criterionforum.org

While we are trashing critics let me put my two cents in about Kent Jones. All of his reviews consist of a vague describe of the film in question and 25 off-hand references to other, better, more-obscure directors that few of us have heard of because we don't have the privilege of sitting on the selection committee for the New York Film Festival. His brand of 90% allusion/10% actual review is found more in the upper-middlebrow/lower-highbrow realm of cinematic discourse, but it is still just as pernicious as the Entertainment Weeklys of the world.

Read his piece on Tsai in Rosenbaum & Martin's Movie Mutations and eat your words. Seriously! His shorter essays on Garrel, Assayas & Hou from Film Comment in the 1990s are good too (the Garrel one in particular).

Cahiers du Cinéma will continue to publish.

Regarding the New Yorker critics, I'd add Nancy Franklin to the list of middlebrow bores. You can practically see her squinting down her Upper East Side nose when she tries to figure out something like Gossip Girl.

As for Anthony Lane, this seems like another excellent opportunity to point out that his 2008 top ten list contained THREE films actually released in the US in 2007.

As for Anthony Lane, this seems like another excellent opportunity to point out that his 2008 top ten list contained THREE films actually released in the US in 2007.

Seriously. He mentions We Own the Night which was released in October 07, it's not like it was one of those prestige pics that are slipped into two theaters at the end of December for Oscar eligibility. Bizarre.

Ben Lyons uses Scene It? with his "homies" on his XBox 360 to "improve my movie knowledge" ](*,)

Ebert pens a lengthy tribute to Siskel on the 10th anniversary of his death.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Ebert pens a lengthy tribute to Siskel on the 10th anniversary of his death.

Ebert's a class act.

There's a great essay in Jonathan Ronsenbaum's Movie Wars where he goes off on a barely contained rant about how Siskel wasn't a proper film critic and how he was little more than an entertainment reporter. I like to think that in a very close parallel universe the essay is entitled "Fuck Siskel : I'm the one who should be getting cultural centers named after him". His comments are fair enough but they show the period JR was writing in as by modern standards, Gene Siskel is like Andre Bazin.

No, Siskel will always remain an embarrassing hack.

Ebert, on the other hand, I had written off as a well-meaning movie buff but a lousy writer and an undiscriminating critic ... but I'll concede that he's starting to look pretty Bazinian, by modern standards.

Ebert writes for a popular audience. He knows which side his bread is buttered . He produces lucidly written reviews that evaluate and occasionally offer some insight into the films he touches upon. I think he's an exemplar of how to maintain a high-profile career in film criticism without either falling into niche publication or selling out to lifestyle journalism. He's a safe pair of hands.

I came across an interview with Sarah Vowell recently in which she was sort of being condescended to by Michael Silverblatt of Bookworm for writing too much about tv sitcoms in her book about the Puritans. Anyway, one thing she said that resonated with me was that, while growing up in Montana, it was her discovery of Siskel and Ebert's movie reviews that introduced the entire concept of criticism into her life, and that while she eventually moved on to something a little closer to the New Yorker style of east coast criticism, it was Siskel and Ebert's populist approach that basically stood as the first evidence that one could have opinions that didn't necessarily reflect mainstream opinion - you could slam a film everybody liked or talk up one that nobody had ever heard of. As somebody growing up in the rural midwest, I understood immediately what she was getting at. Reading Ebert's column in our local small-town newspaper (the Appleton Post-Crescent ), gave me access to a wider world beyond the multiplex and local taverns. And while, like Sarah Vowell, I've moved on from thumbs up / thumbs down, I'll forever be grateful to both Siskel and Ebert for bringing the entire concept of intelligently discussing movies into my life. I suspect that many other American film buffs out there first stumbled upon the concept of "art cinema" from the Windy City duo. Whatever their limitations, they always knew their audience and understood how to gently challenge their readers.

Is anybody else getting a warning when trying to visit Slant Magazine that it is a site that might be harmful to your computer?

chaddoli wrote:Is anybody else getting a warning when trying to visit Slant Magazine that it is a site that might be harmful to your computer?

I was earlier, but I chose to ignore it. Google's safe-browsing diagnostic page that explains reasoning for 'harmful' classifications amusingly noted that "Of the 90 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 0 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent" and "Over the past 90 days, Slant Magazine did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites."

It went away fairly quickly, so I'm guessing Ed put in an appeal in light of the lack of any exploits or malicious software on his site whatsoever.

Who needs critics when studios grab pull quotes from YouTube comments? #-o

That is hilarious. Not only because the syntax is pure YouTube, but also because the studio took out a full page ad to grant a forum to a bunch of people who have not even seen the movie.

I agree this looks like a great film.

Classic.

Man. They are really excited about that movie being Canadian.

"I can't wait for [insert name of film]. I've always wanted to see [insert name of actor] fighting off nazis/fighting with nazis/in a musical/playing a superhero/driving cattle across a country while falling in love while wearing biker leathers/a frock/hot pants/nothing at all [delete as applicable]. This is going to be so cool!"

"Yes. It looks fantastic"

"I too agree with the above"

"You all suck. This looks horrible lol"

Antoine Doinel wrote:Who needs critics when studios grab pull quotes from YouTube comments? #-o

Those people on YouTube aren't even professional film critics. Isn't there a standard of ethics of doing review blurbs? Using YouTube comments to review a movie totally pisses me off. It devalues the already dessicated state of real criticism and lies to the public. These papers have no shame.

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Those people on YouTube aren't even professional film critics.

I hate to say it (as a professional film critic myself), but people who aren't professional film critics are more than entitled to have - and express - opinions too.

Isn't there a standard of ethics of doing review blurbs?

To be honest, I don't see what the problem is here. Pulling a quote from a negative review to make it look as though it came from a rave is far more ethically dodgy, and they don't seem to be doing that.

Using YouTube comments to review a movie totally pisses me off. It devalues the already dessicated state of real criticism and lies to the public. These papers have no shame.

Actually, anyone with half a brain can see exactly what's going on, and treat the ad with the contempt it deserves - but accusing it of telling lies seems a bit over the top. If anything, it's too honest - because it's so utterly transparent what's going on, and half the comments are from people who admit they haven't even seen the damn thing.

Okay, you are right. Of course, non-pros can give their opinions, it's just that putting it on the paper as if they have an equal weight struck me as morally suspect. There is a reason that professional critics (even if they are Peter Travers) are cited in the advertisements. I'd love it to see Schrek or Barmy on the paper rather than Travers, but I can see someone taking YouTube comments for actual blurbs to print in an advertisement.

The marketing team behind One Week continue their campaign with more pull quotes from the web. Here's this week's ad that mixes actual critical raves with comments from users at CinemaClock (which they use as a sneaky way to throw a "Thumbs up, way up!" into the ad).

Surprisingly, it is the critical comments that are slightly more offensive.

Kathleen Bell, See Magazine wrote:If you see only one movie this year, make it One Week.

Aside from the fact that this is a tired cliché, it is also a stupid one. Who sees only one movie a year? And even if they did, who would waste it on a film from Canada?

John Griffin, The Gazette wrote:A week that will stay with you forever.

I don't care how good this supposedly is, I don't have time for a movie that takes a whole week to watch...what's that? It's just a pun? Sorry, don't have time for those either.

swo17 wrote:Aside from the fact that this is a tired cliché, it is also a stupid one. Who sees only one movie a year?

My parents spring to mind.

And even if they did, who would waste it on a film from Canada?

Yes, I fear you may have an unanswerable point there.

swo17 wrote:Surprisingly, it is the critical comments that are slightly more offensive.

Kathleen Bell, See Magazine wrote:If you see only one movie this year, make it One Week.

Aside from the fact that this is a tired cliché, it is also a stupid one. Who sees only one movie a year? And even if they did, who would waste it on a film from Canada?

Furthermore, if you're only going to see one film this year, why would you waste that viewing in March? Of course, the one movie will probably be Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, but even then you would be well advised to wait until the end of the year, just to make sure there isn't something that everyone is talking about, a la "The Sixth Sense." "Why no, I wasn't blown away by that surprise twist, because I already spent my movie-watching experience for the year on 'One Week.'"

In conclusion, I wouldn't even start to think about seeing "One Week" until December 28. Unless you're talking about Buster Keaton's debut short, in which case, by all means, see it today.

At first glance I thought Kristen Bell was quoted as saying that. I was like, "Doesn't she have movies coming out this year?"