comment #1

Joe Leydon says ...

Actually, while researching my master's thesis, I found a lot of savage pans, in Variety and elsewhere, of 60s and 70s films we now pretty much take for granted as classics, or at least very important. Go back and check out Murphy's scathing review of Harold and Maude, Time magazine's put-down of Alfie, Bosley Crowther's infamous takedown of Bonnie and Clyde, Vincent Canby's not-very-enthusiastic response to Chinatown, etc.

comment #2

Doug Pratt says ...

Does Coppola mean that someday Jack and Gardens of Stone are going to be popular?

comment #3

swhitty says ...

I interviewed FFC earlier in the day, and that's clearly the prism through which he views things -- he swore that ALL of his '70s films (including both "Godfather"s, "Apocalypse Now" and "The Conversation") had gotten poor critical reactions when they were released. I remember "Apocalypse" getting its share of pans, but "Godfather II" and "The Conversation"?

I wonder if he isn't already preparing himself for a bad reaction to "Youth Without Youth," convincing himself he was never the critics' favorite anyway, but that the naysayers always come around in the end.

comment #4

Edward Havens says ...

Jeffrey, there is a difference between a terrible review and a savage pan. Maybe to Coppola, a mixed review is terrible. It certainly isn't terrific.

comment #5

Gordie Lachance says ...

Coppala has a valid point. This is what the New York Times said about Godfather 2:

"The only remarkable thing about Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, Part II is the insistent manner in which it recalls how much better his original film was.

Written by Mr. Coppola and Mario Puzo, Godfather 2 is not a sequel in any engaging way. It's not really much of anything that can be easily defined."

30 years later they named it one of the 1000 best movies of all time.

comment #6

Bilge says ...

Film critics are always hedging their bets in that annoying it's-great-but-it's-also-not-lest-I-seem-too-enthusiastic kind of way. Here's Vincent Canby on THE CONVERSATION:

"Mr. Coppola, the writer as well as the director, has nearly succeeded in making a great film but has, instead, made one that is merely very good."

I mean, it's a fine review and all, but jesus.

comment #7

rocco says ...

For a film that is universally recognized as the pinnacle of its art-form, I would read those comments as a slam. It's all relative...

comment #8

Silverscreenvideos says ...

Psycho was poorly reviewed when it first came out.

I do think that critics are afraid to go out on a limb for a radically different type of film and often hedge their bets until a few others are willing to come out in favor of it.

comment #9

JD says ...

I know Silverscreenvideos, and I still think it's one of Gus Van Sant's most interesting films.

comment #10

christian says ...

Critics are as wrong as they are right. And they

Andrew Sarris hated MEDIUM COOL. Ebert panned THE THING and BLUE VELVET. Kael despised A CLOCKWORK ORANGE but adored SCROOGED. Wells loved MIAMI VICE. John Simon eviserated MANHATTAN. Rex Reed...just joking.

comment #11

MAGGA says ...

Jeffrey Wells took down Munich

comment #12

rgmax99 says ...

I remember Hero and the Terror received terrible reviews when it was released.

comment #13

Hopscotch says ...

Wells also defended Pearl Harbor and Planet of the Apes. Yikes!

Of course in ten years the critics will look back and say "We said Knocked Up is a comedy classic? what the fuck were we smoking?".

Siskel panned Silence of the Lambs. Ebert didn't like Raising Arizona. They're critics, they're imperfect. They don't have years to mull over movies, they have 24 hrs usually or less.

comment #14

Mike Ock says ...

http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117977065.html?nav=news&categoryid=1983&cs=1

The National Board of Review has announced that "No Country for Old Men" has won top honors as best film.

The other winners:

Director:

Tim Burton, "Sweeney Todd"

Actor:

George Clooney, "Michael Clayton"

Actress:

Julie Christie, "Away From Her"

Supporting Actor:

Casey Affleck, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"

Supporting Actress:

Amy Ryan, "Gone Baby Gone"

Foreign Film:

"The Diving Bell And The Butterfly"

Documentary:

"Body Of War"

Animated Feature:

"Ratatouille"

Ensemble Cast:

"No Country For Old Men"

Breakthrough Performance by an Actor:

Emile Hirsch, "Into The Wild"

Breakthrough Performance by an Actress:

Ellen Page, "Juno"

Best Directorial Debut:

Ben Affleck, "Gone Baby Gone"

Best Original Screenplay (tie):

Diablo Cody, "Juno" and Nancy Oliver, "Lars and the Real Girl"

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Joel and Ethan Coen, "No Country For Old Men"

Besides "No Country," here's NBR's top ten, in alphabetical order:

"The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford"

"Atonement"

"The Bourne Ultimatum"

"The Bucket List"

"Into The Wild"

"Juno"

"The Kite Runner"

"Lars And The Real Girl"

"Michael Clayton"

"Sweeney Todd"

comment #15

p.Vice says ...

I love how the NBR's best foreign film is made by an American.

And only Sandy Kane could approve of that pitiful choice for Best Actor.

Most surprising omission? Before the Devil. Best omission? American Gangster.

comment #16

BNick says ...

Wow, a very oddball list in some ways.

I'm dancing for joy that Lars and Jesse James made it onto that list, and of course that No Country took the top prize.

comment #17

PerfectTommy says ...

"No Country for Old Men" on top is cool.

But "The Bucket List"? Maybe is will surprise...but...

comment #18

actionman says ...

The Bucket List and Lars over American Gangster? Um....nope.

But overall, good picks. AWESOME for JJ and Into the Wild.

comment #19

Bilge says ...

Credit where it's due: That's a pretty great list from the NBR. Some notable omissions, sure, and I'm no fan of Clooney in MC, but still, Casey Affleck, Amy Ryan, Ben Affleck...those are both strong and unexpected choices.

comment #20

JD says ...

Shitty, shitty list, though No Country as best picture does earn them a little bit of street cred. I'm really not getting this new impulse of giving awards to the most annoying script of the year: Juno AND Lars and the Real Girl! Of course, compared to the agonizingly awful Lars, Juno is a masterpiece.

comment #21

George Prager says ...

The Filthy Critic hated DEEP BLUE SEA

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/deepbluesea.html

comment #22

TakeMeBackToManhattan says ...

Aside from the glaringly dubious inclusion of "The Bucket List", does anyone have a problem with "The Bourne Ultimatum" being on here? It's very, very good, but a top ten selection in such a strong year? Not really buying it.

comment #23

BNick says ...

Sorry to hear so many people dissing Lars. I'm only seeing Juno today so I can't compare the two, but I found Lars to be subtle, brilliant, and touching.

comment #24

Terry McCarty says ...

Re Christian's post:
Ebert also panned LAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH as well.

comment #25

Terry McCarty says ...

Sorry, FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH. Apparently the sexuality in that film and BLUE VELVET weren't "healthy" enough for Roger, the co-writer of BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS with its "healthy" climactic scenes.

comment #26

BNick says ...

Bourne was great but I'm disappointed they included it instead of a movie like Once, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, or Zodiac, which are more deserving and could have used the press.

comment #27

christian says ...

God Bless Roger but I don't think I've ever agreed on his critical takes. I just can't get over his pan of BIG TROUBLE IN LITLE CHINA and praise for THE GOLDEN CHILD -- and TGC was supposed to be directed by Carpenter too.

I always remember Siskel and Ebert giving Dog of the Week to THE EVIL DEAD. I was outraged!

comment #28

Mike Ock says ...

Ebert also panned The Usual Suspects.

comment #29

115thDreamer says ...

Nice....great that "No Country For Old Men" won - that's a bit of a surprise. They did the right thing - give the top prize to the deserving film, then sprinkle in some populist stuff ("Bucket List", "Bourne") among the Top 10. Still - Clooney wins Best Actor? I think we need to alert Boston PD so that they can surround the theater that Jeff's at right now - that way they can taser him the instant the screening ends, before he freaks out upon hearing the news.

comment #30

George Prager says ...

"Ebert also panned The Usual Suspects."

He was right. That movie is a piece of shit.

comment #31

RoyBatty says ...

rgmax99 - then you remember wrong (re HERO AND THE TERROR)

Every time the film comes on TV I am tempted to watch it because several critics actually gave it good reviews, which would stick out in anyone's mind because its a Chuck Norris film.

Who is that changed their opinion about BONNIE & CLYDE from bad film to good? Was that Ebert? Now, I can understand deciding that a film you first thought of as only decent/good becomes much better (for me, it was GO that has become a minor classic after several repeat viewings).

But how can you so completely miss a film that you later decide a bad one is actually good?

comment #32

Terry McCarty says ...

RoyBatty asked:
Who is that changed their opinion about BONNIE & CLYDE from bad film to good?

Joe Morgenstern did, back when he was writing for NEWSWEEK.

comment #33

christian says ...

It was Joseph Morgenstern at Newsweek who did his famous about face on B&C.

I guess I find it rare that my first impression on a film changes. Offhand, I can't think of any major films that I've seriously re-evaluated over the years except for some that lost stature in my mind's list.

comment #34

Mike Ock says ...

"He was right. That movie is a piece of shit."

Really? What didnt you like about it George?

comment #35

Bilge says ...

Andrew Sarris famously changed his opinion on 2001 (and Kubrick in general) after helping lead the charge against it back in 1968, and even well into the early 70s.

Critics change their opinions all the time, just like ordinary people do. It's jut that critics have more to live down, because so often their initial opinions are there in black and white for all to see. It's our most common work hazard.

For my part, I hated CHINATOWN the first time I saw it, and now it's one of my favorite films of all time.

comment #36

George Prager says ...

The fact that it sucked.

comment #37

erniesouchak says ...

Of course Francis exaggerated. He's Italian.

comment #38

T. Holly says ...

My credibility must have gone way down when I told him I had a crush on Anton Chigurh.

http://davidchute.journalspace.com/?cmd=forward&entryid=672

comment #39

DarthCorleone says ...

I've always wondered if Ebert's pan of Fast Times At Ridgemont High, which if I remember correctly was very focused on the inappropriateness of exploiting a young Jennifer Jason Leigh, has something to do with a protective impulse he has specifically related to her. His zero-star pan of The Hitcher made particular mention of how tasteless it was to to put her in a movie with a helicopter accident.

comment #40

christian says ...

Which is interesting since Leigh's nude shot in FAST TIMES is spectacularly unerotic. And intentionally so.

Phoebe Cates on the other hand (no pun etc)...

comment #41

DarthCorleone says ...

christian>> By the way, there's room in my heart for both Big Trouble In Little China and The Golden Child. The first is superior, of course. But, yeah, Ebert, like any critic, has some inexplicable self-divergences at times.

comment #42

KeithNYC says ...

I believe Anthony Lane panned "Pulp Fiction" in the New Yorker. The only major critic that I remember (Michael Medved doesn't count) not loving that film when it was released. I am sure D.Z. is a big fan of Lane.

Of course Siskel and Ebert gave marginal thumbs down to "Reservoir Dogs".

comment #43

p.Vice says ...

George Prager, you are a man of few words but much wisdom.

comment #44

le corbeau says ...

I'm kind of surprised everyone thinks it's a crime to have gotten it wrong about something when it was new.

Surely it's better to have critics who wrestle with things and describe their own progress than critics who make sure they exactly match the conventional wisdom.

Read Bosley Crowther's pan of Bonnie and Clyde, and then read the appraisal of it a few years later in one of his books, and you get a real sense of how shocking and new the violence, and more than that the joking attitude toward the violence, was. Even better, read his review of Dr. Strangelove, which he admired quite a bit but finally felt went too far in turning horror into comedy, and then read how he fought tooth and nail to give it, rather than My Fair Lady, the New York Critics Circle prize for Best Film, and you'll be reminded that all this year-end stuff actually mattered once, and was worth fighting about.

comment #45

The Pope says ...

And while its playing in very select theatres, what of the original reaction to Blade Runner? And why the adulation now? People say the movie never needed the voice-over... but that was surely (at least in part) because when they saw it without the voice-over they already knew the story so they were not all that confused. Critics I think are allowed to change their minds... and they should. Most people panned Blade Runner when it came out and now, many of those same critics are singing its praises.

comment #46

dixiedugan says ...

Gee...I really love Gardens Of Stone.

That's true Mgmax...critics really didn't like Blade Runner when released. I wonder if they took a second look because of the cult-like status it's had over the years...maybe?

comment #47

Josh Massey says ...

Ebert slammed my favorite film, but when somebody puts his opinion out there for as long as he has, you're bound to have some serious disagreements. I am able to overlook.

And oh yes, my favorite film is Die Hard.

comment #48

thatmovieguy says ...

BLADE RUNNER was shelled by the critics and audiences alike in 1982. And Warner Bros. tried to sell it as an action-packed erotic thriller, with TV commercials that did a lousy job of preparing viewers for what they were getting themselves into. I went to the first screening on opening day at my local theater and there were several walk-outs. People said it looked great (and Daryl Hannah got a lot of attention), but it was boring, it didn't make any sense, Harrison Ford was just awful, etc. It also had the great misfortune to open within a few weeks of POLTERGEIST and E.T. and only a few days before John Carpenter's THE THING, which was much easier for action fans to "get." But about two years later it started to be screened on college campuses and as a midnight movie and -- voila! -- a cult was born. It really is an acquired taste, a film that actually benefits from repeat viewings.

comment #49

George Prager says ...

Rex Reed hated 52 PICK-UP.

comment #50

christian says ...

Crowther's reviw of DR. STRANGELOVE was cautionary to say the least. He admits he's uncomfortable with a film mocking the most powerful men in Washington. You could say he got it but refused it.

And a lot of folk point out that Crowther's repeated attacks on BONNIE & CLYDE helped turn people onto Kael. I can understand Crowther's complaint; it's like that of critics against RESERVOIR DOGS for being so objective about the gangster's morality. Like RD, BONNIE & CLYDE represents a new film generation.

John Simon did a re-review of B&C, but of couse only re-confirmed his earlier take.

comment #51

frankbooth says ...

But The Thing bombed too, thatmovieguy. It's a lot like Blade Runner, in that it also got a lousy critical and boxoffice reception and is now beloved.

comment #52

erniesouchak says ...

Actually, Ken Turan was another major critic who panned "Pulp Fiction" upon its release. And rightfully so.

comment #53

T. S. Idiot says ...

Sarris has frequently reassessed his famous 1968 evaluations of directors in The American Cinema, generally elevating their status. In Second Sight, Schickel second guesses his original reviews. With the exception of Kael, who claimed never to see movies a second time, all critics change their minds.

comment #54

le corbeau says ...

Find Crowther's book (I think it's called Memories). He looks again at about 50 films, including ones he hadn't liked at the time, and is pretty perceptive about why he didn't get them at first-- though he never quite comes out and says part of the reason was that his personal tastes were sort of stifled by being the institutional voice of the Times and the Establishment. Anyway, you'll think more of his writing after reading that, and also think that nobody should hold the job of critic at the NYT for 30 years ever again.

comment #55

rocco says ...

Ebert's slam of 'Die Hard' is one of the biggest head-scratchers I've come across. It is the ultimate lone-hero action movie...sure it spawned an entire generation of awful imitators, but that doesn't detract from its originality, wit, or Christmas spirit.

Christian, I HATED, LOATHED 'The Big Lebowski' upon first viewing. Now, depending on how I'm feeling, it might top my list of all-time favorites. Same thing for 'Ron Burgundy,' although it's not near the top of any list...

comment #56

Josh Massey says ...

"Ebert's slam of 'Die Hard' is one of the biggest head-scratchers..."

Especially given that he gave good reviews to the far inferior sequels.

comment #57

alynch says ...

"Ebert's slam of 'Die Hard' is one of the biggest head-scratchers.."

Absolutely. If you actually read his review, it just comes off so odd. He likes just about every part of the movie, except for Paul Gleason's character, and that single minor character suddenly makes him dislike the movie as a whole.

comment #58

Josh Massey says ...

A few years ago, I saw Paul Gleason having drinks with Robert Duvall at the Four Seasons. I couldn't decide who I was more excited about seeing.

I mean, come on, the man was in Die Hard.

comment #59

rocco says ...

I remember reading Ebert's review aloud to my sophomore year roommate, a film major...we could not get over Ebert's fixation on Gleason's character....very strange.

comment #60

DavidF says ...

I remember Ebert hating Fast Times & Blue Velvet too - IIRC, it was in both cases that he felt the actress (Leigh, Rosselini) was being exploited in some way - PARTICULARLY in Lynch's case. Rosselini's "degradation" prevented him from seeing anything else.

That said, a lot of these movies are ones that most people-even critics- don't "get" on first viewing. Most people are impressed the first time they see Blade Runner, for example, but you have to watch it more than once to get it. 2001 is probably the best example - anyone who says they loved it or understood it on first viewing is simply lying. You can appreciate that something is going on there, but it takes time to sink in.

I think record critics are obligated to listen to an album several times before writing a review. I'm assuming that the vast majority of the time film reviews are being written right after a single viewing.

It's worth remembering that Ebert has also championed some films (Say Anything and Dark City come to mind) that are very worthy of being elevated beyond the superficial impressions most people would have.

Also, IMHO, Die Hard is the best Christmas movie ever made. Take that, Frank Capra.

comment #61

BurmaShave says ...

My mom's car is in GARDENS OF STONE. '67 Plymouth Barracuda.

comment #62

christian says ...

Barracuda!