2003CC: Todd Haynes
- Safe (95): ****
- Poison (91): ***
- Velvet Goldmine (98): ** 1/2
This is a new entry in an up-dated series I'm calling the New Critical Consensus. Several people have requested updates of the older series, and since critical opinions shift, I am revamping the entire system. I am averaging the opinions of several excellent film critics to produce a list of each director's movies. Rather than using a number system, which was perhaps a bit clunky, I will now be using a five-star system. The films will be listed in a recommended viewing order, so new fans will have an idea of where the best place to start watching a director's work is.
These are not my opinions, although, since I have chosen the critics used (and I'm using many), my taste will perhaps seep through a bit.
Terribly nerdy, I know, but maybe this will help people only now beginning to dabble into certain artists' bodies of work.
Scale:
***** - Masterpiece
**** 1/2 - Classic
**** - Great
*** 1/2 - Good
*** - Above Average
** 1/2 - Average
** - Below Average
* 1/2 - Bad
* - Terrible
1/2 - One of the worst films ever
I have a much greater opinion of Velvet Goldmine, I must say. I'd give it ****, but that's just me.
By the way, where are the 2002 films for these lists?
Yeah, ** 1/2 seems very low to me. I'd probably give it a strong *** 1/2, personally. I can certain see it as a **** film.
The British critics were the lovers here, while the American critics were not as pleased.
As for the 2002 films, it is still a little too soon for most of my critical sources to definitely assess them yet. Eventually...
If you're curious, from the critics who have weighed in, I'd bet Far From Heaven is looking at a **** 1/2 or so.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I'd understand if you didn't want to reveal them, but who are the critics that you use here? Is there any way to access their reviews or ratings online?
Also, may I request an Ang Lee CC? Ooo! A mike Leigh perhaps?
Regarding VG, I think that the British critics were more affected by the material, I can see the film not being accessible to most Americans. I'm debating which I like more, FFH or VG.
I keep threatenting to collate and publish my sources. At some point, I probably should. There are lots of them, and they range quite international. The delay in posting in new films is that fact that none of them are newspaper or magazine critics, which means I often have to wait a year or two to get everybody's opinions together.
Per your request, I have published lists for Ang Lee and Mike Leigh.
I'm a request hound, so if there is any film or music artist any one wants to see, please let me know!
Velvet Goldmine is about a music scene that affected the British culture en masse, while it barely registered here. I think that might have quite a bit to do with America's rejection of Velvet Goldmine.
And, frankly, American critics tend to be more boring. Given a flawed film, most American critics would rather have one in a 'classic', 70s mold (a la Traffic), while many Europeans would lean toward the daring, new work (like Velvet).
Just my opinion, naturally, but the long list of innovative films the Europeans liked more than the Americans lately would be long indeed. (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Requiem for a Dream, Mulholland Drive, Velvet Goldmine, etc., etc.)
Enjoy the lists!
shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I definitely lean more towards European critics than American, but I think that it's because America's average is dragged down by the hacks on TV and magazines who don't know anything about film besides the fact that if it wins Oscars, that means it's good.
If you're looking formore requests, I've got 'em.
Spike Lee
Hal Ashby
Terry Gilliam
David Fincher
Baz Luhrmann
Wong Kar-Wai
I'll certainly tackle these next. In fact, I was already nearly done with one of them a few days ago! I will post that one up and post it next!
I think you certainly have something about America's average. I'm not sure that explains everything, but it does explain quite a bit. I think the a number of the few good critics we have are aging, and some of them (not all) solidfied their idea of what good films look like and does in the 70s when they started. (*cough* Ebert *cough*)
Of course, this is again a gross generalization, so forgive me!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs