Re: [MOPO] Music to the ears of the popCORN crowd
I've just got to say, when if comes to filmmakers today.Kevin Smith - A total wash, not even a one hit wonder, more of a one hit blunder (he likes to claim he has two hits, but not really). Boring and more interested in himself than in making a good film. Clerks 2 is his best film to date (a summer film this year) but that being his best film is like saying The Unearthly was better than Beast of Yucca Flats.Quentin Tarantino- I'll fight for him stronger. Reservoir Dogs is a good film even if it is a rip-off, something he himself has pointed out interview after interview. Pulp, blah, Jackie Brown, good story but overall blah, but theKill Bills? Damned good stuff. Wes Anderson- Sorry, he's one of the best filmmakers of over 40 years. Bottlerocket? It was really a bore to me other than a showcase for Luke and Owen Wilson. Rushmore was a really amazing piece. Royal Tenenbaums even more so. It's like it dares people to watch it once, or even twice and dislike it. It's smarter than that. If you watch if three times and don't find the brilliance, well, you should seek help. Life Aquatic of Steve Zissou, this could be argued as his first simplefeel good, don't have to think about it to get it film, and while it lacks the depth of his earlier work, it is excellent.But there's still Darren Aronofsky and Richard Kelly and David O. Russell. To claim these modern pioneers don't understand the big picture of film, is only to admit your own shortcomings. Ron Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
[MOPO] Music to the ears of the popCORN crowd
Film critics not as influential.Does this mean we can look forward to more summers like this one?All in all, it's been a rotten tomato of a summer for America's embattled film critics.By Patrick GoldsteinTimes Staff WriterAugust 15, 2006Who says critics don't matter anymore? The new trailer for Paramount's upcoming numskull comedy "Jackass: Number Two" is full of quotes from reviews of the first movie. There's just one tiny twist: The studio uses the vitriolic reviews attacking the first film ("A disgusting, repulsive, grotesque spectacle" says an aghast Richard Roeper) to promote the new picture.With a sly, leering note of triumph, the narrator intones: "Unfortunately for them, we just made 'Number Two.' "All in all, it's been a rotten tomato of a summer for America's embattled film critics. "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" broke box-office records left and right, despite a yowling chorus of negative reviews. M. Night Shyamalan cast Bob Balaban as a persnickety film critic in "Lady in the Water," then gleefully killed him off, allowing a snarling jackal-like creature to do the dirty deed.Sony Corp. chief Howard Stringer, asked after the huge opening of "The Da Vinci Code" why the studio kept reviewers away from the film until the last possible moment, merrily quipped, "Nobody ever built a statue to a critic."Kevin Smith went even further, launching into an obscenity-laced blog tirade after learning that "Good Morning America" critic Joel Siegel had walked out of "Clerks II" in a huff. "Cardinal rule of movie-going — shut your ... mouth while the movie's playing," Smith wrote. "Leave the drama-queen antics to the movie stars."To add insult to injury, studios have released a record number of films this year without any press screenings — two last weekend alone, with another, New Line's "Snakes on a Plane," due Friday. Warners also has a no-screening plan for Neil LaBute's "The Wicker Man," which arrives Sept. 1.The media have been full of stories questioning the relevance of print critics in an Internet era that has ushered in a new democratization of opinion. The prospect of babbling blogmeisters being the new kingpins of cinema has left many critics in a sour mood. Reviewing a collection of critical essays by the long-time Village Voice jazz critic Gary Giddins, Time film critic Richard Schickel contrasted Giddins' work with "history-free and sensibility-deprived" bloggers who regularly "blurb the latest Hollywood effulgence."Old-school critics get little sympathy from their Internet brethren. Entertainment Weekly founder Jeff Jarvis, who writes the provocative BuzzMachine media blog, recently suggested that newspapers get rid of their critics, allowing their readers to share their opinions instead. "If I launched Entertainment Weekly today, I hope I'd have the sense not to propose starting a magazine by hiring a bunch of critics."It's no secret that critics have lost influence in recent years. A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that among 18- to 24-year-olds, only 3% said reviews were the most important factor in their movie-going decision making. Older audiences still look to critics for guidance, especially with the smaller, more ambitious studio specialty films. But during the summer months, with studios wooing audiences with $40 million worth of marketing propaganda, critics appear especially overwhelmed, if not irrelevant.For their part, the studios insist critics still matter, but only for adult dramas, not youth fare. Paramount marketing chief Gerry Rich says critical support for "World Trade Center" was invaluable. "They helped address people's apprehensions and preconceived notions in a way that made them feel it was OK to see the picture."According to New Line marketing chief Russell Schwartz, "younger moviegoers want the immediacy of text messages or voice mail. A review from one of their peers is more important than a printed review from a third party they don't know, which is how they would describe a critic."What we're seeing is not so much the death of criticism as the death of the culture of criticism, the culture in which a critic such as Pauline Kael — despite writing for a small circulation magazine like the New Yorker — could have a huge trickledown influence, not just with the chattering class, but with filmmakers and executives who hung on her every word, either in agony or ecstasy, depending on the verdict.But today we're in an era in which shared enthusiasm matters more than analysis, stylistic cool trumps emotional substance. The world has changed. The vanguard filmmakers of the '60s — the era that spawned our last great generation of critics — were Godard, Kubrick and Antonioni, filmmakers under the spell of the intellectual fervor sparked by existentialism and Marxism. The filmmakers with a youth-culture following today, be it Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino or Wes Anderson, are largely ideology free, masters of detachment and stylistic homage. Like
Re: [MOPO] Music to the ears of the popCORN crowd
Kirby,
The short answer to your question is "Yes, of course". I mean, with the
kind of success these empty-headed filmshavebeenenjoying for
many years now, why wouldn't we seen summers like this indefinitely? The
"summers" have now extended all the way through to Christmas now, and start
earlier as well. And while I agree that it's sad that the real criticsare
being replaced by bloggers, it's kind of silly for Golstein to lament something
like what the New Line publicist says "...A review from one of their peers is
more important than a printed review..." because that was *always* true. Most
people have always paid more attention to the word-of-mouth a film was getting
than the printed reviews.
The problem with defaulting to the internet and bloggers is not only the
fact that most of them are idiots, but it is so easy for a studio to set up its
own cadre of bloggers as an integral part of the PR departments that "reviews"
of new movies will be meaningless, totally without context or provenance. I
think people are going to end up relying more and more on lists like MOPO and
other group forums where they can get opinions from people they know. I have for
some time now. At leastthat wayI know the opinions are not being
bought and paid for by the studio, which you no longer do with either the
bloggers or the printed critics.
Although I've always read printed film critics, I have to say that I was
never all that impressed with them overall, and when Goldstein makes a sweeping,
mostly untrue and buzz word-laced statement like this:
"The vanguard filmmakers of the '60s the era that spawned our last great
generation of critics were Godard, Kubrick and Antonioni, filmmakers under the
spell of the intellectual fervor sparked by existentialism and Marxism. The
filmmakers with a youth-culture following today, be it Kevin Smith, Quentin
Tarantino or Wes Anderson, are largely ideology free, masters of detachment and
stylistic homage. Like their audience, they prefer irony to Big Ideas."
... I remember why.
-- JR
- Original Message -
From: Kirby McDaniel
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:09
Subject: [MOPO] Music to the ears of the popCORN crowd
Film critics not as influential.
Does this mean we can look forward to more summers like this one?
All in all,
it's been a rotten tomato of a summer for America's embattled film
critics.
By Patrick
Goldstein
Times Staff
Writer
August 15,
2006
Who says critics don't matter
anymore? The new trailer for Paramount's upcoming numskull comedy "Jackass:
Number Two" is full of quotes from reviews of the first movie. There's just one
tiny twist: The studio uses the vitriolic reviews attacking the first film ("A
disgusting, repulsive, grotesque spectacle" says an aghast Richard Roeper) to
promote the new picture.
With a sly, leering note of
triumph, the narrator intones: "Unfortunately for them, we just made 'Number
Two.' "
All in all, it's been a rotten
tomato of a summer for America's embattled film critics. "Pirates of the
Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" broke box-office records left and right, despite a
yowling chorus of negative reviews. M. Night Shyamalan cast Bob Balaban as a
persnickety film critic in "Lady in the Water," then gleefully killed him off,
allowing a snarling jackal-like creature to do the dirty
deed.
Sony Corp. chief Howard Stringer,
asked after the huge opening of "The Da Vinci Code" why the studio kept
reviewers away from the film until the last possible moment, merrily quipped,
"Nobody ever built a statue to a critic."
Kevin Smith went even further,
launching into an obscenity-laced blog tirade after learning that "Good Morning
America" critic Joel Siegel had walked out of "Clerks II" in a huff. "Cardinal
rule of movie-going shut your ... mouth while the movie's playing," Smith
wrote. "Leave the drama-queen antics to the movie stars."
To add insult to injury, studios
have released a record number of films this year without any press screenings
two last weekend alone, with another, New Line's "Snakes on a Plane," due
Friday. Warners also has a no-screening plan for Neil LaBute's "The Wicker Man,"
which arrives Sept. 1.
The media have been full of
stories questioning the relevance of print critics in an Internet era that has
ushered in a new democratization of opinion. The prospect of babbling
blogmeisters being the new kingpins of cinema has left many critics in a sour
mood. Reviewing a collection of critical essays by the long-time Village Voice
jazz critic Gary Giddins, Time film critic Richard Schickel contrasted Giddins'
work with "history-free and sensibility-deprived" bloggers who regularly "blurb
the latest Hollywood effulgence."
Old-school critics get little
sympathy from their Internet brethren. Entertainment Weekly founder Jeff Jarvis,
who writes the provocative BuzzMachine media blog, recently suggested that
newspapers get
Re: [MOPO] Music to the ears of the popCORN crowd
I understand what you are saying, but I must say I agree with him in part, but I would not limit to only these three. Truffaut, Sam Fuller, Fellini, several others, as well as real mavericks like Robert Altman.K.On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:49 AM, JR wrote:Kirby, The short answer to your question is "Yes, of course". I mean, with the kind of success these empty-headed films have been enjoying for many years now, why wouldn't we seen summers like this indefinitely? The "summers" have now extended all the way through to Christmas now, and start earlier as well. And while I agree that it's sad that the real critics are being replaced by bloggers, it's kind of silly for Golstein to lament something like what the New Line publicist says "...A review from one of their peers is more important than a printed review..." because that was *always* true. Most people have always paid more attention to the word-of-mouth a film was getting than the printed reviews. The problem with defaulting to the internet and bloggers is not only the fact that most of them are idiots, but it is so easy for a studio to set up its own cadre of bloggers as an integral part of the PR departments that "reviews" of new movies will be meaningless, totally without context or provenance. I think people are going to end up relying more and more on lists like MOPO and other group forums where they can get opinions from people they know. I have for some time now. At least that way I know the opinions are not being bought and paid for by the studio, which you no longer do with either the bloggers or the printed critics. Although I've always read printed film critics, I have to say that I was never all that impressed with them overall, and when Goldstein makes a sweeping, mostly untrue and buzz word-laced statement like this: "The vanguard filmmakers of the '60s — the era that spawned our last great generation of critics — were Godard, Kubrick and Antonioni, filmmakers under the spell of the intellectual fervor sparked by existentialism and Marxism. The filmmakers with a youth-culture following today, be it Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino or Wes Anderson, are largely ideology free, masters of detachment and stylistic homage. Like their audience, they prefer irony to Big Ideas." ... I remember why. -- JR - Original Message -From: Kirby McDanielTo: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDUSent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:09Subject: [MOPO] Music to the ears of the popCORN crowdFilm critics not as influential.Does this mean we can look forward to more summers like this one?All in all, it's been a rotten tomato of a summer for America's embattled film critics.By Patrick GoldsteinTimes Staff WriterAugust 15, 2006Who says critics don't matter anymore? The new trailer for Paramount's upcoming numskull comedy "Jackass: Number Two" is full of quotes from reviews of the first movie. There's just one tiny twist: The studio uses the vitriolic reviews attacking the first film ("A disgusting, repulsive, grotesque spectacle" says an aghast Richard Roeper) to promote the new picture.With a sly, leering note of triumph, the narrator intones: "Unfortunately for them, we just made 'Number Two.' "All in all, it's been a rotten tomato of a summer for America's embattled film critics. "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" broke box-office records left and right, despite a yowling chorus of negative reviews. M. Night Shyamalan cast Bob Balaban as a persnickety film critic in "Lady in the Water," then gleefully killed him off, allowing a snarling jackal-like creature to do the dirty deed.Sony Corp. chief Howard Stringer, asked after the huge opening of "The Da Vinci Code" why the studio kept reviewers away from the film until the last possible moment, merrily quipped, "Nobody ever built a statue to a critic."Kevin Smith went even further, launching into an obscenity-laced blog tirade after learning that "Good Morning America" critic Joel Siegel had walked out of "Clerks II" in a huff. "Cardinal rule of movie-going — shut your ... mouth while the movie's playing," Smith wrote. "Leave the drama-queen antics to the movie stars."To add insult to injury, studios have released a record number of films this year without any press screenings — two last weekend alone, with another, New Line's "Snakes on a Plane," due Friday. Warners also has a no-screening plan for Neil LaBute's "The Wicker Man," which arrives Sept. 1.The media have been full of stories questioning the relevance of print critics in an Internet era that has ushered in a new democratization of opinion. The prospect of babbling blogmeisters being the new kingpins of cinema has left many critics in a sour mood. Reviewing a collection of critical essays by the long-time Village Voice jazz critic Gary Giddins, Time film critic Richard Schickel contrasted Giddins' work with "history-free and sensibility-deprived" bloggers who regularly "blurb the latest Hollywood effulgence."Old-school critics get little sympathy from
Re: [MOPO] Music to the ears of the popCORN crowd
Kirby,
Right. That's what I meant about the wrongness of his sweeping statement --
no one in their right critical mind would claim, as Golstein did, that the
"The vanguard filmmakers of the '60s " were limited to being"under the
spell of the intellectual fervor sparked by existentialism and Marxism."
What hogwash. The pseudo-intellectualism ofso many of hisgeneration
of critics is the *real* reason hardly anyone pays much attention to them
anymore.
-- JR
- Original Message -
From: Kirby McDaniel
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 14:28
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Music to the ears of the popCORN
crowd
I understand what you are saying, but I must say I agree with him
in part, but I would not limit to only these three. Truffaut, Sam Fuller,
Fellini, several others, as well as real mavericks like Robert Altman.
K.
On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:49 AM, JR wrote:
Kirby,
The short answer to your question is "Yes, of course". I mean, with the
kind of success these empty-headed filmshavebeenenjoying for
many years now, why wouldn't we seen summers like this indefinitely? The
"summers" have now extended all the way through to Christmas now, and start
earlier as well. And while I agree that it's sad that the real
criticsare being replaced by bloggers, it's kind of silly for Golstein
to lament something like what the New Line publicist says "...A review from
one of their peers is more important than a printed review..." because that
was *always* true. Most people have always paid more attention to the
word-of-mouth a film was getting than the printed reviews.
The problem with defaulting to the internet and bloggers is not only the
fact that most of them are idiots, but it is so easy for a studio to set up
its own cadre of bloggers as an integral part of the PR departments that
"reviews" of new movies will be meaningless, totally without context or
provenance. I think people are going to end up relying more and more on lists
like MOPO and other group forums where they can get opinions from people they
know. I have for some time now. At leastthat wayI know the
opinions are not being bought and paid for by the studio, which you no longer
do with either the bloggers or the printed critics.
Although I've always read printed film critics, I have to say that I was
never all that impressed with them overall, and when Goldstein makes a
sweeping, mostly untrue and buzz word-laced statement like this:
"The vanguard filmmakers of the '60s the era that spawned our last
great generation of critics were Godard, Kubrick and Antonioni, filmmakers
under the spell of the intellectual fervor sparked by existentialism and
Marxism. The filmmakers with a youth-culture following today, be it Kevin
Smith, Quentin Tarantino or Wes Anderson, are largely ideology free, masters
of detachment and stylistic homage. Like their audience, they prefer irony to
Big Ideas."
... I remember why.
-- JR
- Original Message
-
From: Kirby
McDaniel
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Thursday,
August 17, 2006 11:09
Subject: [MOPO]
Music to the ears of the popCORN crowd
Film critics not as influential.
Does this mean we can look forward to more summers like this one?
All in all, it's been a rotten
tomato of a summer for America's embattled film
critics.
By Patrick
Goldstein
Times Staff
Writer
August 15,
2006
Who says
critics don't matter anymore? The new trailer for Paramount's upcoming
numskull comedy "Jackass: Number Two" is full of quotes from reviews of the
first movie. There's just one tiny twist: The studio uses the vitriolic
reviews attacking the first film ("A disgusting, repulsive, grotesque
spectacle" says an aghast Richard Roeper) to promote the new
picture.
With a sly,
leering note of triumph, the narrator intones: "Unfortunately for them, we
just made 'Number Two.' "
All in all,
it's been a rotten tomato of a summer for America's embattled film critics.
"Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" broke box-office records left and
right, despite a yowling chorus of negative reviews. M. Night Shyamalan cast
Bob Balaban as a persnickety film critic in "Lady in the Water," then
gleefully killed him off, allowing a snarling jackal-like creature to do the
dirty deed.
Sony Corp.
chief Howard Stringer, asked after the huge opening of "The Da Vinci Code" why
the studio kept reviewers away from the film until the last possible moment,
merrily quipped, "Nobody ever built a statue to a
critic."
Kevin Smith
went even further, launching into an obscenity-laced blog tirade after
learning that "Good Morning America" critic Joel Siegel had walked out of
"Clerks II" in a huff. "Cardinal rule of movie-going shut your ... mouth
while the movie's playing,"
