The Hot Blog

At worst, I think that Anthony Lane had pretty much made up his mind before he actually viewed the film. What he saw on screen, he selected to merely reinforce his beliefs.
But that aside, what would WB do if such a high profile critic were to go ahead and review a film when WB knew that said critic had not attended the press screening?
Does anyone know of such a thing ever happening?
I know that in the UK, when the revered critic Dillys Powell was alive, they ALWAYS delayed the screenings in London until she had taken her seat (legend has it, she was customarily 2 minutes late).

I didn't mean literally. I am sure he did see the film. But very little in the piece has much to do with the seeing as much as the anticipating.

He's simply not a good critic, in the sense that he never illuminates or makes connections between the movies and other art forms or the culture at large or suggests new ways of viewing. He's a quipster, a bon mot artist, and his reason for being is to appease that section of The New Yorker's readership who don't like movies and are happy to have someone belittle them with cutting wordsmanship every other week.

Except when he genuinely likes a movie and is able to deliver that to the reader. I enjoy his writing. Less so when he's attacking something I like. But when you've walked away despising a movie, especially one that seems to be loved by most of the main or geek streams, he's a lot of fun. He's not the only one I read, but I'm glad he's in my overall mix of critics I read.

Honestly? I think Lane should hang them up. Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: