Bradshaw.es@XEROX.ARPA (08/22/84)
Speaking of violence, Buckaroo Banzai, and Conan, I am wondering who peoples' favorite critics are out there. I like Roger Ebert, not because I agree with his taste, though I do much of the time, but because he gives gut reactions, not analyses, to the movies he likes. I like Siskel, though not as much. I dislike Jeffrey Lyons and the other (what's his name?) on Sneak Previews. In the papers, I particularly dislike Sheila Benson, mostly because she liked "The Man from Snowy River" and "Never Cry Wolf". She is a bleeding heart, urbane, talkative fool. She thought "Never Cry Wolf" was authentic. Too much time spent in LA, I guess, although anyone can pick up a book on Alaska and learn enough to see shades of "That Darn Cat" all over that "authentic" pile of trash. Richard Shickel (spelling?) in Time annoys me. He takes things too seriously. I hate to admit it, but I find Gary Franklin entertaining.
Alazar.ES@XEROX.ARPA (08/22/84)
Lyons' partner is named Neil Gabler; both of them are callow and shallow. Siskel is subject to cardiohemorrhage, but at least is articulate. Notwithstanding your comment that he gives "gut reactions, not analyses," I like Roger Ebert because of his analyses. And besides, he has (really!) a screen credit for writing one of the Valley of the Dolls epics--Beyond t.V.o.t.D., I think. But these are just reviewers. You want to talk critic, that's something else. You could safely start with Crist. Judith, that is. Inventor, practically, of the aesthetic du junk. Richard Grennier is better still: sprightly but serious, always interesting, and comes from a refreshingly different slant. But the champion is easily John Simon. No pushover. Eternal standards for our time. A word-craftsman in Diogenes-like search of tri-acetate craftsmanship. (Grennier makes the point, by the way, that many of us are given to the cliche "celluloid" for movies, when they have been on tri-acetate for decades.) (It is no reflection on Simon that Diogenes, out searching for an honest man all those years, was wanted back in Athens for counterfeiting. Maybe he was looking for someone to cheat?)
Hamilton.ES@XEROX.ARPA (08/22/84)
From: Bruce Hamilton <Hamilton.ES@XEROX.ARPA> Michael Ventura, of the LA Weekly, is light-years beyond all others. He is both impassioned and articulate; and I even agree with him much of the time. Ventura walks a dangerous line toward becoming too preachy and emotionally involved with the films and filmmakers he writes on, but his prose is so fine, that I can't take him to task. Does anybody know what happened to Myron Meisel, who used to write for the LA Reader a few years ago? I often disagreed with him, but his reviews were always tremendously informative -- worth more than most film courses, I suspect. For a "mass market" reviewer, David Ansen in Newsweek is excellent at conveying to me a sense of a film in a few sentences. Jack Kroll I think much less of. I'll lay you odds Kroll is 20 or 30 years older than Ansen. It seems to me that awfully many of the over-50 (or maybe I should say over-60) generation of critics invariably affect a curious naivete-cum-pomposity which I find absolutely MADDENNING! Anybody else read Edwin Tatnall Canby in Audio? Whenever I read one of his columns, I think I'd like to take a large pair of boxing gloves and beat the @#$% out of him. --Bruce
RAcosta.ES@XEROX.ARPA (08/22/84)
My picks for favorite critics: 1. Mikal Gilmore 2. Roger Ebert 3. Kevin Thomas 4. Gene Siskel 5. Joe Bob Honorable Mention: Pauline Kael /Rod.
Alazar.ES@XEROX.ARPA (08/22/84)
Thanks, Stuart, for mentioning Pauline Kael. Somehow I left her name out. One of the finest. Biting, satirical, feminist, and altogether unpleasant and unwholesome--just this side of perfection!
Lewis.ES@XEROX.ARPA (08/22/84)
Ah, but Sheila Benson really liked Buckaroo Banzai, so she isn't ALL bad! You just have to be skeptical when she starts getting sappy. Deb
Lewis.ES@XEROX.ARPA (08/22/84)
------ "I tried reading some of Pauline Kael's reviews in her published anthology of reviews and found them to be biting, satirical, feminist, and altogether unpleasant and unwholesome. She left a very bitter taste in my mouth." ------ Tsk, tsk. Are we to interpret this statement as equating "feminist" with "unpleasant and unwholesome"? Stuart will find himself getting quite crispy over this one. Deb
Bradshaw.es@XEROX.ARPA (08/22/84)
Where can I find reviews by Crist, Grennier, and Simon?
CORPUS.henr@XEROX.ARPA (08/22/84)
Best critic: Joe Bob. All the rest are a bunch of Bimbos, if you know what I mean and I think you do! KC
Alazar.ES@XEROX.ARPA (08/22/84)
Crist, I don't know. Grennier in Commentary Magazine, the which you would do yourself a favor to read anyway. Simon in National Review, which is likely not to your political taste--too bad if politics keeps you from reading the best movie critic.
LFeinberg.es@XEROX.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (08/23/84)
In the Los Angeles area, there is only one cinema reviewer whose views I respect. This is Peter Reiner, who appears regularly in the L.A. Herald Examiner (a Hearst newspaper). Despite the Examiner's low-brow image, Mr. Reiner consistanly demonstrates an intelligent understanding of the works he reviews. For me, however, there is nothing like watching "At The Movies" or "Sneak Previews". These two T.V. shows feature clips from various current movies, along with disscusion by two critics. Regardless of what the critics say, I can judge for myself when I get to see a couple of scenes. (And it's unanimous: the critics on "Sneak Previews" these days are awful. Here's why: They don't give us their true reactions to the movie. They give a review from the viewpoint of the persona they would like to project. This is especially true of the younger one.) Lawrence <LFeinberg.es>
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (08/27/84)
The thing I like about Siskel and Ebert is that you always get the feeling from them that there's nothing they'd rather be doing than sitting in a theater, surrounded by an audience, munching on popcorn and watching a movie. (Notice I didn't say "film" or "cinema".) With some critics (Pauline Kael is an example) you get the feeling they'd rather not mix with the riff-raff at most theaters, and would prefer watching only "important films" at private screenings. I think that movie critics should at least enjoy going to the movies! Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611
mclure@SRI-UNIX.ARPA (08/28/84)
I too like Roger Ebert. He is a rolly-polly, fun kinda guy. He reminds me a lot of my broker. I have read a lot of his *written* reviews that come out on the newswire from Chicago and his written stuff is pretty good. I think he won a Pulitzer a few years ago for his writing, for whatever that is worth. I tried reading some of Pauline Kael's reviews in her published anthology of reviews and found them to be biting, satirical, feminist, and altogether unpleasant and unwholesome. She left a very bitter taste in my mouth. Stuart
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (08/30/84)
Yes, I remember a quote somewhere that Pauline Kael is a person who goes
into a film with an adversary relationship...
On the other hand, she gave "Buckaroo Banzai" a pretty good review...
"It's not MY GODDAMN PLANET, Monkey Boy!"
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
UUCP:
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \
{allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty
ARPA:
fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPAmichaelf@ism780.UUCP (09/08/84)
A fairly accurate and sound group of opinions. I must agree
with you on Michael Ventura. He is the best. He's the only reason I
read the L.A. Weekly. It's too bad Harlan left the Weekly, that was
quite a tandem. Both are very opinionated, but their kind of writing
is always a pleasant change from the self-serving drivel I see in there
now.