You’re right about the huge themes of Band, however they’re very subtly asserted. They’re there, but their message isn’t delivered by shovel blow to the noggin like you’d get in a typcial Paul Haggis film.

Sartre. The only good things about bad movies are funny reviews. Heh heh “Mammoth related violence”

Alexander. White can be very funny, even when I don’t agree with him…yet he can also be very irritating. Most recently his review of Jesse James irritated me to no end.

Hedwig. Coming from the only person I know who’s ever been in the Washington Times, I accept your flattery and I say “right back at ya.”

Criticism is a strange business. I’m not so much looking for a critic’s opinion as I am how it’s expressed. If I’m on the fence about a movie, the weight of critical opinion has an impact, but it’s not necessarily the deciding factor.

I’m rambling again.

Sidenote: I’m belatedly reading a bunch of Pauline Kael. Should be fun.

All flattery aside, I have to say, my preferences fluctuate quite a bit. I like Manohla, but only when she really gets into it like she did with Paranoid Park. One of my favorite reviewers used to be MaryAnn Johansson aka. the Flick Filosopher, but I feel we’ve grown apart. *snif*. Now, I only really pay heed to her opinion when she surprises me. For instance, she really has no patience for rom-coms, but she gave Definitely, Maybe not just a good but a lyrical review – together with your positive take, Craig, that makes this a must-see.

Also, I do love the Filmspotting guys. I still miss Sam, but bit by bit I’ve grown fond of Matty, too (though his habit of calling actors by nicknames, i.e. referring to Jimmy Stewart and Bobby DeNiro, still bugs me). The nice thing about the podcasting format is that you get real discussions about movies. It may be less literary, but it can be a lot more fun, especially when the presenters vehemently disagree (check out the notorious “battle of The Lake House if you don’t believe me).

He’s kind of predictable in a sense, with his favorite filmmakers always pitted against his most loathed, but when he gets it right (Spielberg, Coens, ’70s Coppola, etc.) he really gets it right.

10,000 B.C. may indeed be the Ben-Hur or All About Eve of the Raspberries.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/DDREVET49.DTL&type=movies

Joel: I rarely agree with the Voice either, I was just making lamentable reference to their “99% of everything stinks” critical appraisals. Like Tiime Out, their critics seem to be of the opinion that by hating or being indifferent to 48 out of every 50 movies they see or thereabouts, this seems to make them more worthy as film critics. I have always believed myself that in large measure it is far harder to write a good review than it is a bad one. But I’ll leave that for now.

The best American film critic now and during his long tenure at The New Republic is undoubtably Stanley Kauffmann, the dean of American film criticism. He is (astonishingly nearing 94 years of age and is still the top man at TNR) Only Kael, Dwight McDonald, Sarris and Simon were in his league, and Agee and Tyler before that. Kauffmann vast knowledge of the arts, years as a university film professor, many books on his reviews (and novels) and his eloquent, erodite style have made reading his review an experience in itself. His theatre backround and full knowledge of the value of acting as a film component is singular. He is one of the toughest for sure, and you don’t always agree with him (he disliked both GODFATHER and GODFATHER II for example and refers to the Coen Bothers as “those arty nuisances”) but his analytical treatices on Antonioni, Bergman, Buneul et al are peerless. His reviews and films-worth-seeing list are still there every week in TNR. I can only (honestly) place Ms. Kael on his absolute level of greatness.
And of course, while I feel strongly about these sentiments, they are still only my opinion of course.

Back on topic: The Band’s Visit is playing a block away from my apartment. I will be making it my business to see this fine film this weekend.

Ok, that’s absolutely my last fecal reference for one week. I swear.

I’ve noticed that local weeklies similar to the Voice, like Seattle’s Stranger or Portland’s Mercury, typically take the contrarian opinion on films that are critical darlings of the mainstream media. My guess is that they are posturing for the sake of being cool or different in an attempt to stand out from the crowd. I have little patience for that.

Although there were things I didn’t like about Elephant and Last Days, there were enough things that I did like for the positive response to Paranoid Park to make me curious enough to give it a shot.

I’m an Elliot Smith fan, so I’ll be fine with the soundtrack. ; )

testing

testing

Interestingly, I’ve read Armond White’s review of Norbit and he’s come the closest to making it sound even remotely feasible for me to eventually see it one day. And yet… he also liked Little Man and he’s crazy.

Would this make White a critic you mistrust, Craig?

I think he was probably the one critic in America who lauded Norbit and panned Zodiac just about a year ago.

LOL, Joel. Making Norbit sound enticing would indeed be an stunning accomplishment in movie review writing.

Thanks Sartre, I’d love to compare notes with you on Monday. Enjoy.

By the way, what’s the secret in using italics in these parts? :-)

Well, I am hopeful regarding Paranoid Park.

Interesting how even though it’s going to be a bit more “mainstream” for van Sant, even Milk really continues his theme of “nothing happens until we die.”

In a global Internet sense it doesn’t much matter, but I regret that the NY Times stole Manohla from the LA Times. Having said that, I can’t read her review of the movie until I see it. With her I find it’s rare that she really likes a movie and I don’t, though it’s not uncommon for her to dislike one that I admire.

Beautifully said.

And Sam, thanks for pointing Manohla’s reaction out. It whets my appetite for a film I’ll likely see this weekend too.