Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Lock Me Up! - Red Flag Netflix Rant of the Week
"When a film this good gets panned so badly, you have to wonder what made the critics sulk. This time, the critics have opened their trench coats to expose their hypocrisies! Critics, like paparazzi, are parasites: few of them have ever created anything; instead, they live off the inspiration of others. What novel, what movie, what play has not been torn apart by at least some critics? Think of greats like Dickens, Hemingway, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock…Some critic somewhere belittled their visions and their creations. The Hollywood/New York critics and the paparazzi walk hand and hand, so perhaps they feel protective of each other. Suddenly, a film that is well acted, written, and directed, is demonized. Suddenly, in this age of senselessly violent movies that get called "artistic," "bold," etc., a movie in which parasitic photographers get what's coming to them is persecuted for not living up to the old Hayes Code standard of crime not paying and murderers always being brought to justice. This movie is funny, exciting, and satisfying, and there is very little graphic violence. How could it receive 1 or even 0 stars unless the critic is angry about the spotlight being swung in his or her direction? How dare a Hollywood insider, like Mr. Gibson, laughingly throw a little sand in the out of control publicity machine? Hmmm?" ("Paparazzi")
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

6 comments:
Speaking of critics, here's the Ebert List that I was telling you about.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=greatmovies_first100
gbomb
Thanks for the link, Guphy. Ebert is currently up to 307 movies, and I've seen about 70-75 percent of them. Most of the ones I'm missing are on my list to become eventual E Street films. I read his review for "A Prairie Home Companion", and I gotta say that even Ebert doesn't sound convinced that it belongs on the list. Much of his affection for the film seems related to it being Altman's last (he also claims to love his penultimate picture, the similarly underwhelming "The Company").
By the way, great MidMo article, Guphy!
-DB
307? Oh, you wily Ebert! I only committed to 100! I will watch them though. Or at least try. I think "12 Angry Men" is next for me. And Pickpocket is on his list so I'll watch it with the club.
Thanks! I haven't seen the new issue yet, I think I'll take an unscheduled break and try to find one.
g
The list of 100 was just the first 100 films he covered for the column. It looks like he has been doing 1 every 2 weeks since 1997, so that comes to just over 300. However, he does "cheat" somewhat by including trilogies (e.g., the Three Colors films), series (e.g., "The Decalogue"; fucking Kieslowski!), and even broad categories like "The Films of Buster Keaton" or "Chuck Jones cartoons". All in all, however, it's a pretty solid list.
I am not going to watch a 10 hour polish movie, not even for Ebert. I think it's a pretty good list. He is a little campy, which I like. You as know as well as CH from Dunuba and I do that film critics can occasionally be a bit too highbrow.
g
I am NOT a fan of film critics. Whoever started that rumor needs to quelch it ASAP. My least favorite film critic might be noted film critic-basher/scumbag Harvey Weinstein, who often reviews movies for The Daily Beast. His review for "Public Enemies" even contains the CH-from-Dinuba-esque line, "This is Michael Mann at the height of his height."
Post a Comment