"i was responding to alexanderl, not you. alexanderl was being a reductionistic prick, so i took him to school. "

eddie

Wow, that was so mature of you. Just to let you know, I'm thirteen. So thanks for having the high morals to call a thirteen year old a prick, would you say that to my face if I said the same thing to you in person? And I guess you didn't see the =P sign in my post, or else you just ignored it and chose to take things very seriously. And not once, NOT ONCE, did I ever call you a single derrogatory term. I didn't realize that it was OK at this site to direct such terms at visitors of this site. Was I wrong in stating that you should be more positive? Well, maybe since I don't know you, I should've been more subtle. But don't you ever, EVER call me a prick. That is de-moralizing, crude, and something that should not be tolerated anywhere.

Quick question:
Haven't seen the film, and i've heard so much about bad dp'ing on the first post. I Wanna know how is HD treating mann's love for long lenses and completely blurred out backgrounds.

That said, i would like to add that there's a night shot of colinn farrell walking in the trailer and it's packet with noise...it looks like...well...crap.
Are all the night shots like that? because in collateral they where cool.

**And for myself, I'd rather hear/read a Medved film review over any of those critics above, well, except for Vincent Canby's reviews [enjoy his for many years]. Also, don't underrate Rex Reed (I usually agree with him). And I definitely recommend always reading the movie/DVD reviews in The Wall Street Journal.**


Well.

This is the point in the discussion where I extend my hand and say, "Good luck to you, sir." And move on to another topic. :)

Chris said... "The best thing I can say about him is - at least he no longer pretends to be a film critic."

Sorry Chris - your wrong!
Michael is CONSTANTLY reviewing movies...

Almost every day Michael Medved gives a verbal film review of either - (1) a current movie showing in theaters, or (2) released on DVD - heard in 1 to 2 minute segments on his radio program [time-wise made right at the end of one of the show's hourly segments.]

Also, read Michael Medved reviews on his website: - EXTERNAL LINK -

I love what he said last week when panning BASIC INSTINCT 2 on DVD!
Concluding his negative review, he summarized his dislike by saying...
;) "AND IT'S 1 & A HALF STARS FOR BASIC INSTINCT 2, WHICH BASICALLY STINKS, TOO!" [awesome! L-O-L]

And for myself, I'd rather hear/read a Medved film review over any of those critics above, well, except for Vincent Canby's reviews [enjoy his for many years]. Also, don't underrate Rex Reed (I usually agree with him). And I definitely recommend always reading the movie/DVD reviews in The Wall Street Journal.

-Love Hendrix!

Thanks for the info, Hendrix, but I'm pretty sure I know who Michael Medved is.

The best thing I can say about him is - at least he no longer pretends to be a film critic.

Look long and hard in Phillip Lopate's comprehensive collection of American Movie Critics, and you won't find him anywhere. There's a reason for that.

Here's a list of people who actually deserve to be called "excellent movie critics":

Manny Farber, James Agee, Parker Tyler, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Andrew Sarris, Vincent Canby, Manohla Dargis, J. Hoberman, Kent Jones.

Just for starters.

I thought we were talking about how bad "Miami Vice" sucks, or am I reading the title of this thread the wrong way?

Can we stay on topic here or do we really need to get into a spat about Medved?

Chris said... "I hesitate to ask "recommend for what?" Cheap kindling? A slightly preferable alternative to dental torture?"

:@ I wonder how old you are Chris? And if you're aware of Michael Medved's long-standing contributions not only as a veteran film critic, but also as an author of several books documenting a large amount of historical information about films?

Or, if you know of his 12 years co-hosting SNEAK PREVIEWS [PBS "movie review" TV-program featuring Medved], along with fellow film-critic Jeffrey Lyons [both are excellent critics].

You may not agree with his "conservative" political views [or listen to his daily talk-radio program], but Michael (and sometimes along with a brother, Harry) has written many excellent books - with a few about movies...

-THE GOLDEN TURKEY AWARDS
-SON OF THE GOLDEN TURKEY AWARD
-THE FIFTY WORST FILMS OF ALL TIME
-THE HOLLYWOOD HALL OF SHAME: The Most Expensive Flops in Movie History
(these books provide numerous laughs, and also rare photographs)

-HOLLYWOOD VS. AMERICA: Popular Culture and the War Against Traditional Values
-HOLLYWOOD VS. RELIGION

(OK, you might not like these last two - perhaps reflected in your comment above?)

View more of Michael Medved's biography (and family) at his website link here...
- EXTERNAL LINK -

-Love Hendrix!

Yes, it's one of many reasons nobody really takes Medved seriously as a critic. Which he doesn't really try to be anymore. He's now a right-wing political talk show host who sometimes gives reviews of blockbuster films, a role he seems much better suited for.

In his heyday, he filled the niche of "popular film reviewer", and in that regard was probably better at it than total lightweights like Joel Siegel or Gene Shalit, but that's about all you can say for him. He is a competent writer, but shows no particular knowledge or interest in film aesthetics, history, or theory. He might have been more at home in the 50s when "film critics" seemed to think films should be evaluated based on what kind of "message" or "social importance" they conveyed.

Worst of all, he included "Last Year at Marienbad" in his "50 Worst Films of All Time" which is all I ever really needed to know about him. :)

BTW, isn't Medved a Christianist moralist ass?

If I can remember correctly, he and that other fundamentalist nut Robertson did a review of Million Dollar Baby and politicized into some kind of right-to-die-propaganda movie.

The Village Voice said this in the review:

"And midway through, there is a ravishing sequence—one that single-handedly restores mature adult sexuality to Hollywood movies—in which they abscond to Cuba together to begin their affair that cannot be, amid the ramparts of a place that once was."

I don't know...I might see this movie when it comes out on DVD. I really appreciated another movie Mann did, "Collateral", which seems to look alot like how