Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Yes, Stephanie does occasionally dislike a film. For example, last fall, much to my chagrin, she dissed "Rent."
It's interesting that the first comment was somebody who plans not to subscribe to Salon because of SZ. I became a premium subscriber precisely because of Charles Taylor's reviews (lately missing from these hallowed pages), and I think SZ carries the flag beautifully.
This is an extremely shallow comment, but we can't all be intellectually sparkling, especially confronted with that headshot in the side column.
I've been a Dennis Quaid fan since Breaking Away, and have paid money and sat through some pretty WTF? flicks just because his name was on the marquee. He has singlehandedly almost rescued some of the clunkers, and he never lowers the quality of anything he's in.
And, well, frankly, in nearly 30 years of filmmaking, he's only gotten better at his craft. And I can't deny, there's just no ugly there, is there?
(What's this flack about the review itself? It told me enough to know whether to see the movie for myself, and told me enough about the reviewer to gage her reactions against my own.)
I think that Hugh Grant and Dennis Quaid often make fine performances out of good-not-great material. Here, the actors make obvious stereotypes into interesting characters we'd be willing to watch for a couple of hours...
For $10 in San Francisco, it was a bit pricey; for $5 in Tulsa, I'd see it and be grateful.
It's not a side-splitting comedy, but it has its moments. (And some good editing.)
(ps. If you haven't seen Dennis Quaid in "Frequency", keep an eye out for it.)
Not to make too much out of this, but for the last few months, whenever I read a SZ review about a movie she really likes I usually scoot over to Rottentomatoes.com just to see how the other critics weigh in and I've noticed a startling inverse relationship. If SZ loves a movie, it nearly always ranks as a "splat" on the tomatometer. Conversly, if she hates a film, it almost always seems to do real well by most of the other critics and receives a nice plump tomato rating (meaning good).
This review, like so many others, continues to support my theory.
Make of it what you will. Try it yourself.
About the only thing that seems to explain this phenomenon might be the kind of movie being reviewed. Has anyone else noticed that SZ just seems to adore movies that aren't about too much and usually hates the ones that reach for any sort of deeper significance? I have- and so has the tomatometer.
Actually, I now use a negative SZ review as my first really good indicator that a picture might be worth seeing.
Honestly, Salon could do a whole lot better by finding a reviewer that isn't put-off by any whiff of embedded intelligence or social commentary in a film. I do think that SZ might work out real well as a daytime TV critic though. Just a thought.
He's one of the best film critcs and all around intriguing thinkers I've ever read and I didn't always agree with his reviews. Bring him back!
Stephanie Z. I just think is too easily swayed; likes too many films for no good reason.
But she's won me over a few times.
I haven't seen" Thankyou for Smoking" or "American Dreamz." Some critics loved Smoking so much that it was going to be my first choice of all films to see. After Zacharek's review of "Dreamz", I think I might enjoy it more. Stay tuned.
Here's how I do it. I keep in mind that Stephanie Zacharek has one qualification so very many would-be critics lack: she can write. I enjoy her writing, and I don't give a rat's ass whether my opinion of any given movie is fairly represented on Salon. I also don't make the mistake of assuming I know anything about Ms. Zacharek as a person.
All that amounts to a pretty simple formula for appreciating her reviews. I can't recommend it enough.
You’re exactly right wheadley
It’s uncanny how SZ always goes against the tomato-meter. It’s almost as if she checks the meter before she writes her article to make sure she goes against the grain. It’s a pretty safe bet that the more SZ hates a movie, the better it is.
Stephanie is not here to write reviews based on whether they are going to be popular or not. She's here to give her opinion as a critic. Last time I checked, that's what a critic does. We can agree, disagree, or agree to disagree.
Personally, I like her work, and I enjoy her writing. The fact that she "goes against the grain" is what makes her reviews interesting and original. It gives one something to think about.
Show some originality yourselves. Give your own reasons for liking the movie other than "it's popular". I'd certainly like to read a well-written rebuttal. That's why Steph has a job; she makes people think. However, it takes some skill to WRITE, and write well, presenting your case, doesn't it. Which is where you come in, maybe? Let's see if you've got what it takes.
It's easy to criticize someone - not so easy to make the effort and present a coherent analysis. Unless you can do so, you have no right to rip into someone's work.
...I can say her review is spot-on, in my opinion. It's a funny movie but kind of ham-fisted--the satire is applied with a very broad brush.
This is the first Hugh Grant performance I would ever look at twice.
I just came from seeing American Dreamz, and for the most part, I understand where Stephanie is coming from. I say, what's wrong with a little pop philosophy? Why are we afraid to enjoy a movie that aspires to reach a wide audience and have some interesting insights along the way. The relationship between Hugh Grant's character and Mandy Moore's is worth the admission on it's own. That's something I can say I'm not sure I've seen before. Of course, the movie wasn't perfect, it probably wasn't funny enough in the first half for my liking, and the satire was a bit clumsy at times, but when it worked, it really worked.
As for Stephanie being outside the majority of reviewers in her tastes, well so what? Someone should be. And besides, in the case of American Dreamz, almost half of the reviewers gave it a fresh review, which means that 1 out of every 2 reviewers liked it. In my books that makes her far from being an outsider. And even if she is an outsider, in a society that is so easily swayed by popular opinion, we need to embrace reviewers who aren't afraid to have a different opinion. Just because the Tomatoemeter is at 46% doesn't mean the movie is bad, that means 46% of the reviewers liked it, and that's a large proportion of reviewers.
And to the person who complained about "z" replacing "s" in so much stuff these days, well I hate to burst your bubble of indignation, but in this case the "z" is satirical. When not even Salon readers can recognize simple satire, I fear for us.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
