4 years later and...

4 years ago I wrote a blog on myspace (does anyone use that anymore? Really?) about Owen Gleiberman and how he tries to turn film criticism into a literary exercise. I've been reading his reviews lately. There are short blurbs, a paragraph long and there are reviews lasting a page.

I've gotta say that his short reviews have morphed into what reviews should be: do you like the film and why or why not. If something sticks out, he tells us.

His long reviews, still haven't changed. Take a look at his review for Arthur. It has gotten better but he still tries to use words no one's used in a century at least.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all four increasing one's vocabulary, but is a film review the place for it? I don't think so.

For your reading pleasure, my blog post from 2007 about movie reviews and Owen Gleiberman:

As a big time fan of movies, I often read critic's thoughts on films. Being a filmmaker myself, I will see a variety of films and genres, but sometimes if I am on the fence about a flick, or haven't heard much about it, I will check in to see what the critics have to say. This will often decide if I see it in theaters or add it to my Netflix queue.

Reading these criticisms, I feel compelled to ask why the hell do they think they are major contributors to world literature? Let me give you an example. This review comes to us straight from Joe Morgenstern of The Wall St. Journal: "The screenplay is simply sensational. Feelings flow like molten lava. The dialogue overflows with edgy wit and acidulous arias of imprecation." WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT???!!! I'm sorry; I don't want to tote a dictionary around with me when I read a movie review in the paper. Are you seriously that pompous? Do you feel bad that you are stuck writing movies reviews at a paper as serious as the Wall St. Journal and need to use big words to feel like you fit in? Or is that a requirement perhaps? I honestly doubt that Mr. Morgenstern uses any of the words in bold above on a daily basis (which means a sharp melody of cursing, by the way).

The other big culprit of this is Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly. He's even worse than Mr. Morgenstern. Peter Travers only gets that way when he really hates a movie. His word choices make him out to be bigger than any of those movies. Roger Ebert does that once in a while, but it's usually when he's reminiscing of a similar movie to the one he's reviewing but he gets into the review after that. If his newspaper writing was the same as his TV show reviewing, I think he'd be much better off. The only critic who is like them who I respect (besides Ebert) is Chris Gore. He put his money where his mouth was and made a film. A couple of films, actually. So I can't say anything bad about him.

You people need to realize one thing: YOU ARE MOVIE CRITICS, NOT AUTHORS OR PROPOGATORS OF THE DICTIONARY. WE DON'T WANT TO CARRY WEBSTER'S AROUND WHEN WE READ YOUR REVIEWS. You should take some time to read the reviews at Joblo.com, whom I consider the best online critic and second only to Roger Ebert in terms of reviews. Joblo (aka Berge Garabedian) simply gives us some background on the film, tell us what they like and/or don't like and give a rating from 1 to 10. So easy, and yet so effective. Is that so hard to do? We just want to know whether or not we should see a movie. We don't want to hear words that weren't used after 1783. Do that, Misters Morgenstern, Gleiberman and (occasionally) Travers, and maybe you won't be considered a supercilious parcel of incongruity.