Film Criticism

[tojoed]

That's a good review, and I think he's right about "Blow Up" despite Film 101 courses.
I've been lucky, as I have been able to get all Kael's books here in the UK, except two. And she very kindly sent me signed copies of those as a gift in the late 1970s. Marvellous woman.

[matrixschmatrix]

Wow, that's amazing. Her personal library of film books was donated to a college near here, it's awesome to see all her argumentative hand-written annotations.

[Tom Hagen]

I'd rather have the remainder of what I'm sure was a formidable liquor cabinet.

[domino harvey]

Siskel and Ebert tackle sequels in 1985, AKA Siskel and Ebert relieve their frustrations with how terrible movies were in the eighties with a hilarious filmed bitch sesh

[knives]

They just were watching the wrong '80s movies is all.

[Perkins Cobb]

They just were watching the wrong '80s movies is all.

If they'd only watched the good ones their show would've lasted about three weeks.

[mfunk9786]

The excellent Ebert Presents At the Movies will be cancelled at the end of this year if they can't find sponsors within the next few days.

[swo17]

Seriously? Other than taking the whole summer off from reviewing new releases, I think the show has been working rather well. I've grown rather attached to it, and especially Ignatiy, who has sort of transformed into the embodiment of everything that is right with this forum.

[mfunk9786]

Ditto. Ignatiy deftly dodges about a million and one things that could be annoying about his level of film knowledge, and manages to occasionally defend awful-looking films (The Three Musketeers most recently) in an incredibly amusing fashion. I really hope someone manages to save this show, because there's a lot to like about it - I know this might be blasphemy, but I think it's better than even its Siskel & Ebert heyday.

[knives]

While I've only watched on occasion I do agree that it's a great deal of fun and Ignatiy is a wonderful and hopeful presence for the young critical landscape. If I had more than two pennies I'd surely help.

[Professor Wagstaff]

It hasn't helped that Ignatiy and Lemire don't have much chemistry or at least been given enough time to develop more of a relationship. The closest has been in the most recent episode where they took some classic Siskel and Ebert potshots at each other, her against his obsession of Channing Tatum and he against her Reagan-era teen nostalgia, which gave off some sense of a rapport, be it friendly or antagonistic. My quibbles with each of them aside and the current format (not a fan of Roger's Office), I'd be disappointed to see it leave, although I greatly prefer the short-lived A.O. Scott/Michael Phillips incarnation.

[Andre Jurieu]

I guess I'm in the minority, but while I respect his opinions, I find Ignatiy to be kind of dull usually, and occasionally just plain annoying. While he seems to be knowledgeable, personally, it's quite difficult to avoid perceiving him as a cliché of a young, artsy, film critic, who limits his appreciation to interesting attempts at high-art (often by an auteur he's infatuated with) or outright low-brow projects that strive only to be pure-entertainment, often in some misguided and formulaic attempt to "re-claim" some outright piece-of-trashy-pop-culture as "Art!" While that mentality isn't the worst approach to evaluating movies, it's slightly infuriating when it's applied in such a rigid and predictable fashion. I also think he really drags down any momentum the show builds up because he's not that engaging of a personality and his opinions aren't very novel. In fact, whenever I share his opinion on a particular movie, I find myself wondering if I should re-evaluate my stance, just to ensure I'm not being overly pretentious with my perspective.

Meanwhile, while I don't always agree with her, I find that I can't really fault Lemire for being sincere with her comments. It never appears that she approaches a film with preconceived notions that are so firmly entrenched in her mind that strong filmmaking couldn't overcome those hurdles somehow. I doubt there is any real agenda behind why she enjoys certain films and hates others. She just seems to be attempting to tell her audience what films are worth their time and money in a straightforward manner. Sometime I wish she would be a little more open-minded about certain films, but I actually do appreciate her willingness to basically call "bullsh!t" on something that's overly pretentious.

However, no matter what my opinions are on the critics involved, I thought the show was actually fairly engaging overall, especially with the addition of minor contributions from others in the industry (I could use less David Poland). I wouldn't mind having other critics pop in once in awhile (I kind of miss AO Scott), but despite all the interruptions, I actually thought that Christy and Ignatiy were kind of getting more comfortable with each other in the last few weeks. It would be a shame to lose the entire show, especially when it appears to be running smoothly now, but I think they’ll have to get pretty creative to keep it going. Maybe take the suggestion from NY Mag's Vulture to hit up Kickstarter, since it's basically a more targeted version of Public Broadcasting's pledge-drives.

[Bill Thompson]

At this point I think the Ebert segment is a weakness of the show, that being said it's leagues better than that annoying kid critic they had on as a guest a few times. That being said, the main reason I will not be sad to see the show leave is Christy Lemire. Ignatiy is almost always interesting in the way he talks about film. Lemire is the opposite, always dismissive without ever actually backing up her opinions or giving well thought out reasons. I can find Iggy elsewhere, so if the show getting canceled means no more Lemire on TV I'm okay with that.

[Andre Jurieu]

...that being said it's leagues better than that annoying kid critic they had on as a guest a few times.

Well, at least I can agree with you on that. That kid was like a summation of all the awful connotations of the word "precocious". Just... painful.

[swo17]

Whatevs, that kid was priceless. "Mr. Popper's Penguins is the best family film I've seen in some time." You mean, like, since you were 8?

Oh, and apparently he has a website!

[Brian C]

Here I was wondering if I should give the show another chance - I was unimpressed by the first couple episodes - and you guys start talking about a kid critic. If the show goes off the air without my support, you guys have only yourselves to blame.

[Andre Jurieu]

Oh, and apparently he has a website!

Yeah, that's apparently where they noticed the kid and decided to bring him onto the show. Before making that decision, I wish they had thought to themselves "what kind of kid has his own website devoted to highlighting his opinions on movies?" The answer, of course, is "an annoying one."

Here I was wondering if I should give the show another chance - I was unimpressed by the first couple episodes - and you guys start talking about a kid critic. If the show goes off the air without my support, you guys have only yourselves to blame.

Thankfully, the kid-critic doesn't appear all that often, so you should just play TV-roulette and hope he doesn't pop-up on the episode you decide to watch. swo17 isn't wrong when he says that kid is "priceless".

[mfunk9786]

The best way to watch the show is on the website, chopped into segments, so you can ignore the Roger's Office stuff, Kid Critic, etc

[Bill Thompson]

If the show does stick around the kid will probably be back, Ebert loves him apparently. About 95% of the people who watch the show hate the kid, if their PBS page, website, Twitter feed, and Facebook page are to be believed.

[swo17]

Seriously though, his Midnight in Paris review was kind of amazing, with lines like (I'm paraphrasing here) "Some people have called this Woody Allen's best film in years. I myself cannot say, as I have never seen a Woody Allen film before." and "Midnight in Paris hearkens back to films from Allen's glory days like...Annie Hall, the first Woody Allen film I watched after seeing Midnight in Paris."

I will admit I probably enjoy this kid's reviews for reasons other than Ebert intended.

[Andre Jurieu]

Seriously though, his Midnight in Paris review was kind of amazing, with lines like (I'm paraphrasing here) "Some people have called this Woody Allen's best film in years. I myself cannot say, as I have never seen a Woody Allen film before." and "Midnight in Paris hearkens back to films from Allen's glory days like...Annie Hall, the first Woody Allen film I watched after seeing Midnight in Paris."

I will admit I probably enjoy this kid's reviews for reasons other than Ebert intended.

It's humorous, but it's also kind of horrifying that this kid has diligently adopted "critic-speak." Sometimes I wonder if he's Ignatiy's little-brother, though that might also be because they dress alike.

[Jeff]

Paul Mazursky is now the film critic for vanityfair.com

[stroszeck]

Thats great news. Maybe now someone will release a remastered Alex In Wonderland NOT on DVD-R.

[Perkins Cobb]

Most of my Facebook correspondents were mocking Mazursky's initial entry with some vigor, although I found I didn't care enough to investigate for myself. If I ever want to hear what the director of Moscow on the Hudson thinks about anything, I'll let him buy me coffee and donuts at the Farmer's Market.

[The Narrator Returns]

The Kid Critic Strikes Again!

The movie is appropriate for kids 8 and up, who will like the goofy stuff, but older kids and adults will appreciate the wise cracking dialogue, including a great running joke concerning Jill and her knowledge of famous films. "Jack and Jill" gets a surprising B. I don't think I laughed this much at another movie all year.

And thus, film criticism is shoved into a casket.