The Ten Worst Movies I Personally Saw: (also in no order)
Oscar & Lucinda
The Wedding Singer
Bulworth
X-Files: Fight of/for/from (the) Future
Rothschild's Violin
Underground
Snake Eyes
Can't Hardly Wait
Pleasantville
What Dreams May Come
Terminal essay: I See Everything Twice!
An incredible twelve movies came in twos, like beasts on Noah's
Ark: two animated ant movies, two Elizabethean films with almost
the same cast, two asteroid/comet disaster films, two awful Adam
Sandler movies, two old UK actor/young US actor homoerotic
longing films, two Christina Ricci smutty arthouse films, two
schmaltzy Robin Williams films, two stuck-in-a-TV-show films, two
films with Woody Allen's words being projected through a stand-
in, two films with gross semen shots, two WWII epics, two
"restored" classics that weren't even always in focus. That's
not even mentioning the two let's-learn-to-masturbate scenes
(from Slums of Beverly Hills and Pleasantville). Hollywood has
always been known for copying itself, but usually it waits
longer.
DESPERATELY SEEKING FILM CRITIC. Must be more than twelve years
old (that means not you, Mick La Salle), and willing to place
honest reviewing over being politically correct or pretentious.
Who can I trust for a good film review? It's not like I'm asking
for the world, I don't need Pauline Kael to come over to the
house and give me the long version of whether a film is worth
seeing. I could get by with a middling reviewer, even someone
whose personal tastes disagreed with mine as long as they were
honest about it.
In this day and age, movie criticism is a fragmented, partisan
discipline. There are critics who love everything (Paul Wunder,
anyone?), critics who pander to a demographic average that I have
nothing in common with (Ebert), critics still in grade school
(though Mr. La Salle must have been held back several times by
now) and critics who should be more discriminating but aren't
(Janet Maslin).
The ones I hate most are critics who consider themselves so cool
that their top ten lists include at least three movies that you
could only see at film festivals in other countries, weren't
going to come out for several more months, or were from
Qatar/North Korea/Guinea-Bissau. These people almost
automatically hate any movie that other critics like, which is
too bad because they are obviously intelligent people. Michael
Sragow, for example, used to review movies for the New Yorker.
Michael Covino had his novel reviewed (or should I say "trashed")
in the New York Times.
So who am I left with to guide me through the thicket of
cinematic releases? Each year the number of films increases, and
publicity campaigns threaten to overtake all forms of public
discourse. Who can you trust?
I used to put a lot of stock in Barbara Shulgasser, late of the
San Francisco Examiner. She was willing to love an obscure film
(like Halafoune, Boy of the Terraces) as well as admit to liking
a bad film in spite of herself (like George of the Jungle). But
Barbara is gone now.
For a while I thought that Salon, with its lush movie reviews,
might be the perfect answer. After all, Charles Taylor was right
on the money when he called Bulworth a disaster. But Taylor was
also the one who wrote the fawning review of the "Great
Expectations" remake with Gwyneth Paltrow as the naked blond. He
can't be trusted. Taylor also admits to RECOMMENDING the
God-awful film version of Oscar & Lucinda!
With the Internet, thousands of film critics are only a click
away, but I still thought I should give the local reviewers a
fair hearing. After all, they are the people whose work I browse
through every morning. What follows is a roundup of the critics
I looked into, both national and local. A good way to determine
a critic's compatibility is to see what they thought of certain
movies that sucked but were very typical of a certain genre, or
contrariwise, movies that were very good but typical of a genre
that critics like to pooh-pooh.
1998 had its share of litmus-test movies. We can use these to
check out the critics; their biases will be laid bare: who loves
pretentious movies uncritically? Who hates popular movies
uncritically? Who looks down on comedies uncritically? Who
praises any movie from a third-world country uncritically? Now
is the time to find out.
LITMUS TEST 1: Dour Scandinavian experimental movies are the best
Is The Celebration a classic, as Edward Guthmann maintains, or is
it a pompous, gussied-up soapish family saga, as Kelly Vance
insists?
LITMUS TEST 2: Woody Allen can do no wrong
Are Woody's sketches in Celebrity "sharp and bitter as ever,"
does Kenneth Branagh's imitation of Woody "amusing", as Kelly
Vance maintains, or does Branagh "annoyingly mimic" Allen (E.
Guthmann)?
LITMUS TEST 3: Judging a movie by its politics
Did Bulworth really belong on people's Top 10 lists, or did it
belong in the garbage?
LITMUS TEST 4: the movie from where-istan?
Is Gadjo Dilo "an instant classic," as Kelly Vance insists, or is
it a wandering go-nowhere film? Does Saltmen of Tibet truly
belong on this year's top ten, or were people just amazed that
ANYONE got footage of such a thing?
LITMUS TEST 5: All hail Merchant and Ivory
Do costumes the picture make? (Many boring costume dramas to
choose from this and every year!)
LITMUS TEST 6: True talent comes from the 'Hood
Is Slam "a smashingly naturalistic, uplifting" film (Kelly
Vance), or just a really long music video?
Is Beloved good (E. Guthmann) or bad (me!)?
LITMUS TEST 7: Does mass acceptance disqualify true genius?
Is Happiness just a great fucking film, or is it full of
"misaimed yuks" (KV)? Does There's Something About Mary deserve
the highest rating (B. Graham), or was it just dumb? Is Buffalo
'66 good or bad?
The real development for the year was the continued growth of the
Internet Movie Database, which among other things enables
moviegoers to break out of the in-your-face no-perspective movie
media caravan, and see reviewers in a broader perspective.
Thanks to the Web, we have finally entered the age of Instant
Critic Comparisons. The local paper, with insipid Mick La Salle,
suddenly loses preeminence, finally! Without further ado, then,
the 1998 Critic Roundup.
LOCAL PAPER 1: THE CHRONICLE
The Chron's reviewers are Mick LaSalle, Ruthe Stein, Peter
Stack, Edward Guthmann and Bob Graham. Mr. LaSalle loves action
films and is not fit to be a reviewer. Ms. Stein doesn't get out
much (she loved "The Governess"), but her top 10 list included
only one puzzler (Pleasantville). She may have loved the
Governess for politically correct reasons, but she also does not
review near as many films as the others. Peter Stack is
competent enough, I suppose, but doesn't do anything for me.
He's been at the Chron for ages and his top 10 was just of family
films.
That leaves two critics, Edward Guthmann and Bob Graham.
Mr. Guthmann has many admirable qualities, so I checked his
recent reviews for biases. Here's how he stacked up: he passed
the basic reviewer sanity test (panning "My Giant"), passed the
Woody Allen test (was able to give "Celebrity" a bad review),
passed the New Yorker test (he called Mrs. Dalloway "tedious") -
will the NY ever live that down?) and liked many good films (he
gave Happiness 3 stars, but then put it on his Top 10 list, and
at least gave Gummo a fair review, and he correctly labeled
Pleasantville as mediocre), but showed his hand with an inability
to dislike bad films that were politically correct (he gave
TOTALLY uncritical reviews to both Bulworth and Beloved) or euro-
pretentious (also loved Celebration, The Boxer AND Mother and
Son, but disliked Character even though it was good but not
great).
Bob Graham is the papers most precious reviewer. He is the
one they sent to watch The Eel, and Buffalo '66, both of which he
put on his top 10 list. If he has a fault, it is his love of
unheard-of or hard-to-see films, to wit: his top 10 list included
Wong Kar-Wai's 1995 Fallen Angels, HK CGI cartoon action flick
The Stormriders, AND "Saltmen of Tibet," this year's litmus test
for unseeable 3rd world docuboredom. On the good side, he was
man enough to put Something About Mary on his top 10 list, where
it belongs, despite its being very non-pretentious and very
popular, and also very stupid.
LOCAL PAPER 2: THE EXAMINER
The Examiner took a big hit this fall when Barbara
Shulgasser left to write movies instead of review them. They
still haven't replaced her.
LOCAL PAPER 3: THE GUARDIAN
Dennis Harvey's top film roundup looked mostly good (dark
city, happiness, l&d on long island), but he also included
Bulworth, Chinese Box, Out of Sight and a film called "Mother and
Son" that I've never heard of, and "Love is the Devil" which I
think was some pretentious european film. He even begrudgingly
put Private Ryan on his list, showing he won't deny a good film
out of his list even if it was both popular and corny. Howevr,
Dennis Harvey felt Life is Beautiful was "beneath contempt." So
it's either bad, or he just can't separate art from the subject
matter.
Edward E. Crouse's top 10 list included Snake Eyes (!) and
Fear & Loathing, so he just can't be trusted AT ALL. He also
included Barney's Great Adventure, say no more.
Chuck Stephens admits he never wants to see Titanic, EVER.
His little world view would apparently crack like an egg if a
popular film was actually good. He also slammed Happiness,
probably because it was too popular. And A Simple Plan, probably
for the same reasons. However, backlashing the backlashers, he
praises Something About Mary, because it's so unhip-it's cool all
over again. His fave list includes totally unheard of films by
Hong Sang-hoo, Tasi Ming-liang ("Tsai's first musical" he
gushes), Hou Hsiao-hsien, Takeshi Kitano, Takashi Ishii,
Mochizuki Rokuro, Wang Guang-li, Park Ki-hyung AND Kim Ki-young.
A stereotypical uber-critic.
LOCAL PAPER 4: THE SF WEEKLY
The Weekly's Michael Sragow is definitely a critic's critic.
As in, he has impeccable credentials, and loves the classics, and
hates popular films. He is the one to read when Vertigo is
rereleased, but can't be trusted for routine movies.
LOCAL PAPER 5: THE EXPRESS
The Express has a pair of smart but pompous critics, Michael
Covino and Kelly Vance. Their reviews are all over the map-
sometimes they love politically correct films, and sometimes they
poo-pooh films because other critics like them. They also both
have a penchant for unreleased or hard-to-find films.
OTHER PAPERS
NEW YORK NEWSDAY - PRETTY GOOD REVIEWS
I found a decent review by John Andersion, via the Internet Movie
Database. His review was almost literary, as if he were the book
review editor. I like that! He sounds like he knows what he's
doing, but there is no clear way to check his archive.
ENTERTAINMENT WEAKLY BOWS OUT OF CREDIBILITY CONTEST
Critic One, Owen Glieberman, put both Slam and Two Girls and a
Guy on his top 10 list.
Critic Two, who I can't even remember her name right now, had a
pretty sucky list too.
Crash and Burn: the Chicago Reader's Jonathan Rosenbaum
The more obscure the film, the better for Mr. Rosenbaum, who
complains from year to year about how hard it is to view foreign
or non-mainstream films. Nothing wrong with that lament per se,
but when pressed for recommending films you could actually watch,
he reveals his hand: the love of individualism over quality. To
wit, he liked Lost Highway AND Crash, She's So Lovely, that movie
where Liv Tyler loses her virginity, Telling Lies in America,
Dead Man, Amistad, Contact, Liar Liar AND Kull the Conqueror.
Say no more.
THE MIGHTY WASHINGTON POST
Critic 1: Stephen Hunter's top 10 movies of 1998:
1. "Saving Private Ryan"
2. "Touch of Evil"
3. "Little Voice"
4. "The Last Days of Disco"
5. "The Opposite of Sex"
6. "Shakespeare in Love"
7. "A Simple Plan"
8. "Happiness"
9. "Love and Death on Long Island"
10. "The Prince of Egypt"
Worst: "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
Critic 2: Rita Kempley's top 10 movies of 1998:
1. "The Truman Show"
2. "Gods and Monsters"
3. "Saving Private Ryan"
4. "Shakespeare in Love"
5. "Primary Colors"
6. "Waking Ned Devine"
7. "Pi"
8. "One True Thing"
9. "Ever After"
10. "Life Is Beautiful"
Worst: "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
I would say that seems like they can MOSTLY be trusted. Hunter
also liked The Impostors, or at least said it was the only
attempt this year at intelligent comedy.