michael phillips Tagged Articles at Cinematical

They're serious. They're grown-ups. They wear black jackets and they use big words. If you missed the Sept. 5 debut of its post Lyons/Mankiewicz resurrection, Buena Vista Entertainment has rolled out an online look at the updated, No Bens At the Movies reboot.

The sentiment expressed by At the Movies' official website is clearly, You know those two boneheads we hired to replace Ebert and Roeper? Don't worry, we canned 'em. The site's main page now features a dauntingly somber photo of critics A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, alongside a video preview trumpeting "serious reviews, by serious journalists." It's a big ol' slap in the face to Ben and Mank, but it gets the point across -- Buena Vista screwed up by hiring The Legacy and the Chucklehead, and now they desperately hope to repair the damage by replacing them with, well, actual film critics.

The clips of new reviews are like a big, frosty glass of water after enduring the Bens' desert of stupid. In one clip, Phillips and Scott actually engage in -- gasp! -- thoughtful deliberation about the tone of Big Fan, with Phillips telling the unimpressed Scott that he misreads the black comedy as a naturalistic drama. Watching smart critics say smart things, on subjects in which they're actually knowledgeable makes one nostalgic for the days when Siskel and Ebert were a weekly must-see.

I can't say that I got as much of a chance to grow up on "Siskel & Ebert" as much as most of my colleagues -- and not a whole lot of "Ebert & Roeper" either, for that matter -- but I recognize and appreciate the value of two film critics trying to encourage a more popular dialogue about movies. However, ratings and quality both took a dive once Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper took their leave and were promptly replaced by Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz.

Well, since that pairing wasn't exactly cutting it, the show's producers have (wisely) opted to swap out the duo for the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips and the New York Times' A.O. Scott, who both have previously appeared in lieu of Ebert when he had taken ill and proved their own considerable intelligence and mutual respect for one another, the medium, and their audience.

How many of you still tuned in for the show's latest incarnation? And how many of you are as considerably relieved as many of us that things should take a turn for the better with proper print critics in the seats again come September 5th?

It's been awhile since we've had a little film blog group hugging action around here. Today it's cold and snowing here, so what better way to put off cleaning house and baking lasagna for our Boxing Day party than to cozy up under a quilt with a cup of hot tea and some of my favorite film bloggers? As 2007 wanes away and Sundance looms near, I thought I'd pop by some of my favorite film blogs to see who's doing any writing this holiday weekend.

Before taking a well-deserved break for the holidays, hard-working film blogger Karina Longworth at Spout Blog put up this thought-provoking piece on whether Disney wants to turn your daughter into a whore. As Karina points out, Barbara Ehrenreich's recycled rant on the evils of all things Disney is well past-due. I was getting into arguments about Disney back when I was doing time in mom's clubs when I did the stay-at-home-mom gig for a few years; the "We're raising our kids gender-neutral," granola-crunching, feminist hippy mamas in Seattle and parts elsewhere have had Disney in their crosshairs for years.

My favorite line from Ehrenreich's piece: "One's sexual inclinations--straightforward or kinky, active or passive, heterosexual or homosexual--should be free to develop without adult intervention or manipulation. " Riiiiiiiiight. If you raise your kids in a bubble unexposed to any society whatsover, perhaps. Kids are products of their social communities whether they grow up in the favelas of Brazil or in a high-rise overlooking Central Park, and trying to mold their little minds with the androgyny of gender-neutrality is no less manipulative than allowing your daughter to dress up like a pretty princess. Bratz, though, is another story. I hate those damn dolls with a passion previously reserved for Barney. If anyone's trying to shallow-fy and whore out our daughters, it's the evil geniuses behind those Bratz dolls. At least the Disney Princesses don't have lips that look like they had an unfortunate experience with a silicone injection. Anyhow.

More group hugs after the jump ...

Over on his blog at the Chicago Tribune, critic Michael Phillips (a very nice and knowledgable guy who James Rocchi and I chatted with at Sundance earlier this year) has a fun piece up on movies that he's walked out on. Then he asked a bunch of Tribune staffers to share what films they've walked out on.

Some of the picks are predictable -- Evita, Reservoir Dogs (one of my own least favorite movies of all time, though I actually sat through the entire violent mess), and Forrest Gump (blech) are on there, along with a few I wouldn't have thought of, like Prince's Under the Cherry Moon and Cat People, which I remember watching with a certain fondness as a midnight movie on TV in my youth (it wasn't that bad, was it?)

I'm one of those sadistic movie fans who will generally force myself to sit through anything, even at a film fest, when a lot of folks will slip out with the excuse that they need to catch something else that's overlapping a film they really just want to walk out on anyhow. I generally try to avoid up front seeing a film I know I'm really going to hate, but sometimes I'm assigned to review something, and it can't be helped -- I just have to suffer through it so I can write the damn review. Here are a few movies, though, that I suffered through but wish I hadn't. If only I'd known then that even print folks at a place like the Tribune walk out on films, I might have saved myself some misery ...