michael atkinson. writes for the village voice. someone please steal his thesaurus. i beg you. i don't consciously seek him out but i can't avoid bumping into his high-brow effluvium as i pick through the other village voice critics.

on occasion, he injects his gross political views into the review, which isn't exactly a cardinal sin when you write for the village voice - less partisan self-control, the better - but it does hasten the review's slide into irrelevancy.

Hi My Names Sam And I Absolutely HATE HATE HATE the NY Times film critics....yeah, that means you Elvis Mitchell!!

I really cant stand a review that is formulaic with little or no personality or humor. Ebert's great use of the film review as a venue to educate readers about film as an art form is greatly appreciated by myself. I also really enjoy reading Film Threat but more times than not their opinions are a tad wonky...

I am one of those people that actually look into the critics are are slammed on this forum. So I, of course, checked into Michael Atkinson. Here are a couple of things that I automatically disagree with him on:

He gave "Bubble Boy" and 80, the movie wasn't even worth a watch, much less an 80.

How can anybody give "Hollow Man" a 70? Impossible.

He also seems to have worked with Mr. Showbiz. Overall he appears to be a decent critic. I am curious, however, can you give any instances in which he "injects his gross political views" into his work?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eccentro:
Hi My Names Sam And I Absolutely HATE HATE HATE the NY Times film critics....yeah, that means you Elvis Mitchell!!

I really cant stand a review that is formulaic with little or no personality or humor. Ebert's great use of the film review as a venue to educate readers about film as an art form is greatly appreciated by myself. I also really enjoy reading Film Threat but more times than not their opinions are a tad wonky...

---

I've always trusted/liked the NY times reviews. I always look at what they gave the movie first. Im curious to know how they are weighed comparisant to everyone else. I dont know, I would have to look into all of their reviews personally to go with the subject.

I agree that the Times reviews are not very interesting to read, but I have to say that I do trust the scores that they give.

Back in Atlanta, there is a guy who (allegedly) writes film reviews for a free local music mag. He's a nice enough guy when you meet him in person, but I find his reviews to be eminently frustrating for a few reasons:

1. I don't share his conservative politics and he makes them the centerpiece of almost every review.

2. He seems to be of the opinion that any film made after 1940 is lousy merely by definition and nothing made presently is very original.

3. He tends to pick films as his favorites merely on the basis of the fact that no other critics liked them. He almost NEVER likes what other critics like, and tends to love what other critics hate, but I've always suspected he's just being contradictory.

4. My main beef: I never get much information about the film from his reviews. I get a mini history lesson on the Hammer Horror genre, or a political rant about how liberals don't get it, or some other tomfoolery, but I never get what I want: a recommendation for or against seeing the film in question.

Polotics
Economy
Strategy
Tact

burnie, are you making an acronym for the critic or yourself?

I tend not to pay attention to critics anymore. In fact, most people involved with film "criticism" today are reviewers and don't discuss film within the context of any thematic significance or film history. I used to like reading Pauline Kael because she was so knowledgable but sometimes she let sacred cows get in the way of objectivity. Yeah, I know, objectivity may only be a strived-for ideal, but at least that's what I strive for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by syzygy:
michael atkinson. writes for the village voice. someone please steal his thesaurus. i beg you. i don't consciously seek him out but i can't avoid bumping into his high-brow effluvium as i pick through the other village voice critics.

on occasion, he injects his gross political views into the review, which isn't exactly a cardinal sin when you write for the village voice - less partisan self-control, the better - but it does hasten the review's slide into irrelevancy.

---

I think both Michael Atkinson and Jim Hobermerman in the Village Voice are fantastic film critics, even though I tend to disagree with them at times. Their reviews are immensely, sharp, witty and at times hilarious. Miles better than Ebert and Roeper. As for his political views, what's so "disgusting" about them?

I agree with Sam on the NY Times critics, you'd thik they just wanted to agree with what their smug, bourgeois, dinner party friends were saying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:
He gave "Bubble Boy" and 80, the movie wasn't even worth a watch, much less an 80.

---

I loved Bubble Boy!

Uhhh, that's it.

Michael Atkinson used to be a great critic, but I think the Village Voice brings out the worst in him. Reading him is like reading someone who writes upside down. "Effusive" is an understatement. Atkinson is the kind of writer who I wish would write fiction, not film reviews, because that's what his reviews read like most of the time. For example, here's a bit from his "Fear X" review: "Traditionally, the post-New Year's months are a dumping ground for half-baked horror boondoggles, and in the narrowest sense, Nicolas Winding Refn's 'Fear X' is a neurotic flake-out that could've only found distribution in January." What the hell is a boondoggle?! This isn't so bad, though. Most of his sentences have considerably more head-scratchers in them. (If you have more than one word in any given sentence that sends me to dictionary.com, that's a problem!) Hoberman is an elegant writer (read the opening paragraph to his "Inside Deep Throat" review); Atkinson is just oppressive.

In England, there's a film critic that's just the most obnoxious ever. He's always very sure of himself, doesn't like anything and is always wrong!
He writes reviews for the Sunday Times, Cosmo Landesman I think his name is.
He gave Bridget Jones 2 like 4 stars and Ray like 3. I'll try and find other examples of his idiocies.

There's another guy in England called Paul Ross. He's a total idiot. He gives great ratings to crappy movies. You'd swear he was being paid by the studios.

I think the worst critics come from "the Washington Post" and "the Village Voice"

I tend to usually agree with the Washington Post. They do an ok job, but are nothing special. I hate Roeper. I think he refuses to see the humor in some movies and just enjoys giving bad reviews and tearing into movies.