criterionforum.org

Michael Kerpan wrote:That column was snark, wasn't it? Or is that just wishful thinking on the part of one is already far too old to understand these things anymore (i.e., me).

Oh yes, definitely a take off, since there is a barely contained seething anger behind the writing (especially when talking about "Whether choosing the prez or a movie reviewer, the guy you'd want to have a beer with always wins"). The writer sustains the piece well in the first page but you can tell she isn't just your average MSN anti-intellectual writer by some giveaways in the second!

I quite liked the way that the article criticising too old critics was written in a teen speak vernacular of at least a decade ago - all the "check this out" and "right on!" stuff was getting perilously close to "We're not worthy" and "Schwwiiing!". There is also an irony at work in wanting to focus on new films and then admonishing everyone to check out Logan's Run!

There was also one sentence that got to the tragic heart of a world without critics:

"There Will Be Blood" (what was that about?)

MichaelB wrote:

Michael Kerpan wrote:That column was snark, wasn't it?

No, not at all - whatever gave you that idea?

The fact that they actually seemed to recommend reading Kehr, Dargis et al.?

Michael Kerpan wrote:

MichaelB wrote:

Michael Kerpan wrote:That column was snark, wasn't it?

No, not at all - whatever gave you that idea?

The fact that they actually seemed to recommend reading Kehr, Dargis et al.?

Yes, that made the piece's sarcastic intentions absolutely blindingly obvious beyond any possible dispute, but there were dozens of clues scattered throughout the rest of it.

MichaelB wrote:Yes, that made the piece's sarcastic intentions absolutely blindingly obvious beyond any possible dispute, but there were dozens of clues scattered throughout the rest of it.

The scary thing is that a lot of the "criticisms" were pretty close to things I have read elsewhere -- that were not satiric. ;~}

Shaw covered lots of the ground relating to bad critics, albeit with reference to drama criticism, in his prologue to Fanny's First Play long ago.

I agree with the intent, but, man, that piece went long.

Ebert also discovered that satire soars over many of his readers heads. He did a Q&A on creationism, which was mostly taken seriously. Here is the follow-up.

The Ebert thing is interesting for two reasons:

(1) Way down in the comments, it's revealed that one of the few "facts" Ebert admits, humorously, to having cribbed from the IMDb is wrong; and

(2) Ebert estimates he's seen about 8,000 films. Which actually seems surprisingly low to me, considering how notorious Ebert is for the volume of his output: I've been a serious movie buff for less than 20 years, compared to Ebert's 40+, and I know I've seen at least 5,000.

speaking of ebert, when i start interested in movie, ebert was my main critic to go to get information about the film.
because of him, i discover cassavetes, ozu and bergman ...
that was about 20 years ago, but now i can`t trust his jugement anymore,
it seem that his giving almost every movie four star review, which a lot of time i will endup disagree with him.

Roger Ebert repeatedly eviscerates Ben Lyons without ever mentioning his name.

A fascinating conversation with Kent Jones on Manny Farber from Reverse Shot

Antoine Doinel wrote:Ben Lyons calls Ebert a "pathetic old putz".

It was actually Jeffrey Lyons who said that in an attempt to defend his useless douchebag son. Here again are Ebert's tips for critics (a thinly veiled dismantling of Junior) that caused the kerfuffle.

I knew I was missing some point of reference with that blog entry. I haven't seen At the Movies since Ebert left, is Lyons just some airhead Giant magazine-level critic?

domino harvey wrote:is Lyons just some airhead Giant magazine-level critic?

At best. I want to yank him down by his ubiquitous hoodie and pour his Red Bull all over his face. Last year he published two disparate top tens, neither of which featured I Am Legend after he named it "one of the greatest movies ever made." He also said that 300 was "the most unique movie-going experience of a generation. One of the best films of 2007, and of the last 25 years." That didn't make the top ten either.

There are plenty of reasons to hate him, but Karina Longworth, Entertainment Weekly, and Defamer offer some good places to start.

I enjoyed this blog comment:

You know - all we'd have to do is infect this fucker with small pox - and we could kill Hollywood in a fortnight...

The pictures of the ecstatic Peter O'Toole and uncomfortable Eastwood were hilarious. I was lucky enough to avoid knowing who Ben Lyons was up until now, he looks like some frat boy trying to boost his facebook cred by starfucking. I fear with the passing of Ebert's generation the Ben Lyonses of the world are going to take center stage, ugh.

domino harvey wrote:I knew I was missing some point of reference with that blog entry. I haven't seen At the Movies since Ebert left, is Lyons just some airhead Giant magazine-level critic?

Cross the insight of the host of a beauty pageant with the sincerity of a toothpaste commercial, and you're close to the new At the Movies. I only watched a few reviews, but I remember the following nuggets of wisdom, straight from Ben Lyons's mouth:

On Towelhead:
"It's so disturbing and...uncomfortable to watch that...it's really difficult to find it...somewhat enjoyable at any level...at the movies."

On The Women:
"I love women in real life but at the movies I hated The Women. I say skip it."

On Hamlet 2:
"One of the most talked-about films this year while I was out in Utah at the Sundance Film Festival was hands down Hamlet 2. Just imagine the scene of the Hollywood executives, scrambling in the snow, trying to get a ticket...many of whom probably thought it was a sequel to the classic Shakespearean play."

He sounds like a restaurant review from a high school newspaper, entirely too enthusiastic and riddled with cliches and puns

swo17 wrote:[Ben Lyons] On Towelhead:
"It's so disturbing and...uncomfortable to watch that...it's really difficult to find it...somewhat enjoyable at any level...at the movies."

It must have been really difficult to watch. Critics who were at the Towelhead press screening with him said he spent the entire time texting and talking on his phone.

At what point can we say this has bled into the 'Rediculous' thread?

I gave up after seeing his #1.

How does one stumble upon their own website, Jose?

Eh. I don't really care for faith-based films. I have a comment that implicates Dreyer, Bresson, and Mel Gibson, but I'll try to be civil. I'll just say that this illuminates one aspect of criticism. No matter how good (or poor) the technique, the handling of the subject matter and themes can be more than enough to put off the subjective viewer.

domino harvey wrote:How does one stumble upon their own website, Jose?

Are you implying that someone with one post plugging a random website has less than pure motives?