Rate the Film Critics

[dave durbin]

After reading through most of the various topics around here and seeing the names Ebert, Kael, Roper, etc., I was curious to see what the opinions are for various film critics. My list goes a little bit like this:

THE BEST OF ALL TIME:
Pauline Kael
Gene Siskel
Vincent Canby
the writers for SLATE
the writers for SALON
(the names of the individuals for the above pages escape me right now -it's late)
Gavin Smith
Armond White
J. Hoberman
Kent Jones
maybe Manohla Dargis




THE WORST OF ALL TIME:
Richard Roper (who found him?)
Rex Reed (need I say more?)
John Simon (when he was a film critic -he's a Nazi trust me)
Roger Ebert (sorry guys)
Armond White
J. Hoberman
Michael Medved( I liked the Golden Turkey Awards and that's it)
Leonard Maltin (tisk,tisk,tisk)
Dave Kehr (yawn)
Andrew Sarris (if you did a shot for every time he mentions himself in his reviews you'd be drunk after 2 sentences)
Gene Shalit (lie down old man)
Dixie Watley (anyone remember when she and Rex were on At the Movies?)

[pmw]

hmm..seem to be some names on both lists. Dont forget Nathan Lee of the New York Sun for the best list. Also writes for Film Comment, alongside Gavin Smith, Kent Jones et al.

P

[dave durbin]

They're on both lists because I both love and hate their columns. (Their writing is wonderful to read -both are highly educated in film and have a great style with words- but sometimes their anger and arrogance knows no bounds and it's almost impossible to finish -the life of a film critic is not listed in the Most Fun Times You Can Have On This Earth While You're Alive category you know.) I have not read anything by the guy from the New York Sun though.

[pmw]

Actually, hes a friend ;>

But he's writing some really interesting/impressive pieces on alot of important film. Heres one:

NY Sun Film (http://www.nysun.com/sunarticle.asp?artID=389)

Had to get that plug in there.
P

[dave durbin]

Once again, thank you for pointing out something new. Please keep the recommendations coming. (Good article by the way.)

[Perfume V]

A sampler of the British critics. (Britics?)

The Best:

Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian) - fabulously witty and insightful, and when he gets his teeth into a film he dislikes, he's absolutely frantic. I have fond memories of him wondering whether Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood was some sort of punishment for him, and what he did to merit such cruelty.

Jonathan Ross (The Mirror) - not very insightful at all, frankly, and with a worrying soft spot for Adam Sandler, yet there's something about him - his genial, cheeky personality - that always keeps me reading.

Philip French (The Observer) - a true veteran, Philip French has been a film critic since the late Mezoic era and knows absolutely everything.

The Worst:

Paul Ross (News of the World) - whenever there's a bad film out, you can be guaranteed to see a quote from him on the poster, informing his witless readers that this is truly the greatest film ever made. I'm not joking. He thought The Scorpion King was the greatest action-adventure film of all time.

Christopher Tookey (The Daily Mail) - only a paper as wrongheaded as the Mail could employ a film critic who appears to hate all films. His three, four and five star ratings are reserved exclusively for films starring Nicole Kidman and/or directed by Steven Spielberg. As for everything else, someone has given him a little clip-art graphic of a turkey and he just won't stop fucking using the wretched thing.

Barbara Ellen (The Times) - she used to be a music critic. It shows.

I frequently read film reviews online, and whereas there are plenty of good critics, I think there's only one great one - Mary Ann Johansen (http://www.flickfilosopher.com).

[dave durbin]

Oh thank you for the Mary Ann direction! She's wonderful! And very funny! I love film critics with a sense of humor -it's rare- and she's refreshingly fun to read. The only other critics that I can think of who had great wit and liked to laugh were Siskel and Kael -maybe the guys from The Onion-; all the rest seem stiff and a bit dull. When a comedy is recommended from someone like Hoberman or Sarris or White, my guard goes up and I become very suspicious. (These aren't men who I would consider to be a 'good time', ya' know what I mean?) MA's a treat!

[bix171]

For my money, the best critic--and my greatest influence--is Dave Kehr. Not only is he the most perceptive critic I have ever read, he's also has one of the best commands of the English language I've seen in a writer about film. He used to write for the "Reader" here in Chicago (now we have the overwriter, Jonathan Rosenbaum); then he went to the Tribune. Now he's in New York and I'm able to keep up with him online and in the Sunday Times my brother-in-law gets.

Kael was a great one, though I wondered several times if she and I had watched the same movie. Original writing style, one I envy. Hoberman's also very good but the "Voice" staff has slipped somewhat from their peak in the 70s and 80s. (I miss Molly Haskell.)

The worst? Well, I try not to talk bad about the dead but Gene Siskel was so bad that in the "Reader" Neil Tesser used to write a running column about the mistakes Siskel made the previous week. Ebert also stinks (he has no qualms about about giving away crucial plot points and he likes every movie; even about the ones he hates he eventually recants--his "Bonnie & Clyde" reversal is infamous) but he's a heckuva lot better than Roeper, who has no credibility whatsoever. (He was--still is, I think--a daily columnist for the "Sun-Times", writing about whatever but not much, as far as I can recall, about film.) The way he looks down on family films--he must be childless--is appalling.

Someone said the "Onion" writers. I disagree. They pontificate over the most trivial films as if they were made by Scorsese or Hitchcock. And they take too long to make their points, droning on and on.

[oscar jubis]

Jonathan Rosenbaum, Andrew Sarris and Dave Kehr have taught me the most. I admire Hoberman, Ebert, French, Smith and Jones. I never waste my time with Medved, Matlin, Shalit and Armond White. As far as Pauline, she'll have to speak for herself:

"My pieces belong to the era before people could rent videos. I wrote at first sight and, when referring to earlier work, from memory. This had an advantage: urgency, excitement. But it also led to my worst flaw as a writer: reckless excess, in both praise and damnation. Writing very fast and trying to distill my experience of a movie, I often got carried away by words."

[bix171]

I'm not sure why it pains me to say this but I think Leonard Maltin is somewhat underrated. I certainly don't think he's a genius and his smiling gnomish face is overexposed but he's definately a scholar of film (particularly animation). His annually-revised video guide is well-written (I'm aware he doesn't see all the movies or write ll the reviews) and consistent.

[Perfume V]

Originally posted by dave durbin
Oh thank you for the Mary Ann direction! She's wonderful! And very funny! I love film critics with a sense of humor -it's rare- and she's refreshingly fun to read. The only other critics that I can think of who had great wit and liked to laugh were Siskel and Kael -maybe the guys from The Onion-; all the rest seem stiff and a bit dull. When a comedy is recommended from someone like Hoberman or Sarris or White, my guard goes up and I become very suspicious. (These aren't men who I would consider to be a 'good time', ya' know what I mean?) MA's a treat!

Glad you liked her site! I always try and direct my friends towards The Flick Filosopher - more or less every review contains some cutting insight or laugh-out-loud comment. I also have a soft spot for genuinely funny critics (Bradshaw's another one: he lives at http://www.film.guardian.co.uk ), though some people think they can get too bitchy and personal. To which I offer Mary Ann's reply to a reader who asked her if she appreciated the effort put into making Pearl Harbor - "Filmmaking is not kindergarten -- you don't get a pat on the head and a gold star on your chart just for trying."

[miseenscene]

Ironic comment about trying, given your signature quote. ;)

[Perfume V]

D'oh! I suppose I'd better get rid of that before I sign that three-picture deal with Miramax, huh? :)

[Johann]

Our public library selects films to buy based on Leonard Maltin's latest guide. If a film gets less than 4 stars, they don't buy it.

I asked the aquisistions dept. why maltin and they said "He's the most reliable critic". I walked away stunned. The libary doesn't carry most Fellini, Kubrick etc.. This is a travesty. Maltin is a passionate film historian, but his taste is hardly "reliable".

[Perfume V]

Odd, considering Maltin seems to like Kubrick. But I agree with what you're saying - it's a stupid way to run a library. It deprives people of the pleasures of The Company of Wolves, The Brood and Foxy Brown!

[Jeff]

The Best:

Armond White: He's a pretty amazing critic, if a bit hardheaded. I don't always agree with him (why should I want to?), but his insights are above and beyond most of what I read. Never afraid to go to bat for the movies he loves.

Mark Palermo: This guy is like Armond White might be if White had a sense of humor and was more openminded. He's the best alt-weekly critic I've read. I know that's a damning category, but he might be the best critic working right now, period.

AO Scott: By far my favorite of the ultramainstream. Very fair, approachable insight.

Not so sure:

Walter Chaw: His writing isn't very enjoyable, but he's at least brave enough to have an interesting perspective.

Roger Ebert: Getting a little too soft these days. He also shies from real analysis as he aims to please such a wide market.

Stephanie Zacharek: She's obviously really smart, but sometimes goes the wrong direction to try and prove that. Her opinions also get too predictable after a while.

The Worst:

Peter Travers: Would sell his soul for a dumb quote whore line. Only interested in what seems cool that week. He randomly inserts profanity in his reviews just so the young Rolling Stone readers think he's hip.

Everybody at the New Yorker: Just get over yourselves.

Moriarty: Might be readable if he wasn't so defensive about his writing. He also has a really uncalled for meanstreak sometimes.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by Jeff
The Best:

Armond White: He's a pretty amazing critic, if a bit hardheaded. I don't always agree with him (why should I want to?), but his insights are above and beyond most of what I read. Never afraid to go to bat for the movies he loves.



I'm glad to see his name mentioned here. You're right about his temperament, and I don't agree with him much either, but I believe that I've become a better viewer by reading him.

My favorites: Manohla Dargis, Kent Jones, Jim Hoberman, Gavin Smith, Scott Foundas, Olaf Möller, Eduardo Antin, Chuck Stephens, Chris Fujiwara, Michael Atkinson, among others.

[oscar jubis]

*For insight, read The Village Voice, Film Comment and The Chicago Reader.
*Is there such a thing as "young Rolling Stone readers"?
*Will access Palermo via Rotten Tomatoes. I noticed he didn't like Eastwood and von Trier though. Hope he has good arguments against these directors' films.
*I read Armond White but I detest his extremism because I believe most films cluster around the middle.
*I'm allergic to the smart-ass, middlebrow tone of the New Yorker crits but many find them entertaining.

[wpqx]

I've read some Rosenbaum, but that man has some very strange tastes. He's a good writer, but I rarely if ever agree with him.

As for the question about Rolling Stone, I actually read it, although I've never been a huge fan of Peter Travers, his writing is far too uninsightful. Rolling Stone seems to have a very short length requirement, and therefore you can't get too much out of them.

I have enjoyed what I've red of Kenneth Turran, and subscribing to the Chicago Tribune, I'm naturally biased towards Michael Wilmington (especially in his love for Scorsese, Kubrick, and Angelopoulus).

Pauline Kael I've said before is great if you want no information about any film you read. She is a master of talking about a lot of nonsense that has nothing to do with the picture, but if you dislike a film that everyone else loves, chances are so does she. Even reading about her favorite film (which she professed to be Intolerance) you still here her pick at it. Basically everyone sucks, unless you're Bernardo Bertolucci pre-Luna.