Category: Cinematically Speaking…

To fufill my critical responsibilities at filmcritic.com, I have to divise a Top Ten Films of 2002 List. No categories, no explanation, just a list.

Wanna help?

Town Without Pity (1961): A great way to tie a bow around a film that doesn’t have much going for it is to title it after a popular song and then play that song endlessly.

Riding in Cars with Boys (2001): Getting pregnant can be the best thing that happens to you especially if you’re pretty damn smart already.

The Eminem vehicle 8 Mile has debuted at #1, raking in $54.5 million at the box office this weekend. I remember thinking vaguely to myself when I first saw the trailer, Eminem is going to evade our criticisms once again and make a good movie. Or maybe I just wanted him too because we’re fellow Southeast Michigan boys and I’ll see any movie set in Detroit.

I’m glad, actually. Reading Frank Rich’s cover story about Enimen in last week’s New York Times magazine confirmed that 8 Mile is really just Saturday Night Fever or Coal Miner’s Daughter with hip hop as the musical form of escape. And I really really like those kind of movies.

In my newest review for Film Critic.com, one reader wrote in to tell me I was talking about “Character-driven” films in my first paragraph. In retrospect, I probably should have known that.

Twentieth Century Fox has delayed the November 15th release of the movie Phone Booth because of its vague resemblance to the recent sniper attacks in Washington D.C.

I’m pretty disappointed since the Phone Booth trailer rocked (and like a bunch of cowards, Apple Trailers seemed to have pulled it) and reminded me more of Miracle Mile, an overlooked Cold War gem in which Anthony Edwards (post-Top Gun, pre-Northern Exposure) idly picks up a ringing pay phone and hears that Russia has launched a nuclear missile that’s heading right for Los Angeles.

I suppose this makes sense from a financial standpoint. After all, who wants their film blacklisted by the headlines? But if Fox or any other studio had a wit of marketing creativity, they’d use Phone Booth’s sudden relevance (Colin Farrell plays a New York wheeler-dealer who answers a phone booth call. On the other end is Kiefer Sutherland, a sniper who will kill Farrell if he tells anyone what’s going on) to their advantage. How about news stories about the psychological profile of a sniper, a tie-in with America’s Most Wanted?

Alas, no. Fox is only saying the movie will be released at some point but doesn’t say when (via DT).

My review of Rules of Attraction is up at Filmcritic.com. I worried after the screening that I was just grouchy and everyone else would love it. At least Roger Ebert agrees with me.

It’s an ok review. It’s been years since I wrote film reviews (thank you, Chris Null, for overlooking that) and I think I’m tentative and prissy with the format. I found myself using the word “artistic” at least four times in the last piece with makes me sound like a third-rate Clement Greenberg instead of, well, me. Hopefully, I’ll grow into it. And forgive myself before then. Hopefully.

DVD Easter Eggs lists (pretty comprehensively) hidden features on your favorite movies, “Easter Egg” being slang for a feature that only reveals itself when you run your mouse over it.

Did you know that oddly placed owl on the main menu of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone will lead you to a whole other menu of options in you click on it? I found that out yesterday.

Sleepers (1996): Mess with your kids and they will mess with you.

I’ve only been reviewing for Filmcritic.com for a few weeks now and so far, it’s been a hoot. At least once a week, founder Chris Null will judiciously edit the hate mail (lots of it) that gets sent to the site and then circulate the most vile nonsense amongst the staff. Most of them are simply sad and pathetic and they usually end up on the site itself. A rare few are so hilarious in the utter hollowness of their indigation that we get them. Like the one I’m about to share with you. My answers (it’s hate mail disguised as a survey) are in italics.

>Chris, you sad little parasite.

Ugh, already a bad sign. Anyone who calls a critic “a parasite” has never been reviewed before and knows nothing about how film journalism works. You make a movie, a critic reviews it. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Deal.

>I would like you to answer a few questions, if it won’t take you away from the very important work that you’re doing.

By all means. That’s why we’re here, right?

>1.) How did you happen to see my film? It isn’t released yet.

Uh, since most film critics have neither smuggling rings nor super powers, probably because you sent us a copy, you twit. And the reason film reviews come out on the same day movies are released is because critics get to see them at special screenings BEFOREHAND. Need we repeat the basics again?
>
>2.) What, do you feel, qualifies you as a movie critic?

Oy jeez, what is this, junior high school? “YOU DON’T KNOW ME. YOU CAN’T CRITICIZE ME? AND STAY AWAY FROM MY LOCKER!”
>
>
>3.) What qualifies anybody as a movie critic?

The easy answer here is “what qualifies anyone to be a filmmaker?” but why get all existential?

>
>4.) Have you ever attempted to create anything of your own? A screenplay? An actual film? A puppet show even? Or are you too busy sitting on the bag of cottage cheese you use for an ass and sucking down twelve-packs of diet coke in front of your computer altar and doling out your sage advice to those of us who haven’t reached the heights you have?

Ya know, every job has an occupational hazard. A film critic’s is listening to pompous spoild brats hurl sour grapes because you gave them a bad review. Everyone gets bad reviews and real filmmakers shrug and say “on to my next project.” GROW UP. Ever hear Martin Scorcese blame the critics? He’s too busy making movies.

Side Note: I’ve never seen this guy’s film but in this question, he tips his hand. I don’t need to see it now because I know it sucks. Anyone who gets personal with a critic is compensating for a three-ton load of insecurity about their own lack of talent. Whining about a bad review is like admiting the review is right.

5.) Do you revere the internet as a device which allows previously unnoticed trolls such as yourself to waddle out from under their bridge of uselesness and feel they are contributing to society in some pathetic way?

*Yawn* They said the same thing about television in 1950, radio in 1920, movies in 1890 and on and on.

>
>6.) Do you agree with the popular theory that critics are doomed to sit on the sidelines as disgruntled observers, jealously slandering those people who have the guts to achieve what the critic can only dream about?

Boyo, this is only a popular theory amongst self-rightous beginning filmmakers resentful of anyone else’s success. Really it’s a myth, like Bigfoot or the Bermuda Triangle. I’ve been reviewing movies for twelve years and have never once met a film critic who wanted to make them. Never. It’s a different skill set, a different personality type. The most powerful ones, like Vincent Canby, Roger Ebert and the late, great Pauline Kael all had the clout and connections to do so and didn’t. Work an honest job for a few days and you’ll realize that few air traffic controllers really want to be pilots and few museum curators really want to be painters. To sum up: No one here envys you. And certainly not after this letter.

7.) Is “presumedly” a word? Or did you and your crack team of geniuses at Critics ‘R Us mean to say “presumably”?

What’s that buzzing noise?

>8.) If you feel that my movie wasted 77 minutes of your life, why would you waste another 15 minutes writing a critique about it?

*echo* *echo*

>9.) What are your five favorite and five least favorite films?

If this is a credibility test, I gave at the office.

>I would appreciate honest answers to all of these questions.

Nothing but the best for you, my friend. See above