Who is the worst critic in the business right now?

Ben Lyons. So bad, I think he shouldn’t have any business using the word ‘critic’.

Armond white is one of the only critics with any balls if you ask me, he forces you to challenge every trendy perception you might have. and even when he’s batshit crazy/wrong, he’s always entertaining.

Peter Travers and the horrible no-nothing David Denby would get the vote for me.

I saw David Denby do a little Critic’s Choice thing for AMC years ago, back when they actually showed good movies. He did a little introduction/appreication for Hitchcock’s SHADOW OF A DOUBT, which he praised extravagantly, as of course he should, it is one of Hitchcock’s greatest films.

The problem was that he completely misread the film. He got the tone of the film completely wrong, and at one point was even contradicted by the clips they showed. Trust me, this isn’t a matter of opinion, this is like Ebert’s view of BEOWULF as Pythonesque comedy. He was just bloody wrong, and I’ve not been able to take him seriously since.

Well, Kael could be inspired as when she took note of how Stallone wrote, directed, starred in and produced his shlocky films, and asked, “Who is she? The Woody Allen for stupidos.” She was also very uncharacteristically charitable and excited toward Nashville.

Critics are meant to be taken with a grain of salt. If everything they said sat well with everyone, they wouldn’t be doing their job. And I suspect a lot of people read her just to appreciate her writing, and maybe even made a point of seeking out films she hated.

Eggman: hey, that Ebert review wasn’t the worst I’ve seen from him – at least he seemed to be genuinely thinking, there (though I don’t agree with him about …Button). He’s written some real doozies.

I sometimes wonder: what in the hell is the point of standard-issue movie critics like Jeffrey Lyons or Gene Shalit, anyway? Are they like consumer advocates, drawing you to good “product,” while warning you from the bad stuff, in order to maximize your value for the dollar? Or are they rating works by certain aesthetic or cultural values? (In the latter case, the one virtue of the work of conservative nutcase Medved is that he’s unpretentiously assigning value according to his prejudices—only he doesn’t call ‘em “prejudices”) If they’re determining the aesthetic value of the films under discussion – if their work is in some way of a piece with the body of cultural criticism – why do they seem so clueless, amnesiac and illiterate?

DEFINITELY Ben Lyons. Followed closely by Armond White, who is possibly the most pretentious critic I’ve ever read.

You and me. We are our own worst enemies.

Armond White – I used to like him but these days, he seems to be contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian.

Ty Burr without question… total douchebag

Armond White-Beginning to remind me too much of John Simon

Does Gene Shalit count?

I would say Ben Lyons. However, I am not sure what he does qualifies as criticism.

A.O. Scott. Smug and condescending.

BEN LYONS, MICHAEL MEDVED

Peter Travers from Rolling Stone
Ben Lyons, who gave Synecdoche, New York a bad review simply because he “didn’t get it.”

The rest have pretty much been named..

@Ben Lyons should be the first one to go with the draft. But then, he might get defferment, or shot for being a sissy.

I wouldn’t say the worst, but I remember this hatchet wielding critic, Manohla Dargis from LA Times many years ago. I’m overseas most of the time, so no worries about reading her stuff. Until recently, I caught one of her hack jobs in the NY Times, and a good friend told me she’s quite respected and popular, like P. Kael in her days. Ooooh dear!

Armond White = Epic Fail. Check out armondwhiteisadouchebag.com too. Fun stuff.

Peter Travers, Leonard Maltin and Gene Shalit all like EVERYTHING. Ben Lyons is just a weak douchebag. Is that show that replaced Ebert & Roeper even on anymore? God help us if it is.

And I have to throw a couple daggers at Rex Reed for calling Benjamin Button one of the greatest films of all time. And David Edelstein’s comments on the CBS Sunday Morning show are pretty annoying.

Honestly I don’t pay attention to any one critic anymore. I used to at least respect Ebert because of his vast knowledge of cinema but he’s become so NOT critical of most films these days (Juno the best movie of 2007? come on) that even he has lost me. I tend to just look at the overall response from various critics to get any sort of an idea about a film.

Peter Travers, Leonard Maltin and Gene Shalit all like EVERYTHING so it’s difficult to even call them CRITICS. Ben Lyons is just a weak douchebag trying to ride on his dad’s coat tails. Is that show that replaced Ebert & Roeper even on anymore? God help us if it is.

And I have to throw a couple daggers at Rex Reed for calling Benjamin Button one of the greatest films of all time. And David Edelstein’s comments on the CBS Sunday Morning show are pretty annoying.

Honestly I don’t pay attention to any one critic anymore. I used to at least respect Ebert because of his vast knowledge of cinema but he’s become so NOT critical of most films these days (Juno the best movie of 2007? come on) that even he has lost me. I tend to just look at the overall response from various critics to get any sort of an idea about a film.

All of the film critics at the New Yorker. Simply because they have not found a single film released since 1926 (I exaggerate, of course) worthwhile.

Saying anyone other than Ben Lyons is batshit crazy. Armond White is a goddamn genius compared to Ben Lyons.

^{^}^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BETTER THAN BEN LYONS!

Ouch! My eyes!

STEPHANIE ZACHAREK from salon.com
Leonard Maltin, who sold his soul to Directv and the Reelz Channel.

Tony Medley, who is not even worthy of the title “film critic”,said this about the pt anderson film, “There Will Be Blood” , "That about sums up this film; Daniel being a charming salesman; Daniel being insanely brutal; people covered in oil.” (He also complains about there being minimal blood, I’m actually serious). Here’s another round of TM’s abbreviated rants about the film “Once”: "This might have been a sweet love story, but it isn’t. It’s a concert around a weak story and script. I don’t know why this film has gotten such a terrific buzz.” Here’s one last abbriviated review from TM for the Wes Anderson film, “The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou”: " It’s not a movie for children, either, because the “f” word is used copiously. If I had a rating lower than zero, this one would get it.” ??? What?? Did he honestly just warn parents that they shouldn’t take their kids to Life Aquatic?

Another unintelligent film in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area is Ben Lyons, who gave the latetest abboration from “one hit wonder” director McG a postive review saying, "The film may not be as good as T2, but this film is leaps and bounds better than T3. Its not a relaunch of a fabled franchise, it’s more of a continuation of a franchise (paraphrase). In an interview with Carson Daily on his Last Call show, director McG made a statement: "We didn’t want to make a fourth movie. We wanted to begin again, because the picture had lost its way a little after the third one, and in the spirit of what Christian Bale and Chris Nolan did for Batman and Daniel Craig did for James Bond.’

What the hell is wrong with the film critics? Are film critics, if any of then can be called film critics, dumbing down to the level of the current Hollywood blockbuster climate. These “loud and dumb” displayed only for the bumkin and the half-wit, not surprising at all. IT ALL A F#$%ING FARCE!!!! ARE THESE PEOPLE REMOTELY HUMAN????!!!!!!!!!!

Ben Lyons, hands down.

While some of the other critics mentioned clearly do not understand or appreciate great films, they are all somewhat intelligent people and it shows.

Lyons also does not understand or appreciate good movies, but it also appears he doesn’t understand Algebra…or the English language…or the fact that the Earth is not flat…

I’m saying Peter Travers. Why? Because he seems to write with the strict intention of getting quoted on posters and boxes. He likes everything, and has used his knack for pithy writing as a tool to get name recognition rather than as a means to actually critique movies.

>>the Wes Anderson film, "The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou”: " It’s not a movie for children, either, because the “f” word is used copiously.<<
Uhm … Wes Anderson’s films aren’t for children because they’re so subtle they’d be bored to death by them.

>>What?? Did he honestly just warn parents that they shouldn’t take their kids to Life Aquatic?<<
Shouldn’t the rating have tipped them off? (LIFE AQUATIC was an R as I recall …)

What’s with the Pauline Kael bashing? Talk about kicking someone when they’re down…way down. I certainly didn’t always agree with her but never once doubted her love for movies. And is there something wrong with being influential? Did she influence future critics? Surely, but I’d argue that just as many critics of the next generation were influenced by Manny Farber, Stanley Kaufmann and Andrew Sarris. Did she influence the average multi-plex moviegoer during the last 20 years of her career? Unlikely, unless they were reading The New Yorker en masse….and they weren’t.

She championed the likes of Altman, Bertolucci, DePalma and Paul Schrader before they hit the mainstream and, yes, was probably immersed, if not in the “industry,” then with the film directors themselves, cultivating love/hate relationships not only with Beatty, but with Peckinpah and Cassavetes as well. It doesn’t negate her reviews. Keep in mind that James Agee, who did some of the very best writing about film in the first half of the 20th century, worked in the industry as well…most famously on the screenplay of The African Queen. It doesn’t negate his reviews either. Furthermore, I don’t think Kael ever panned things just for the sake of panning them (and her review of Reds wasn’t a flat out pan…it was mixed with praise for Beatty’s acting, Maureen Stapleton as Emma Goldman and the use of interviews with “witnesses,” many of whom knew the characters portrayed in the film) despite the story of Beatty bamboozling her into going to Hollywood. In the interest of fairness, read Afterglow: A Last Conversation With Pauline Kael by Francis Davis for Kael’s side of that story.

Armand White!!!!

Go on atthemoviestv.com and watch some of Lyon’s reviews. Even when I agree with him his reasons make me cringe. I can tell Ben Mankiewicz hates him too. Whenever Lyons is talking, Mankiewicz has this look on his face, like debating between keeping one of the best jobs in the world and tolerating this dumbshit, or going to jail and killing him.

Someone mentioned Roeper a while back, and I’m wondering: is he even a critic anymore? He’s not on “At the Movies”, and his work with the Sun-Times has always been a sort of “general-I write about whatever dumbass opinion I have” column. Is he writing about movies at all? He seems to like poker and Las Vegas.

Anyway, I initially said Peter Traverse, and maybe Ben Lyon should be my pick instead. But is he really a critic? He seems more like this guy I met a few years ago, who just liked everything as long as it was a moving picture. And Drew, you’re right – you can see the inner conflict for Mankiewicz right there on the screen. I’m a little surprised that he doesn’t just turn to Lyon and say, “You are a complete idiot.”, and then turn to the camera and say, “I would like to invite anyone who is watching to try out for Ben’s spot. I’m sure even the average filmgoer has better insights than this dork”