Film Critics

Started by ono, July 17, 2003, 02:17:28 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions

pookiethecat

re
#75
September 30, 2003, 07:22:16 PM
my favorite movie critic is stephanie zacharek from salon.com and new york times. her prose is beautiful and she provides a lot of insights into the films she reviews.  i especially love her review of the magnolia dvd:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/author-228/reviews.php?rid=124315&cats=1%2C+2%2C+3%2C+4%2C+5%2C+7%2C+8%2C+29%2C+12%2C+13%2C+14%2C+16%2C+17%2C+18%2C+19%2C+20%2C+21%2C+22%2C+24%2C+23%2C+26%2C+27&genreid=&switches=&letter=&sortby=&page=4

she's one of the few major critics who i feel really understands pta and his appeal to fans.

www.slantmagazine.com. is pretty good too though the review of punch-drunk love is a little harsh.  check out www.matineemag.com.  though it's now defunct, their archive posseses some great reviews. jason clark, chuck rudolph, and jeremiah kipp are all great critics.  it was chuck rudolph's insightful, intriguing review of magnolia that compelled me to see it.
i wanna lick 'em.

ono

#76
September 30, 2003, 08:11:05 PM
All very well and good, but I can't seem to access her review of Magnolia.  It doesn't appear to be there.

pookiethecat

re
#77
September 30, 2003, 08:48:14 PM
yes, sorry about that.  go to the archive for salon and search for paul thomas anderson.  it should come up...with a little searching.
i wanna lick 'em.

Alethia

#78
September 30, 2003, 09:55:03 PM
i am offended.  that PDL review was way harsh and dumb.

godardian

#79
October 01, 2003, 09:55:43 AM
Stephanie Zacharek trivia: She is married to Charles Taylor, Salon's "other" movie reviewer. For understandable reasons, they don't make a big deal out of it and it's never directly mentioned on Salon, but I wonder what the story is, if they met there or what?
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Finn

#80
October 03, 2003, 03:22:18 PM
Somewhere along the way (and I don't know when), film critics have forgotten what a film critic is suppose to be. EVERYTHING has become about ego (particularly Ebert). A film critic's job is not to just sit through movies or just to write a bunch of reviews, but they're suppose to help the audience understand the great movies better. Ebert once said "I believe that if a person sees a great movie it will change them as film goers". That's not a true statement at all. Most people who see a great movie will not recognize the fact that it's a great movie. They'll sit through it and then go see another piece of junk. People here on this board recognize great movies when they see them, but most ordinary citizens do not. Film critics have to get on their level and make them understand. Instead, they just use a bunch of fancy words to make themselves look so educated. But they're not helping things...period.
Typical US Mother: "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words."

Cecil

#81
October 03, 2003, 03:25:38 PM
the only good critic is a dead critic

pookiethecat

#82
October 03, 2003, 08:23:54 PM
Quote from: SydneySomewhere along the way (and I don't know when), film critics have forgotten what a film critic is suppose to be. EVERYTHING has become about ego (particularly Ebert). A film critic's job is not to just sit through movies or just to write a bunch of reviews, but they're suppose to help the audience understand the great movies better. Ebert once said "I believe that if a person sees a great movie it will change them as film goers". That's not a true statement at all. Most people who see a great movie will not recognize the fact that it's a great movie. They'll sit through it and then go see another piece of junk. People here on this board recognize great movies when they see them, but most ordinary citizens do not. Film critics have to get on their level and make them understand. Instead, they just use a bunch of fancy words to make themselves look so educated. But they're not helping things...period.

i disagree. critics shouldn't be slaves to the people who read their reviews...the objective isn't to "help out" the reader.  the idea is to provide insight into a film. if that insight happens to help out, then great.  but critics whose sole purpose is to pander to their audience aren't real critics...they're what we call hacks.
i wanna lick 'em.

godardian

#83
October 03, 2003, 09:03:03 PM
Quote from: pookiethecat
Quote from: SydneySomewhere along the way (and I don't know when), film critics have forgotten what a film critic is suppose to be. EVERYTHING has become about ego (particularly Ebert). A film critic's job is not to just sit through movies or just to write a bunch of reviews, but they're suppose to help the audience understand the great movies better. Ebert once said "I believe that if a person sees a great movie it will change them as film goers". That's not a true statement at all. Most people who see a great movie will not recognize the fact that it's a great movie. They'll sit through it and then go see another piece of junk. People here on this board recognize great movies when they see them, but most ordinary citizens do not. Film critics have to get on their level and make them understand. Instead, they just use a bunch of fancy words to make themselves look so educated. But they're not helping things...period.

i disagree. critics shouldn't be slaves to the people who read their reviews...the objective isn't to "help out" the reader.  the idea is to provide insight into a film. if that insight happens to help out, then great.  but critics whose sole purpose is to pander to their audience aren't real critics...they're what we call hacks.

Exactly. I think what really doesn't help things is for writers to cultivate laziness in themselves and encourage laziness in their readers. Writing should be ALIVE, expressive, searching, and in love with language. All great writing is. And I, like Pauline Kael, think criticism is an art form. Some of the greatest, most beautiful writing has been criticism.

Most self-styled "critics" (esp. newspaper and television) are merely reviewers who apparently haven't a single genuinely critical thought to share. It's sad to think that they actually might, but are stifling anything interesting they might have to say because they feel like their audience is too illiterate, lazy, or defensive to "get it."
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Gold Trumpet

#84
October 03, 2003, 09:09:16 PM
I'm also wondering where Sydney gets this idea that Ebert practices use of fancy words above the logic of any average citizen. Ebert's a populist writer. Godardian has always called him a bad writer and I do agree with that. If Sydney wants some real writing, I suggest him get a load of Stanley Kauffmann or someone along that line. Now that's a writer.

~rougerum

godardian

#85
October 03, 2003, 09:20:29 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'm also wondering where Sydney gets this idea that Ebert practices use of fancy words above the logic of any average citizen. Ebert's a populist writer. Godardian has always called him a bad writer and I do agree with that. If Sydney wants some real writing, I suggest him get a load of Stanley Kauffmann or someone along that line. Now that's a writer.

~rougerum

I often get the feeling that Ebert is much smarter than he lets on. How could he not be, having seen all the films he's seen, and pondering them for a living? But he tries too hard to be "the common man." His actual writing is usually, I feel, fairly dull, even though I often agree with his gist. I think Kael thought of herself as having populist leanings, too, but her writing was alive and passionate; she, however, didn't cower from her own very extensive knowledge and insight. She let it shine.

If Ebert is some sort of elitist on your scale, your scale stops way too short.

I do intend to read Stanley Kauffmann at some point very soon, GT.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

pookiethecat

#86
October 03, 2003, 09:26:03 PM
have ya'll read david thomson's new biographical dictionary of film?  that shit is mind-fucking-boggling.  i need cliff notes to his entries.
i wanna lick 'em.

Finn

#87
October 03, 2003, 09:30:49 PM
I agree that a critic is suppose to give insight into a movie, but there is more to it than that. Almost every ordinary citizen I have talked to has said that film critics are nothing more than snobs or stuck-up. Now, I disagree with that but a lot of people feel that way because critics seem to have become addicted to their ego. Think of it this way, if critics were really making people understand movies better and people thought about them in a different way...then Punch Drunk Love would have been number 1 at the box office instead of something like Jackass the movie. I rest my case.
Typical US Mother: "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words."

Gold Trumpet

#88
October 03, 2003, 09:42:22 PM
Godardian reading Stanley Kauffmann? Great idea because he is the  symbol of movies for me but also ironic, considering Kauffmann's harsh criticisms of a lot of Godard's films. He dismissed My Life to Live as pretensious.

Even if you disagree with him (as I do sometimes), I still think he is the most thought provoking of critics and hardest to disagree with. He still reviews films ever week and they can be found at www.tnr.com Its just after a week, the review can only be seen through pay subscription only. Most recent reviews and general movie recommendations usually are free.

~rougerum

godardian

#89
October 03, 2003, 09:52:01 PM
Quote from: pookiethecathave ya'll read david thomson's new biographical dictionary of film?  that shit is mind-fucking-boggling.  i need cliff notes to his entries.

I just got that book a few weeks ago! It's pretty juicy. I love looking up all my favorites to see how they rate in books like these. Definitely worth having on your reference shelf!
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions