Film Critics - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Submitted by lbangs on Fri, 10/17/2003 - 09:56
Tags:
- The Good
- Geoff Andrew (Articulate, perceptive, open-minded, and currently at the top of his game; what's not to love?)
- Chris Roberts (Passionate, literate, and gutsy; one of the best around)
- Owen Gleiberman (Not always on, but he writes very well, and when he's hot, he smokes)
- Kenneth Turan (If the film's quite violent, don't trust a word he says, but hey, he was the only critic in the land to call Titanic the dud it was, and he even stood up to James Cameron's spoiled-baby fit to get him fired after the fact)
- Videohound (For a yearly guide, it surely beats the crap out of most of its competitors and the vast majority of the newsprint losers)
- Lucia Bozzola and Jason Ankeny of allmoveguide.com(Insightful, knowing, and articulate)
- Piero Scaruffi (Eccentric, to say the least, but intelligent and deaf to the bandwagon rolling through most crappy criticism today)
- The Bad
- Roger Ebert (Has his good days, but dumps on most films he can't understand, a collection of movies that grows faster with each passing year, and as AJ says below, he gives way too much crap raves; at least he writes well)
- Anthony Lane (Oddly in touch with the out-of-touch readers who still think The New Yorker is what it used to be (for those keeping score, The Atlantic Monthly is now what the New Yorker was))
- Ken Fox (writes perfectly average for the average, blockbuster-craving movie-going public, but he is at his worst when he fancies himself smart and tasteful)
- David Sterrit (One of those losers who admires film making but lost the point of enjoying the total effect of a film years ago, and he's a jerk to boot)
- The Ugly
- James Berardinelli (Godawful idiot)
- All Film Threat critics (Try to be hip, but are just lost and pathetic, especially Chris Gore)
- All film critics writing for Dallas or Fort Worth newspapers (I don't know why, but they all are terrible)
- All film critics hacking away at Salon.com (Has any web site ever posed and passed as cool, refreshing, or relevant so well? The most successful wannabes in web history)
- Joe Morgenstern (What I can say? Clueless)
- Lisa Schwarzbaum (When she isn't lost in politics, she reveals herself to be the cruddy, clumsy reviewer she tries to conceal beyond supposed film-crit rhetoric)
- Derek Armstong , Jonathan Crow , Arthur Borman , Josh Ralske , Mark Deming , Adam Goldberg , and nearly all writers new to allmovieguide.com in the last few months (bringing down a once-killer web site - congrats, kids)
- Peter Travers (Way too random nowadays, and seems too scared to be seen as no longer with it)
Author Comments:
More soon
Very interesting list. I tend to read Roger Ebert regularly, mostly because (a) as you said, he does write well, and (b) it's convenient, in that there's an easily-accessible online database of all his reviews since 1985. And while there are a few select cases of what you're talking about (some of which I documented here), I think that the guy's bigger problem is not the few good films he rates low, but the many bad films he rates high. I couldn't count the number of times I've seen Ebert recommend a film, then head over to rottentomatoes.com and see that the Tomatometer rating is very low. Some of the films he recommended just this year: Head of State (32% approval rating), Party Monster (29%), Hollywood Homicide (29%), Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Circle of Life (26%), Uptown Girls (15%), and View From the Top (13%), just to name a few.
As for his low ratings for films that he doesn't understand, I think that this is a pretty bad habit he's in, but not too widespread. I think you may be a bit biased due to Mr. Ebert's low ratings for most of Hal Hartley's films. But I do agree with you that this is partially based on his age; when he was just starting out in the late 60's, he was one of the few people to give a highly laudatory review to "2001: A Space Odyssey."
For the most part, I do love Ebert's series of reviews of great classic movies. But jeez, for a guy who commented about Bob Dylan's songwriting, "I have always felt it ungenerous to have the answer but wrap it in enigmas", Ebert does seem to love some abstruse films, similar in tone to the ones he gives bad reviews to. Sometimes the guy baffles me. He seems to go through some serious mood swings.
Anyway, I'll have to check out a few of the people in the "good" section. I haven't spent much time on the All Movie Guide, but I guess I'll check it out (but avoid the rookies). And I'll read some of Chris Roberts's reviews if they're online.
Ebert was once great, and now he is merely, er, a once-great. Hartley ain't the only director he just doesn't get, but he has confessed to not getting Hartley before, though that confession still didn't stop him from slapping the particular film with a low rating. This has happened with many films and directors, though he usually tries to bluster his way through, claiming the film is aiming for goals it simply often is not. If a film works off a model other than he is used to, he crumbles.
His past keeps him from being ugly, and he does one a great commentary on the Citizen Kane DVD.
Great comments; thanks!
I'll write more later. My wife and I just paused Loves of a Blonde, and she's ready to watch again.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
You forgot Michael Medved under bad and/or ugly... this formerly decent critic turned right-wing idiot who has let his political ideology taint his once palatable reviewing ability to the point that he has become completely irrelevant. I am only mentioning him because I recently heard him on a local radio station... and almost became ill upon hearing the stupidity he was spewing... this was on a *cough* "Conservative Christian" *cough* radio station... funny that he is not Christian, but Jewish (no problem here, just pointing out one of many inconstancies with the folks on that station) so we know where that station stands (that is using God to forward their political agenda…. Shame!) My point is that apparently he has graduated from being a movie critic to a “cultural” critic, with appalling results and therefore he should be on the bad and ugly lists, or at least one of them… let’s hope the rest of the bad critics just stick to movies!
I'm intrigued. Where can I read Chris Roberts? His name is a little common to google easily, and I don't see him in Rotten Tomatoes.
Yeah, I was looking for him earlier with no success. Are his reviews available online?
Sorry, guys. I guess some source info might help, eh?
Chris is one of the film (and music, which he is also good at) critics for that brilliant, thick and expensive UK magazine Uncut.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
It's pretty easy to bash Ebert these days, especially since he's lost the stomach for fil reviewing. I think he's mellowed because there's more crap being produced these days than ever before, and ultimately it's desensitized him. But I still respect his opinion to a degree.
My personal favorites are Elvis Mitchell from the New York Times, and the film critic from Time, whose name right now I can't recall. But boy, do I miss Pauline Kael...
I'll second Elvis Mitchell currently. I've been following him since his days in Detroit. The critic I most agreed with back in my heavy movie-watching days was Gene Siskel. Damn shame.
On both accounts I should have said.
Gene's death was certainly a shame.
I don't follow Elvis too closely. He really has not lit a fire under me yet, but I shall try to pay more attention in the future. Thanks!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I like Rosenbaum, even if I often disagree with him. Where would he fit on the list?
... and I was just about to ask where Rex Reed (1, 2) would fit?
Does Rex even count?
He ain't beautiful, he is ugly.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
"Does Rex even count?" Ha! Very funny. I knew we'd be on the same page.
The sad truth is that I was only half joking. I have a tough time taking him seriously as a film critic. He often seems closer to a cultural filter of sorts.
I know this is simply my biasis, but I have read one too many a review by the man where he tries to lamely argue some moral reason for a work being awful while nearly entirely neglecting the aesthetics of the film.
Would adding him to the list be simply shooting the scarecrow with my BB gun once more?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Well, I'd hate for him to get any kind of implicit pass by virtue of not being filed away as "ugly", so fire away, I say!
I will have to wait a few days for my bile to build a bit, then I might well blast away!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I am not sure I am aware of his work. Who does he write for?
Thanks!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
The Chicago Reader. He has also written several books on film. Link.
Ah, I have read him before (I always remember him simply as the Chicago Reader guy)! He is certainly in the good category. He is one of the better critics around.
I will have to check out his books; thanks for the link!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Well, now, I'm no fan of Berardinelli, but if he's a godawful idiot, I'm a godawfuler idiot. But I don't get paid to write movie reviews, so I'm immune from this list, right?
About that bandwagon to which Scaruffi is deaf:
I'd love to turn a deaf ear to the big criticism bandwagon, but most of the critics on it, even the bad ones, know more and have seen more than myself, and I usually find pieces of wisdom or things that I've missed in their reviews. So, I watch the bandwagon when I don't hop on. However, I do often find myself hopping on: as it turns out, most of those movies that everybody says is really good, really are that good (or, nearly that good).
Perhaps it's because I'm more forgiving than 'day for night' and more willing to look for the excellent in films that don't particularily appeal to me than Scaruffi.
I bring this up because there isn't a film in my current 'Top 50 all-time movies' that isn't a widely-acclaimed masterpiece, so it's a pretty boring list and 'undaring' list. I'm more concerned with being correct than with being original. And it's true I haven't seen many obscure films yet.
Still, I'd hate to be boring. I'll constantly work to improve my writing, but with regard to my expressed or unexpressed esteem of a film, my 'film criticism' is pretty boring at this point.
A few of you have read some of my movie reviews. Besides being badly written, are there other comments and suggestions you could give me about my criticism? I definitely have my own approach to judging movies, but it's probably got more kinks to work out than solid pieces.
I hear ya, man. When you see acclaimed films, chances are they'll be good. And even if the film is overrated, there will always be SOMETHING good about the film that is the reason for its acclaim. Lately I've rarely ranked films below my middle tier because I tend to watch acclaimed films. Boring and unoriginal, perhaps, but that's the way I usually feel.
One word that proves that line of thinking doesn't always work: "Shrek".
Two more words: "Shrek 2".
While I do agree that both of those movies were unworthy of the critical ejaculation that sprayed all over the Dreamworks marketing department ("168 thumbs up!", say critics across America), I must admit that I still enjoyed both movies enough to put them in the top half of my tiers. However, I could definitely come up with my own personal exceptions to my earlier statement, and do not mean it as an all-encompassing general rule, but I do think it tends to work a vast, vast majority of the time.
But really, do you think that the Shrek movies are just all-out wastelands? Or do you choose to ignore any positive traits because its flaws just irritate you too much? In my mind, both movies are just too innocuous to infuriate me.
The first one, I'll admit, has its moments. But I do believe that the sequel is a total pile of feces.
And I do tend to defer to critical consensus when choosing a film to see, and I agree that's often a good barometer in showing whether or not a film would be worth the money. But damn, if the list of 'exceptions' doesn't get longer and longer every year.
Boy, I can certainly relate to your last paragraph, even if I did enjoy Shrek 2 to some degree... :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I'm not remotely talking about 'Shrek 2' acclaim. I'm talking about 'A Man Escaped' or 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre' or 'The Seventh Seal' acclaim.
I was really talking about both, but Seventh Seal to a much greater extent than Shrek 2. If a film is not just acclaimed but a long-lasting classic, then I'll almost definitely see it as at least middling. It's easier for a film to get a high RT score.
Well, I didn't much care for "Through a Glass Darkly" either... :-)
hmmm... what?
You don't care for the film, or the phrase/concept? And how does it relate to the acclaim leveled at movies like The Seventh Seal? I'm lost - help!
I was offering "Through a Glass Darkly" as an example of a 'classic' film that I looked at and wondered what the hell everyone was talking about. It was an attempt to place the discussion regarding critical consensus into the realm of the classic, "Darkly" being one of Bergman's most acclaimed films (if not quite as well liked as "The Seventh Seal").
Regardless of my views on JB, you, sir, are certainly no idiot.
I think you may be reading a bit more into my comment on the critical bandwagon than I intended. As a man who has compiled way too many 'critical consensus' lists, I obviously have my ear to ground for critical acclaim. I try to watch most of the films that receive high praise all around, and I usually like those films to some degree. The general feeling of many fine critics is never anything to take lightly.
Scaruffi, however, can often (especially with newer films; it usually takes a good ten years or so for a true critical consensus to form around a film) fall outside of the critical response bell curve. This fact by itself means nothing. I think he is a very interesting critic with some good insight, so that fact added to the first fact makes him rather unique, interesting, and to my inquiring eyes, valuable. He helps me catch many good films that I might have missed if I simply read Metacritic or Rotten Tomatos alone.
Does that make sense?
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
It makes sense, but you didn't include many film criticism tips! :-)
Maybe what I'll do is stop reviewing movies while I read reviews, practice writing, and allow my tastes and appreciation faculties to settle into some kind of pattern (they've been in continuous tumult for more than a year now). Then, when I think I'm ready, I'll rewatch hundreds of the movies I think are worth a review and give them a full, extended review (and then do the same with my remaining and neverending 'to see' list).
It's a thought.
I am pretty crummy at offering advice on film criticism.
However, I do encourage you to continue writing about the movies you watch. Writing is like many activities - the more you do it, the better you usually get.
I will try to read over some of your reviews, and if I come up with any advice, I will throw it your way.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Okay, thanks. Maybe I'll just stop writing so many short reviews in lieu of writing a few in-depth ones that I spend a bit of time developing.
Oh, and you know what would make this list really, really great? Hyperlinks to the critics' homepages (or some equivalent), especially the ones that are less google-able (like Chris Roberts, as we've discussed before).
And, even better: links to their reviews that you found particularily great or terrible, or indicative of the comments you've leveled at them.
That would be simply fantastic - way up their with your list of Top 100 films of all time (and perhaps just as likely to arrive).
The addition of links would make this a much stronger list. Unfortunately, several critics here have no or little internet content.
The sad truth, however, is I am either too lazy or too busy to work on that feature now. Perhaps in the future...
Thanks for the idea!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I'm clueless. What was The New Yorker, and what is The Atlantic Monthly, now?
The New Yorker was the literate, high quality, "highly-cultured" general interest magazine for picky readers. Now, it is pretty mediocre, at best (Thanks, Tina!), but Atlantic Monthly fulfills that role quite well.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I've been looking for some high-quality general interest magazines that have full articles online for free (registration or not). Atlantic Monthly, alas, does not. Can you recommend a few?
Does Atlantic Monthly mention any interesting titles in this article about videogames? (Besides Façade)
Poverty has forced me to allow my subscription to that magazine to lapse. Sorry!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Well i'm much more familiar with British critics. Geoff Andrew is an excellent, perceptive knowledgeable, articulate, unpretentious + likeable writer. I also rate Gilbert Adair though his (sometimes floridly) intellectual style won't suit everyone. He stopped his regular column for The Independent on Sunday here after a huge backlash to his doubting the claims to greatness of Billy Elliot! His reason for leaving was having fallen in love with Zhang Ziyi. His book Flickers is probably my favourite on films. At least his replacement Jonathon Romney is among the best here.
Of Americans, well i quite admire Jonathan Rosenbaum even though his taste may seem a bit idiosyncratic.
I hope David Bordwell's book on Mizoguchi, Hou, Angelopoulos and Feuillade lives up to my expectations of him. He really knows his stuff and has been very nice to me in correspondence. David Cook's book A History of Narrative Film is a tremendous achievement.
The Anglo-American David Thomson has always been worth reading though the latest edition of his classic Biographical Dictionary of Film was disappointing as he'd not kept up with international developments and i think he's now more interested in literature.
I'm no real fan of Ebert. I suppose his style is helpfully accessible but i'm not sure why he's been so widely considered a bible in the US.
Thanks for the comments, though I confess I do not know enough about the British critics you mentioned to list them. Well, that's partly a lie, as I adore Geoff Andrew and do not know why I have not listed him above. I'll fix that tragic oversight.
I am currently reading David Thomson's latest book. From the odd comments he makes, I take it that he has grown more interested in the historical forces behind films than in the aesthetic qualities of films themselves. He even admits that he now finds the factors behind the way films are made and the way audiences consume them more interesting than whether a film is good or bad. Alas, it makes for an interesting book, but I still feel it is a shame. One more art critic lost to history and sociology. One more body shuffled from a starving field to a fat and over-stuffed one.
=sigh=
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Is there anywhere I can read Geoff Andrew online? And, ever read Sicinski? And what about Rosenbaum, now recommended by myself and kenji?
I'm afraid neither critic would make my 'Good' list; Rosenbaum is fair and wouldn't really fit into any of the above categories, while I really dislike Sicinski.
I'm not sure where you can find GA online. His writing is featured in both the Time Out Film Guide and the 1001 films book we all love round here...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
while I really dislike Sicinski.
Really? Wow.
I was going to ask "why?", but if you think Rosenbaum's only "fair", then there's no need to go on, since I think of Sicinski as the Second Coming of Rosenbaum -- er, if Rosenbaum were dead.
Anyway, Sicinski's my current critic-crush. He's got a point of view, he can bring the rigor, but he's not above writing something like (re:Thumbsucker): "Keanu Reeves is atrocious and jesus lord why would anyone do anything with the Polyphonic Spree other than pelt them with garbage," which nearly made me shoot soda out my nose.
Sicinski wrote that???? I'll have to revisit his site.
Sicinski won me over when he wrote that he agreed with the ultimate moral of "The Butterfly Effect", which he explained as being the only way to save the world is to prevent the birth of Ashton Kutcher. Hell yeah.
Wow, that line produced an explosive laugh over here. That's not the Sicinski I remember reading. I thought he only watched obscure experimental short films and commented on how they were derivative of obscure experimental short films from the 40s and their symbolic perversion of Dante's Divine Comedy. Maybe he was just at an experimental short film festival when I discovered his site earlier.
Yeah, if you stick to the experimental stuff, it can be a little dry (having no real background in that, it all just kinda whiffs past me). But if you look at the more mainstream movies, there's some great stuff there.
One more -- the opening line from Spider-Man 2:
"Hey, Spidey! Having trouble stopping that runaway commuter train? Try Aunt May's end-of-second-act speech on the value of heroism! It stopped the whole movie in its tracks!"
Yeah, revisited some of his stuff and now I think he's great. Don't know what was wrong with me. My remaining complaint is that we see only about 10 of the same films in a whole year.
True dat. If he were as prolific as, say, Theo Panyides, that would be awesome.
Again, I find that a pretty lame assertion. Kutcher has been in some lame films, but I am not convinced he is a terrible actor. It is a cheap shot.
Of course, if I thought Sicinski was particularly funny, that would help...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
See, that is why I think he sucks. He too often strains to be clever, truth be damned. What kind of criticism is that? That last line could be leveled at Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Murderball, and neither film is weaker for it.
Sorry, he will join the Ugly list very soon.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Heh, I'd pay money to be as clever as Sicinski, strained or otherwise.
Well, I would like to be clever one day...
Sorry I was so blunt; some Mondays are bigger than others...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Good to see the props for Geoff Andrew. I've been using his Film Handbook as my unofficial sequel to Sarris' American Cinema. His BFI tome on Kieslowski's Three Colours Trilogy is excellent as well.
Gleiberman, like Anthony Lane, is too in love with his own writing. (And Lane's a better writer.) I'm not a fan of Turan's either. If I had to pick a critic from a daily newspaper, it'd be A.O. Scott, who is literate, inquisitive, and has a decent bullshit detector.
I also like the Salon critics, except when Charlie Taylor does that thing where he defends a movie he likes by side-swiping a movie he doesn't. The best critics to follow in Kael's footsteps though are Slate's David Edelstein, and the always provocative (and occasionally sane) Armond White of The New York Press.
Rosenbaum is probably the best American critic, but I also recommend J. Hoberman, Matt Zoller Seitz, Kent Jones, Dave Kehr, Godfrey Cheshire and Paul Arthur.
Thanks for your comment, which is like an oasis of reason amid a sea of uninformed nonsense.
FYI: Time Out Film Guide capsules are now available to all at http://timeout.com/film. It's my favorite source for short-form reviews; heck, who else would give "thumbs up" to both "Gummo" and "Road House"?
That is very good to know! I have the latest guide, but it is always fun to have this stuff online.
It is a unique, terrific guide.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
A trio to add to the bad and/or ugly: Joel Siegel, Gene Shalit & Leonard Maltin.
Seems Mr. Sicinski found the discussion about himself above and felt the need to tell you to stuff it.
How very endearing.
Ad hominem attacks are always the best refutes to criticisms of one's work.
Should I even bother to tell him that I do have plenty of criticism published in print and on the web under my name? Nah...
People often mistake a tribute for an assumption. I cannot say I am disappointed in Mr. Sicinski.
Thanks for the link. Perhaps I should Google myself more often. :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
That is so awesome. I had no idea that you were so big in the film critic critique criticism world. Or is it Mr. Sicinski who looks so small? Perhaps it could be a combination of both. At this point I can imagine an argument could be made for both points of view.
I loved reading Mr. Sicinski's musings on the acting abilities of Messrs Reeves and Kutcher and the musical abilities of the Polyphonic Spree. I am eager to learn what other fish Mr. Sicinski will be able to extract from his barrel of insight.
I hope that you are appropriately inspired in warranting the same attention given to The Brown Bunny and the 2005 Syracuse International Film and Video Festival... I'm not sure what that means. It must mean something because Mr. Sicinski has written it. Doesn't it?
On a personal note, what bothered me was Mr. Sicinski's reference to "evidence that my meager missives from The Styx are generating the tiniest ripple." I must say that I couldn't be charon less about that but I find it embarassing when people begin to self-deprecate all over themselves. Still, false modesty is a form of modesty and Mr. Sicinski has much to be modest about.
I am grateful for the inspiration provided to fuel my next surefire-get-rich-quick scheme. In the spirit of the T-shirt reading:
Instant Swimmer (just add water)
I plan on marketing a T-shirt reading:
Instant Personal Attack (just ad hominem)
Do remind me to thank Mr. Sicinski the next time that I read him, even if we are well into our dotage... I not only plan to be but would have to be.
You make me feel so young.
Thanks. :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Damn it. My appreciation for the product is tainted by my non-apprecation for the producer. Carlo Gesualdo and Marshall Mathers remain exempt from this rule.
Thanks for letting us know you have published criticism; now I can depend on your reviews based on that instead of their own merit!
My next e-handle for my e-life of e-crime will be pscar.
By the way, did you know that Scaruffi's movie ratings are an aggregation of his favorite critics' opinions and not his personal opinion, except for the relatively few films he's actually written up for his site?
"Thanks for letting us know you have published criticism; now I can depend on your reviews based on that instead of their own merit!"
I'm disappointed in the lapse of reading comprehension, but I like your attitude, so I'm giving you a pass.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Wow, that is some thin, thin skin on that Sicinski guy.
I thought I'd give him a shot by reading a review or two, then I noticed he liked Ocean's Twelve:
Funny, that's why I hated it even just renting the damn thing. I can't imagine how much I would have hated it if I paid theater-ticket prices to watch the megastars on vacation, no matter how "affable" they are.
That all beside the point, of course. The real point is, "wow, that guy's skin's so thin you can see the subcutaneous fat, and man, it ain't pretty."
I know he ripped it off, but I first heard it from Paul Westerberg.
Never read your press. Weigh it.
Of course, Tom Cruise and Michael Jackson have been calling lately trying to convince me otherwise...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
...and now the page is gone. No archive.org, no Google cache.
I agree with putting Berardinelli in the "ugly" section. He doesn't really have anything interesting to say. And I can't understand why he's so popular. But "godawful idiot"? Any particular reason for the harsh words?
Sure. I think he is an idiot. :)
I'm sure he loves me too.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I read many of these critics and I totally agree with them. One of the worst movie I ever seen it was that one with the girl wearing that girl working at the t shirt printing shop. I could never understand that movie.