tarantino could make a better film someday. He hated David Lynch's movies for years, but came around for Mulholland Drive. He's loved movies that I can't stand, but he's like an old friend who's taste I've grown to understand over the years. His recent medical problems might have an effect on his judgement when it comes to movie reviews of Juno, though, who can say. If you're trapped in a hospital maybe Juno's a welcome departure.. His standing as a class act is still firmly set in stone in my book, and I hope he hangs around to enjoy movies, because I feel like if Ebert's not around to enjoy a good movie one day, I'll be a little bit sad seeing it without him. And also, he kicked Oprah to the curb, so you've got to respect that kind of taste.
-
Part of the Problem...
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m1/theimann/Knowles.jpg)
I like to call him Jellyan.
-
Anthony Lane cracks me up. Especially reviews of Inside Deep Throat and the last Star Wars debacle.
-
Mark Kermode
Thanks for mentioning this guy, samir. I wasn't familiar with his stuff before I watched that youtube clip and listened to the Grindhouse clip that crimestick posted (thanks to him as well!) and I'm now a fan. Good stuff.
-
Mark Kermode
Thanks for mentioning this guy, samir. I wasn't familiar with his stuff before I watched that youtube clip and listened to the Grindhouse clip that crimestick posted (thanks to him as well!) and I'm now a fan. Good stuff.
Moi aussi.
-
Armond White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armond_White) is clearly a lunatic, and said lunacy frequently leads to comic gems. From his There Will Be Blood review (http://www.nypress.com/21/1/film/ArmondWhite.cfm):
"Plainview is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta."
Excerpt from White's Norbit review:
"Norbit would be enough to confirm his status as the most brilliant comic actor in America. (Murphy plays characters, unlike Sacha Baron Cohen’s one-note Borat which has been extravagantly compared to Peter Sellers. Murphy’s virtuosity surpasses both.)"
-
I kind of like Armond White.
-
"Ironically, Anderson enjoys unearned good will among today’s film nerds. Since the silly Boogie Nights sentimentalized the porn industry with a fake rubber penis, Anderson has been the small white hope for Gen-Xers wishing there was a Griffith, Stroheim, Ford, Wyler, Vidor or Stevens among them. It reveals the naive cynicism that infects today’s movie geeks."
White may be loony, but I agree with him here. I never understood why people are so crazy about PT Anderson. Granted, I haven't seen There Will Be Blood, and I kinda doubt I will. Anderson's already burned me three times - I don't think I'll give him a fourth chance.
-
"Ironically, Anderson enjoys unearned good will among today’s film nerds. Since the silly Boogie Nights sentimentalized the porn industry with a fake rubber penis, Anderson has been the small white hope for Gen-Xers wishing there was a Griffith, Stroheim, Ford, Wyler, Vidor or Stevens among them. It reveals the naive cynicism that infects today’s movie geeks."
White may be loony, but I agree with him here. I never understood why people are so crazy about PT Anderson. Granted, I haven't seen There Will Be Blood, and I kinda doubt I will. Anderson's already burned me three times - I don't think I'll give him a fourth chance.
I was on the PTA train even before that silly ode to prosthetics! After renting Hard Eight (or, if you prefer, Sydney) in 1997, I frantically called all of my fellow Gen-X film geeks and informed them that we had finally found our Jean Pierre-Melville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Melville)!
-
Yeah, Hard Eight is one movie of his that I've seen that doesn't totally blow. 1 for 4 is decent. Gen-X Leo McCarey?
-
I love his movies. I haven't seen a bad one yet.
-
I love his movies. I haven't seen a bad one yet.
I got your back on this, Beth. I think he's 4 for 4, and I have seen Magnolia 5 times. Never gets old to me.
-
First, I'm with Beth and DFK on this. I will gladly pick nits over most films, but most problems I have with this guy's stuff stem form the fact that I didn't write it myself. Even Punch-Drunk Love, his supposed minor work, was compelling enough for me to go to the cineplex three times. And There Will Be Blood is a masterpiece, which will soon be common knowledge (my apologies, DFK, I know Knoxville is a metropolis in its own right.) That's my piece on PTA.
Now, my favorite poorly-written review. This gem is copied and pasted from IMDB, and is clearly written by the most parent's-basement-ridden, soaking-in-his-own-filth art school hack douchebag of all time.
Oh, and for the record, I think The Deer Hunter sucks, save for the Russian Roullette scene.
58 out of 78 people found the following comment useful :-
The BEST Vietnam movie!!!, 3 February 2003
Author: Blacky1389
I notice some people are calling this a bad, or boring, or flawed film. I think the reason behind it is because today we have audiences used to watching MTV. And because of that, they like their movies to feel like it was made by a music video director. Most people don't understand films which spend time to build up characters and rather show you the little details of their lives before they throw you into a battle. The Deer Hunter is great because unlike most war films, it builds up the characters. It makes us understand their daily life. And who they are. So when we see them die and suffer - WE UNDERSTAND THE TRAGEDY! you don't get that with films like PLATOON which throw us into the war without any kind of personal history of these people. This film is great because it has the guts to take nearly 40 minutes to get to the war. Most people don't have the paitence. Thats because most people are used to drive-thrus and music videos and American Idol. They want everything fast. They don't have time to sit and learn and study. They simply want to get to the "exciting parts." The problem is that once you do this, you can't take the subject serious. It then becomes a joke. It then becomes an action film devoid of feeling. The Deer Hunter is a masterpiece because it never holds back.
I give this film a 10 out of 10. I wish I could give it an 11. They simply don't make films like this anymore. I wish Cimino returns to his roots and makes another Deer Hunter.
-
To be fair, I thought Boogie Nights started out really well. The first hour or so was a five-star movie. However, it all fell apart right around the time of the donut-shop slaughter. It seemed (to me) like he'd dropped all of the pieces he was juggling and struggled unsuccessfully to piece his movie back together at the end.
Magnolia, on the other hand, is one of the few movie where I can recall leaving the theater physically angry, like I wanted to break something. I haven't seen it since (and I don't plan on watching it again), but just recalling the scenes I still remember are making me mad as I type. Ugh.
-
Magnolia, on the other hand, is one of the few movie where I can recall leaving the theater physically angry, like I wanted to break something. I haven't seen it since (and I don't plan on watching it again), but just recalling the scenes I still remember are making me mad as I type. Ugh.
That's how The Deer Hunter made me feel. Also, The Singing Nun (my mother still reminisces about the time she had to walk home from the movies with furious, spluttering eight-year-old).
-
Is he talking about Andy Griffith? Because I agree he's one of our best.
-
Armond White sure is a nutcase - often readable and insightful, but just as often frustratingly contrarian - many of his unconventional conclusions range from clever to downright bizarre. He would be a better provocateur if he didn't try so hard. On the other hand, he more or less turned Slate's annual roundtable film discussion into a carwash two years ago, and it is now defunct. That's always something.
-
I never understood why people are so crazy about PT Anderson. Granted, I haven't seen There Will Be Blood, and I kinda doubt I will. Anderson's already burned me three times - I don't think I'll give him a fourth chance.
I loved There Will Be Blood as much as I hated Magnolia and Punchdrunk Love (which is to say alot). Definitely give it a shot.
-
Armond White sure is a nutcase - often readable and insightful, but just as often frustratingly contrarian - many of his unconventional conclusions range from clever to downright bizarre. He would be a better provocateur if he didn't try so hard. On the other hand, he more or less turned Slate's annual roundtable film discussion into a carwash two years ago, and it is now defunct. That's always something.
The roundtable rages on (http://www.slate.com/id/2181157/entry/0/).
My ranking of PTA films, which range from very good to masterwork-ish:
1. Punch-Drunk Love
2. Magnolia
3. Hard Eight
4. Boogie Nights (though it contains some awesome stuff)
-
Wait, WHUUT? I thought they closed down after last year's "everybody agrees!" yawn fest. Oh well.
And I'm completely on the PTA band wagon. Been since day one. I can't wait to see TWBB.
-
I saw There Will Be Blood last night. It's unbelievably good.
The final scene is one of the most intense things I've seen at the movies in a while. everything people have been saying is true, Daniel Day Lewis has out done himself yet again, the score is incredible, and PFT's cameo is just as out of focus as he described
It's also got some of my new favorite lines from a movie.
-
Colin just beat me to the punch. There Will Be Blood is pretty amazing, although I wouldn't call it a masterpiece (I'm the guy who thinks I'm Not There got closer to that mark than any other 2007 film). There's so much to chew on though. DDL is simply overwhelming (again); the score, with its isolated bits of Penderecki and Arvo Part, is indeed fantastic; Paul Dano is uniquely great and creepy and might end up being as hard to cast as someone like Brad Dourif. Where I thought PTA's reach may have occasionally exceeded his grasp were the religious hypocrisy themes and the juxtaposition of these two sexless male charlatans. In the end, Daniel is so vile it's hard to even empathize with his disgust over the banality of the church. This is complex stuff though, and I may feel differently after a second viewing.
The biggest point of contention is surely the ending: the last 25 minutes are such a jarring shift that at first they may seem like a disaster, yet the ending may actually be one of PTA's most successful pastiches yet, as everything in the final scene is like an explosion of uncanny Kubrickian comic loathing, from the setting to DDL's last line to the final music swell. In fact, as a misantrhopic epic I'd say this film is on pretty equal footing with Barry Lyndon.
-
4. Boogie Nights (though it contains some awesome stuff)
Yes, particularly the parts between the opening scene and the end credits.
-
Magnolia, on the other hand, is one of the few movie where I can recall leaving the theater physically angry, like I wanted to break something...
Though Magnolia is probably on my list of top 5 movies that I love, I understand and respect your sentiment. It's the kind of movie where if you love it there's a hell of a lot to love, but if you hate it it must be excessively nauseating. Other movies like it are My Dinner with Andre, which I love, but which my wife finds to be pretentious nonsense. --And yeah I can see her point. I saw it when I was 15 so, it's got the kind of lasting resonance things from our youth keep throughout our lives. Another example could be any of Terrence Malick's movies. I think anything that's really good 'art' should probably be making some people really happy and others really mad, or it's probably not worth much to anyone.