2002 Critic's Choices for Best Film

I don't understand the way you've listed this. Are these films listed in descending order of popularity? Does that mean Talk To Her was the critics' choice for best film of 2002? Enlighten me, Lightwizard!

They're listed based on a standard four star rating, likely impossed on the critics by Premiere as not all reviewers use that system -- I wish they would be clearer as to how they arrive at the compilation. They are on a spread sheet in the magazine, Vol. 16, No. 8, April. "Talk to Her" got the highest rating of all fifteen critics which include Richard Corliss (Time), Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), Joe Morgenstern (Wall Street Journal) and Kenneth Turan (LA Times). It could be on Premier's website but I haven't checked.

Example: "Gangs of New York" got only two stars from David Ansen at Newsweek, Rita Kemply at The Washington Post, Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal and Kenneth Turan of the LA Times. Joe Morgenstern gave "The Pianist" ONE star! He must be one of those pristine, up tight moralizers still chagrined by Polanski's past mistake (just being catty ).

This should be proof positive to you of my argument that the critics are often wrong. How can the combined judgement of these bozos arrive at giving CHICAGO the rank of 17 out of 20????

You don't mean "pristine." That's not the word you want. Look it up.

I was using pristine as a sarcasm that he may believe he is clean and free from any dirt or decay.

This melange of critics wouldn't be one I'd rely on to attempt to back up liking or disliking a film. It only proves that judgement by committee can bring some uncanny results. It is much easier to figure out if you have the issue and can run down the spread sheet. Most of these critics I wouldn't read unless I ran across them in a magazine at the doctor's office! Roger Ebert and Kenneth Turan are the only ones on the list I make it a point to read.

I actually saw the spreadsheet in PREMIERE (a magazine I used to write for in its early days by the way) and was so put off by the layout that I couldn't read it! It was all in such small print that I couldn't decipher it...I must be getting old and crotchety, he sighed.

So by "pristine" you really meant something like "squeaky-clean" or "morally upright" I take it? Interesting choice of words...

I know -- you have to have a straight edge to track down each critic's rating. It is poor graphic design and I do have an educational and practical background in that field. It's always an interesting list but this year it doesn't make much sense. Considering that it's top heavy with the pop critics who write for the higher circulation magazines and newspapers (leaving out the New York Times!), it can only be taken seriously for what it's worth.

That's why I said it was a catty remark -- pristine was used facetiously.

I finally got around to buying SIGHT AND SOUND. You can read my report on the MCCABE thread. It ain't favorable...

I used to read and like Joe Morgenstern decades ago. Not having a photographic memory I am at a loss to defend my thinking that he was astute. I am guessing that he wrote for the late lamented Herald Examiner as a general columnist.

On top of the problem of my memory lack, there is the possibility that he has grown less astute. I don't read the Wall Street Journal so I don't know his recent writing.

Morgenstern is a good reviewer and understandably the pieces he does for the Wall Street Journal are short and to the point (they don't give him that much space). He's a good balance with the Premiere choices (again, no clue as to how they put it together). The major weekly magazine's critics one could agree or disagree with but they aren't consistently written that well. There still appears to be that bias about musical films with "Chicago" down at 17 (because of several two star and one star ratings against some four star ratings). You could say that's not true about fantasy films with "Spirited Away" and "The Two Towers" high on the list, even with "Harry Potter II" only making the bottom half of the list (I'm convinced it has worn out its welcome and can't keep up the momentum on a critical level even if the box office is great). So can we expect to see more musicals? "Chicago" is headed for the two-hundred million mark by consistent weekly box office for a length period and obviously getting the Oscar is going to make it highly successful. Science fiction (or should I always pay tribute to Forry Ackerman for coining "Sci-Fi"?) fared better than a musical and added another Philip K. Dick adaptation to film history. Hope we can expect more there and since Spielberg did such a great job, especially with the look of the film, I wouldn't doubt seeing him tackle another. I'd wish him to tackle Alfred Bester's "The Demolished Man" as it is timely with the corporate scandals. It's about a corporate head murdering another corporate head and then trying to conceal it from the police who have mind readers!

Morgenstern & the WSJ
Speaking of Joe Morgenstern and the WSJ, I am always skeptical of arts coverage in that newspaper, which I like to call the Fascist News. Their editorial policy seems to support a Victorian system of morality, and to consider anything to the left of that as counter-culture. They seem to deplore Hollywood and its product as having a degrading effect on American life. I have never read their arts coverage on a consistent basis, but I often wonder how the PRISTINE, up-tight, morality of the editorial page carries over into the arts coverage, and especially into coverage of the movies.

I might put it this way: After a dose of the editorial page, I don't even want to know what they have to say about the arts.

Hazlitt, I feel the same way you do about the WSJ's editorial content, but I have to admit that they do a pretty good job of keeping their editorial bias out of their arts coverage. I would never pay for the WSJ, but I'm on the distribution list of an office copy, and I always read the arts page (arts section, on Fridays) before passing it on. I usually find Joe Morgenstern's reviews to be a fairly reliable indicator of whether or not I would like a movie. I'm not saying that makes him a great critic, but it's always nice to find someone who can serve as a litmus test in that way.

Speaking of Morgenstern, did you read the article in The New Yorker, a month or so ago, about the making of Bonnie and Clyde? One of the many interesting things I learned from the article was that Morgenstern, who was then the movie reviewer at Newsweek, gave Bonnie and Clyde a bad review after he first saw it at a critics' screening. But he then went back and saw it in a theatre, as part of a paying audience, and the audience's reaction made him realize that it was a better movie than he had originally thought, so he convinced his editors to let him do a second review in which he expressed his revised opinion of the movie. Not many critics are willing to admit they got something wrong the first time.

Reply to Bree
Well, Bree, after your comment, I won't be quite so reserved about the WSJ arts coverage, and will read Morgenstern when I have a chance.

I am sorry to admit that early in the present recession, I bit on one of the WSJ trial subscription offers, thinking that there might result a magical resuscitation of my portfolio. But, alas, the portfolio continued to sink, so I expressed my dissatisfaction to one of their customer service people and discontinued the subscription.

Great movie: Roger Dodger.

Illuminating anecdote about Mr. Morgenstern, bree.

His poor to average reviews were for "Far From Heaven" "About a Boy," "Minority Report," "Chicago," "The Pianist," "Auto Focus" and "Rodger Dodger." He was in agreement on the top four and "The Two Towers," but gave "About Schmidt" a one-star rating in the top ten. I don't know if you can find a pattern there and he would be one reviewer I may look at among others to get me off my butt and into a theater. I watch so many films in the few weeks they come on Pay-Per-View and DVD -- that is if I haven't seen them through studio connections (can't always make it to every one).

I have a tendency to believe they don't infer their taste on how Morgenstern review films even though it doesn't seem like anyone who is involved in the arts, cinema or otherwise, would make it a point to consult the WSJ.

Premier's own reviewer, Glenn Kenny, is included (of course!) He gave "Chicago" three stars. His four star reviews in the top ten went to "Talk to Her," "Adaptation," "Monsoon Wedding," and "Time Out" (he didn't review "About Schmidt").

Clearly a critic who gives poor to average reviews to movies as outstanding as FAR FROM HEAVEN, MINORITY REPORT, CHICAGO, AUTO FOCUS, and ROGER DODGER is not a very reliable critic. Those were 5 of the best movies I saw last year. Morgenstern's taste hasn't improved noticeably since his initial pan of BONNIE AND CLYDE. But while we're on the subject, Lightwizard, why are you so preoccupied with what critics and especially one individual critic thinks? In the long run such judgements are of no importance whatsoever, not even to their loyal readers!

Ah, Larry, perhaps GWLight was replying to my post, not so long ago. I regarded Morgenstern well for several years, although as I have mentioned I haven't read him recently. It is a matter of conversation here.