IMO, the problem with M. Night is that he's such an egomaniacal auterist. By insisting on sole writing, directing & producing credit, he hoardes all authorship to himself, to the detriment of his movies. If he had somebody edit his dialogue or tell him, for example, "Listen M., that "hot dog" interlude by the crunchy botanist dude is absurdly unmotivated and plain stupid," The Happening could have been lots better than it was.

Quoting Joel_Cairo: IMO, the problem with M. Night is that he's such an egomaniacal auterist. By insisting on sole writing, directing & producing credit, he hoardes all authorship to himself, to the detriment of his movies. If he had somebody edit his dialogue or tell him, for example, "Listen M., that "hot dog" interlude by the crunchy botanist dude is absurdly unmotivated and plain stupid," The Happening could have been lots better than it was.

That can work, see Hitchcock, or more recently Tarantino, as examples. In his particular case you're right, though. He doesn't understand his limitations. He's not a good writer, he's a scenarist; he's an interesting cinematographer, but only a so-so director. And he's been trapped by the success of his first movie.

This diavlog manifests what I don't like about movie criticism. I want critics foremost to warn me about the lemons, and then to point out the jewels I might miss surfing the blogosphere. But, generally, I feel about criticism the way I feel about the election crap. I can decide for myself, unless some pundit just drinks some-acting poison before going on the air, and gives me the lowdown before the bad guys kill them. I wanted to know about the secret gems Douthat and Stevens jam into the end. I want to know about the films that will never reach a thousand screens outside metro areas. I want to know about the new directors for whom an Oscar would be an insult. Again, I want to hear about foreign film festivals. I live in Busan, where there's three wonderful film festivals every year. I always want to cancel classes, sit in theaters for five showings in a row, and I do scurry across town with my wife to hosting cinemas surviving on coffee. Rarely for those weeks do I watch American films at all, or watch films in English. This is bhTV, guys! I also thought Douthat (whom I really like both as a 'head and blogger-he's my

As for why superhero films are the big thing recently, I definitely agree that the simple good vs. evil paradigm resonates with Americans. I do think a bigger cause might be that comic books are easy to adapt. The characters and stories are already there, and they already have a following/ appeal to a faithful target audience. In terms of the motion picture industry, a safe bet. I'm pretty much looking forward to Hellboy 2 and Dark Knight this summer. I think Ross and Dana had a hard time thinking of films on the spot, but "Tropic Thunder" and "X-Files" seem like they've got great potential.

I heard about "The X-Files" movie, too. But, I wonder what Chris Carter is doing. It's not a mytharc story. Is it just that Duchovny and Anderson need a gig? If not, it's way too early for '90s nostalgia!

Baltimoron, I think the problem is worse than lack of spleen. I think very nearly all movie critics lack adult taste and discernment. Critics have capitulated to the unendurable crap coming out of Hollywood. Decades ago, puerile but entertaining movies were approached by critics as occasional guilty pleasures. Now movie criticism is preoccupied with such shit. Note to Dana and Ross: movies made after comic books are for children. Their willingness to take such movies seriously, or even to remark upon them, reduces their pretense to be taken seriously as critics. Suppose a genuine artistic masterpiece came out; how could you possibly know that from someone who saw, even liked, Iron Man? Good critics would endeavor, however hopelessly, to elevate both movies and the movie audience. Flipping through Dana's reviews at Slate is like being stuck at a dinner party where people talk about their favorite TV shows. As for Ross, dude, check out some of the film criticism of your predecessor at NR, John Simon.

I'd like to see more discussion of "arthouse" flicks and foreign award winners, yet Hollywood's seeming imperviousness to market forces dictates more reviews of celluloid comic book homages. I have nothing against comic books. They're an example of a good gateway drug, even if kids don't switch up to books. It's still a decent use of a brain. Hollywood, though, should avoid the temptation to become comic books' next medium. Reviewing is a passive act; reviewers need movies. Reviewers don't make movies, or even suggest ideas for scripts. They're basically nerdy verbose advertisements. So, to regain their humanity, reviewers need to be like Caesar pronouncing death to the fallen gladiator. And, If a reviewer can help reverse Hollywood's bottom line, perhaps Hollywood will either fold, or reform itself. Also, if reviewers can bring in fresh talent, they might force reform, especially if it's a girl with her camcorder uploading examples of paental violence.

Joseph: If you're interested in finding out about movies other than the latest blockbusters, you might look at Salon's Beyond the Multiplex. It's a regular feature. Also, in response to something you said earlier, I have to say that I like it when a movie critic can admit to liking a movie for other than high-brow reasons. Movies as art is all well and good, but movies as entertainment, even semi-mindless entertainment, also works for me. See? I'm not always an elitist. (I like to eat my brie while watching a good shoot-em-up.)

I never said you were an elitist. But, in that regard, I've seen many foreign language flicks, particularly short form, that were just really good eye candy with no pretentiousness. It's just that there in Farsi, or just a dialect form of English most Americans erroneously take for snootiness. Actually, I've been to short form film festivals in Busan now, and I've been converted. Two hour films are like the two minute song-dinosaurs and advertisers' crutches! I've seen five minute films I still can't forget. And, what's better a trite film in five minutes, or one that lasts agonizingly for 90? Short form films would be great celluloid comic books. In an hour, one can watch twenty films or more. It's like the old days of opening cartoons before the feature. As a matter of fact, many short forms are cartoons, or mix different forms, because it costs the same to make both kinds. But, cinemas could market short films for a few dollars with no strict start times. Just keep the films rolling all day. The seat, like Japanese buses, could monitor the number of movies watched, and a customer would pay before leaving the building. Anyway, reviewers are parasites.

. . . better than "critic." After this morning's screed, I took a look at what DVDs my kids had checked out. One is Batman Begins. It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that this is about a billionaire that dresses up like a bat, for chrissake, to fly around and defeat the forces of evil. I asked my 15 year old son, who has pretty much a Grand Theft Auto sensibility, what he thought of it, and his response was, "Kinda stupid." Here are the blurbs on the DVD case: "One of the year's best films. Two thumbs way up." Ebert & Roper. "Fantastic. Emotional. Genuinely gripping." Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle. From Metacritc:
"A great movie, period. It's great because it's so real." New York Post.
"A rousing, reverent, often brilliant re-creation of a seminal comics character, Batman Begins proves Batman is at home in the 21st century as he was in the 20th." The Onion.
"A carefully thought out and consummately well-made piece of work, a serious comic-book adaptation that is driven by story, psychology and reality, not special effects." The LA Times (Kenneth Turan, who give sonorous critiques on NPR).
"Conceived in the shadow of American pop rather than in its bright light, this tense, effective iteration of Bob Kane's original comic book owes its power and

Like I said, paid verbose advertisements! For what it's worth, I was a Batman kid, because I thought a flying Superman was patently unrealistic. I also wanted to drive the Batmobile and be a billionaire. Perhaps your kids just have different superhero fantasies. If not, hope for scientists and engineers!

Anyuser: I dunno. There's something kind of ironic about you expressing a view on a movie exclusively by giving blurbs from critics, even if it's to demonstrate the opposite. Could be that a kid with a GTA sensibility found the movie "kinda stupid" because it was more about, say, human complexities and the dark side of the human soul than it was about blowing shit up. Not that there's anything wrong with blowing shit up.

Quoting Baltimoron: I never said you were an elitist.

I know. But others have, and I couldn't resist the chance to throw a barbed aside. (And in any case, I am an elitist. I just don't think that's a bad thing.) I take your point about short films. I've enjoyed such festivals myself, and I do like the occasional bits that appear online. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to make an exclusive choice. Too many short films makes me feel the same way as reading too many blogs does -- all ADD'd out. I'd never want to give up a good long book, and similarly for movies. Granted, there is a bit of risk of buying a ticket to a clunker, but hey, you could always walk out. Do it fast enough, and you can usually get your money back, even.

Anyway, reviewers are parasites.

Disagree. It's a huge form of entertainment for me to watch someone who knows how to wield the scalpel take apart a bad movie. And I like critics/reviewers for filtering the choices -- I've had good luck finding people with whom I'm perfectly negatively correlated. And I sometimes get a lot more out of a movie hearing other people talk about it, especially if that's

And I like critics/reviewers for filtering the choices -- I've had good luck finding people with whom I'm perfectly negatively correlated. And I sometimes get a lot more out of a movie hearing other people talk about it, especially if that's what they specialize in doing.

I agree, in the few instances where there's a reviewer who can do that. It doesn't have to be pejorative. I would just argue that Hollywood gains more from reviewers than do consumers, because reviewers legitimate and enrich Hollywood. It's that same problem we've discussed about how the corporate-funded MSM is broke. Also, again from my expat perspective, reviewers have this narrow focus on their local markets. They rarely (never as far as I can tell) consider the messages Hollywood products give foreign audiences. Reviewers discuss how Hollywood depends on foreign markets, but not on what foreign audiences might think. In other words, there's no feedback other than profits. There's no way to tell if 100 paying movie-goers walked out, unless there's a riot. But, I hear it everyday almost. And, next week, when I give this (admittedly lazy summer makeup) class on film and foreign culture, I'll get even more abuse. Actually, what pisses them off is, that I always respond to them

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/120...2&out=00:02:14

Quoting Baltimoron: I agree, in the few instances where there's a reviewer who can do that. It doesn't have to be pejorative. I would just argue that Hollywood gains more from reviewers than do consumers, because reviewers legitimate and enrich Hollywood. It's that same problem we've discussed about how the corporate-funded MSM is broke.

There's something to that, but it's a two-edged sword. A few prominent reviewers can bury a movie, too.

Also, again from my expat perspective, reviewers have this narrow focus on their local markets. They rarely (never as far as I can tell) consider the messages Hollywood products give foreign audiences.

I take your point, but I'm not sure I think there is any obligation on their part to do so. And I'm pretty sure that as soon as some American reviewer began to talk about how the people in country X would respond to a movie, half the people in X would start screaming, "How dare he presume to speak for us?"

Reviewers discuss how Hollywood depends on foreign markets, but not on what foreign audiences might think. In other words, there's no feedback other than profits.

That's a pretty big "other than."

But, I've seen plenty of South Korean kids walk out

The new Indiana Jones film is an awful, awful film on its own merits, nevermind in comparison to the movies that preceded it. Oh, how I wish I could go back in time and warn myself of the misery that awaited me!

I recommend but will not deign to review -I wouldn't want to suffer your wrath- "Mongol."
It's the study of the formative years of Temujin (who ultimately became Genghis Khan). It is slated to be followed by a depiction of the later rule of Khan which stretched as far as Korea.
The story was interesting, the landscapes awesome and the Tuvan throat singing a pleasure - oh no, was that a review?
Talk about superheroes: How is it that in the movies the great historical warriors always lead the charge in battle against multiple sword wielding opponents and survive? Riddle me that Batman.

The best way to find good movies is to go to Rotten Tomatoes and look at the "certified fresh" category. These tend to be the more artsy, less big-budget flicks. Like anything, the best way to find art that matches your taste is to scour numerous reviews. Relying on any one reviewer is never a good practice. If all esle fails just go to Rotten Tomatoes and read all the bad reviews of crappy movies that you know you don't want to see anyways. This can be endlessly entertaining. I'm surprised that Ross and Dana didn't mention "Unbreakable" in their M Knight segment. Though it wasn't as great as 6th Sense, I thought Unbreakable was a pretty cool movie in it's own right. Lady in the Water was about as bad as anything I've ever seen, but I agree that generally the other flicks (Signs, The Village) had their moments, even if they weren't masterpieces. Dark Knight looks cool. I usually avoid summer block-busters like the plague, but this one I will check out. I do agree that the comic-book thing got old a LONG time ago.

The Happening was a bad movie because the cause of "the happening" was stupid and lame. Dialogue was the least of its issues. The Village is the best movie of his since Sixth Sense. Signs was horrible. Unbreakable was even worse. The Happening? Bad but I liked it more than unbreakable. Why do I continue to see this guy's movies? I don't know.

Oh, how I wish I could go back in time and warn myself of the misery that awaited me!

You saw the previews, right?

Signs better than Unbreakable??!!! Surely you jest, Hans. Swing away Hans, swing away ;-) I actually think Signs was better than it usually gets credit for. The reason we continue to see M Knight's movies because he can create incredible scenes and a great spooky vibe and a really breathtaking use of all the classic Hitchcock tricks. Say what you will about the quality of the movie overall, the guy can shoot a great scene (or several.) That's why i still check out Speilberg flicks. He has lots of cheesiness that I almost can't stomach, but he still has an incredible eye for a compelling scene. Just turn the sound off, if you want to enjoy the next MKnight venture.

Bring these guys back for the Oscars, won't you? Chris Orr was good, too. But honestly I wouldn't want him to replace Dana. What can I say? She's easy on the eyes.