Letters to the Editor
-
The movie, not the reviewer
I don't know what keeps Stephanie Z. going, but it sure isn't the appreciation of her readers. I've never seen so much meanness directed at a film critic. Jeez, folks...
Anyway, I've seen the movie and it is truly awful. Like "No Country For Old Men," it has a literary quality and so people who know little about literature rave because they think it'll make aesthetes out of them. Both movies are pointless, but "TWBB" is doubly pointless and painful in a way SZ barely mentions: the score is impossible to listen to; it seems as if it were written for another movie entirely and even if it was a fit it would still be hard on the ears. I even checked my screener to see if perhaps there was another music track that was being played by mistake. Pure hell, truly awful.
It's hard to imagine a group of people deciding to finance and film this script, which is so obviously devoid of anything but a couple of chances to chew scenery -- which DDL does with relish. Yechhh.
And hey, lay off Stephanie, everyone. If you don't like her reviews, don't read 'em.
-
Salon needs a new chief movie reviewer
I agree with those who call for this reviewer to step down or be reassigned. She has trashed the two best movies of the year now, this and No Country for Old Men. I think they hurt her little head.
On the plus side, she is not as stupid or irritating as Camille Paglia.
-
A Shocking Fraud!
Art
does
not
require
your
approval,
or being
submitted
to a
committee
of
fairness.
Rather,
it is
intended
to create
an emotional
response
that
leads
to a
richer
life.
Stephanie, visit art, surrender to it, be a part of it.
The time for excoriating risk-taking artists is Bush-league.
-
jk...
Have you seen the movie? SZ was extremely generous in her review. She visited "art" and found it wanting. Is that a crime?
-
What bbrock said
Spare me from reviewers who fault a movie for what it's *not* about. I once knew sombody who strongly disliked the HBO series "Band of Brothers" simply because it didn't address the issue of army segregation. By the reviewer's rationale, "The Vagina Monologues" is crap because there are no men in it. Or is that the only demographic we can ignore without even a twinge of hypocritical embarrassment?
Get off your soapboax and review the damn movie.
-
Stephanie, hang in there!
You haven't steered me wrong yet. You're not the only film critic I read, but I don't go to any movie in a theater (which is a considerable financial commitment, given that we have a 3-year-old who needs a babysitter) without hearing what you have to say about it. That's not to say you're always "right" (whatever that means) or that I'll only go see movies that you like; in fact, your reviews are intriguing enough that, in a case like this, I'd be inclined to see the movie anyway just so I can see what you're talking about and decide *whether* I agree with you. I read your work because I find you have an uncanny ability, similar to Cary Tennis', to see and draw something out of the material that everyone else has missed.
I also have no idea why your reviews consistently draw such vitriol. Good god, people, can't there be such a thing as a reasonable difference of opinion?
-
Zacharek is a great writer with off-beat movie tastes (for a critic)...
And there's nothing wrong with that.
I almost always disagree vehemently with Zacharek's reviews, but I still read them, because they are well written, and, as another reviewer noted, detailed enough that I can often get a sense of whether I will like the film. I'll see this film in a heartbeat, but then, I've planned to see it since I first read about it. Same for Sweeney Todd, which I went to see, partly because of Zacharek's negative review. It was the best film I've seen in ages, (and proof-positive that Johnny Depp is not overrated!).
I may not think much of her taste in films, but I will still tune in to read Zacharek's reviews, because they are enjoyable reads all on their own, and isn't that the real reason to read reviews - entertainment, that is?
-
There Will Be Blood
I admit, I'm not complaining about the review (yet).I just find it a riot that the letters selected for special notice by the editors mention what a stupendous reviewer SZ is. Not the first time I've noticed this either. I guess every letter that suggests she lacks knowledge, taste and literary skill is not uniquely qualified to be starred. Editors' Choice indeed!
-
See the movie
Unlike some other posters, I have actually seen the movie, and agree with Stephanie 100%. She's articulate, knowledgable about film history and took care to give credit to the director and cast for their considerable talents. Keep up the good work, SZ!
-
There Will Be a Predictable Zacharek Review.
A good indicator about Stephanie Zacharek as a critic is those little graphs they have in Entertainment Weekly where you can see the critic's scores for various films side-by-side. Time after time, you'll see those movies that all of the other critics have ranked with A's, A-'s and B+'s, but when you cross the graph to Zacharek's column, she'll have a D or D-. Going against the grain is charming (and can even be brave), unless it simply becomes a predictable habit. Then, there's pretty much nothing more boring in the world of criticism. Its sort of like someone endlessly stuck in the "terrible twos" stage where two-year olds who have just learned they can say "no" contradict everything anyone says and repeat the word "no" endlessly. Being a kneejerk iconoclast is not the same thing as being Pauline Kael; it's more like being a reverse image of the film criticism of Larry King.
-
this is no review. This is propoganda
"ach
why do you need your art spoon fed to you?
-- chuvak
[Read chuvak's other letters]Permalink Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:06 AM "
Word is born. Because you do not understand, says nothing of the movie. It's like the classic paiting that no one can understand. That's why it's a classic. so you have to think. Republcains must have everything spoon fed. Clone robots are incapable of thinking for themselves.