Mark Kermode - Reviews Where He Was Right OR Mental

[Dr Rock]

A spin-off from the Brent thread, so that can get back to slagging off Gervais. This is to discuss Mark Kermode and whether he knows his onions, is a dirty troll pretending shit films are good (ie Brent: Life On The road), or is just a passable writer.

I put forward this, which I just stumbled across.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/25/spectre-review-another-stellar-outing-for-bond-mark-kermode

Not egregious, but Spectre? 4 stars out of five? Daniel Craig the best Bond ever, and  Skyfall is his joint-favourite Bond movie with On Her Majesty's Secret Service? Indefensible stuff. Or is it?

It's easy to pick out a reviewers reviews that after the passing of time seem way off the mark, so feel free to do that.

[Gwen Taylor on ITV]

He's a thoughtful reviewer which at least is something.  As much as I like Empire they're really guilty of saying something shit is worth seeing because it's a "popcorn movie". 

That said one of Kermode's recurring blind spots is that any film with sexist characters is a very bad thing, like the recent Richard Linklater film Everybody Wants Some.

[Funcrusher]

How long until someone mentions 'The Exorcist'?

Oh, I just did.

[captaincockring]

But...but...Spectre was shitty.

I hated it.

Casino Royale with David Fucking Niven was better.

I might be partaking in hyperbole.

[marquis_de_sad]

Calling someone a troll when they do something stupid or inept is such an easy and ubiquitous thing online that you really need to provide some sort of evidence, otherwise you may as well be a bot.

As for Kermode's reviews, I don't find him a particularly insightful critic. It's been said before, but his epic rants are really uninspired and weak. He meanders towards the point where you think he's really going to stick the knife in, but then doesn't seem to be able to come up with anything and just sighs. He's much better when giving an historical account, I think, and the stuff he's been doing for the BFI recently (posted by Sin Agog in the Gervais thread) is worth a look.

[dr beat]

I got the 'Movie Doctors' book last Christmas and its actually not a bad read.  Although that's beccause I suspect it might have been written by someone else.

[Dr Rock]

Calling someone a troll when they do something stupid or inept is such an easy and ubiquitous thing online that you really need to provide some sort of evidence, otherwise you may as well be a bot.

Oh calm down, I explained already what I meant. Someone else called him a troll over his positive review of Brent - which I haven't seen and may well like myself - and I said I agreed in a way, that sometimes he may think a film is a 5/10 and push his opinion a little against the grain to be contrary (like the reviewers in the Lee & Herring sketches The Ironic Review) or maybe to balance out a consensus. Or maybe he has just got shit taste sometimes. I am not claiming he is a professional troll, so wind your neck in, you are over-reacting. A bot? ffs.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

How long until someone mentions 'The Exorcist'?

Oh, I just did.

Do you have anything of interest to say about Kermode's appreciation of The Exorcist? Is he wrong when he says it's one of the greatest films ever made? If so, what issues do you have with his take on it?

Call Kermode a wanker by all means, but back it up. At least he attempts to explain why he doesn't like something.

[Funcrusher]

My take on Kermode is that he's a horror/exploitation nerd who is okay but nothing special on those genres but just doesn't have the depth or the chops to be a general critic, particularly with more substantial auteurist films, but has managed to talk his way into gigs doing this.

[Dr Rock]

Jurassic World 3/5. It was just total shite. 1/5 more like.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/14/jurassic-world-review-dinosaurs-jurassic-park

Mind, it is sitting on 7/10 on IMDb, so maybe he's got his finger on the pulse.

[Dr Rock]

As much as I like Empire they're really guilty of saying something shit is worth seeing because it's a "popcorn movie". 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/14/jurassic-world-review-dinosaurs-jurassic-park

the film fulfils its popcorn promise

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

It's been said before, but his epic rants are really uninspired and weak.

Yep. I tuned into his review of the third Pirates of the Caribbean film, having heard about the one he did of the second. It was rubbish. Just playing to the gallery - constantly repeating "Orloomo Bland!"[nb]In fairness, it is an accurate nickname.[/nb] in the absence of any real wit or fluency.

When he puts aside the attempts to be a "personality", he's not so bad. Better than The Nostalgia Critic, at least.

[marquis_de_sad]

Oh calm down, I explained already what I meant. Someone else called him a troll over his positive review of Brent - which I haven't seen and may well like myself - and I said I agreed in a way, that sometimes he may think a film is a 5/10 and push his opinion a little against the grain to be contrary (like the reviewers in the Lee & Herring sketches The Ironic Review) or maybe to balance out a consensus. Or maybe he has just got shit taste sometimes. I am not claiming he is a professional troll, so wind your neck in, you are over-reacting. A bot? ffs.

Is this guy trolling or what?

[Funcrusher]

Do you have anything of interest to say about Kermode's appreciation of The Exorcist? Is he wrong when he says it's one of the greatest films ever made? If so, what issues do you have with his take on it.

Pardon me for being a bit less than serious when talking about Mark Kermode on a comedy forum.

I just can't take the idea of The Exorcist as one of greatest films of all time very seriously. To me it's a film that manages to be both shlocky and kind of bland at the same time. It doesn't have the cinematic flair of, say, Argento, or the imagination of Cronenberg's best, or the craft of Carpenter's best films, or the energy of Romero at his best. It's just a based on a New York Times bestseller kind of nothing of a film, apart from the famous shock elements. I assume that Kermode's God bothering side is part of what appeals to him about it.

[Dr Rock]

I happen to think The Excorcist is over-rated, dated silliness too. But maybe he saw it at an impressionable age, horror films can be very subjective like that.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

It's been said before, but his epic rants are really uninspired and weak. He meanders towards the point where you think he's really going to stick the knife in, but then doesn't seem to be able to come up with anything and just sighs. He's much better when giving an historical account, I think, and the stuff he's been doing for the BFI recently (posted by Sin Agog in the Gervais thread) is worth a look.

Yep, that's his forte. He's good value when writing historical accounts of things he's interested in, but I sometimes get the feeling that he simply can't be arsed with reviewing most of the stuff he has to watch. He increasingly gives off the air of a man who would rather just write essays for the BFI or Sight & Sound than waste his time going "meh" about the latest middling Hollywood release.

The likes of Ebert never sound jaded by their profession. He hated, quite liked and loved stuff with a more or less equal level of engagement, so even when he was wrong, you knew he was putting some effort into expressing his opinions. Kermode basically became the BBC's resident film critic by default, because he was someone who knew his cinema history and went to see loads of films. But he really has no interest in reviewing The Hangover 3 or whatever.

I don't blame him, I wouldn't either, so why doesn't he just quietly retire to a life of writing essays about Werner Herzog and Mario Bava?

YOU'D BE SO MUCH HAPPIER, MARK.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

He made a total twat of himself over Godard's Film Socialisme. He does an aimless and flippant review of a film he clearly paid little attention to, alleged that Godard is French or Swiss 'depending on who he's talking to' as if being born in France but living and working in Switzerland is just some massive mindfuck ruse that Godard has concocted for the sole purpose of aggravating journalists, and does an 'ironically' racist French accent (an impersonation of John Cleese's castlekeeper from 'Holy Grail') in order to mock Godard's uninviting style of film-making and the fact that he's... French. Now it's fair enough that he didn't like the film, as it is a tough watch admittedly, but the fact that he made such a hand-flapping cunt of himself in the process is one of the many reasons I don't pay attention to what he thinks anymore. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BoL5XICGZg

My take on Kermode is that he's a horror/exploitation nerd who is okay but nothing special on those genres but just doesn't have the depth or the chops to be a general critic, particularly with more substantial auteurist films, but has managed to talk his way into gigs doing this.

Pretty much my thoughts on him too.

[Noodle Lizard]

Pardon me for being a bit less than serious when talking about Mark Kermode on a comedy forum.

I just can't take the idea of The Exorcist as one of greatest films of all time very seriously. To me it's a film that manages to be both shlocky and kind of bland at the same time. It doesn't have the cinematic flair of, say, Argento, or the imagination of Cronenberg's best, or the craft of Carpenter's best films, or the energy of Romero at his best. It's just a based on a New York Times bestseller kind of nothing of a film, apart from the famous shock elements. I assume that Kermode's God bothering side is part of what appeals to him about it.

It feels more like something he might have said once to be a bit confrontational[nb]back in the days before The AV Club and everyone made it commonplace to simply assert "This is the best thing ever made" without much justification[/nb], but now has to stick to it.  Or it could genuinely be what he thinks is the best film ever made, I dunno.  I don't think as little of it as you seem to, but it's definitely got its flaws - as do many of that William Friedkin's films.  He seems to have a knack for either writing or editing scenes together in a way which makes them quite confusing, they definitely don't "flow" particularly well.

[Dr Rock]

From his glowing review of The Force Awakens, he says he was too old by the time the original Star Wars came out, already into darker stuff like Silent Running and Solaris. He would've been 13 in 1977. It's not impossible that a 13 year old would be into subtitled Russian sci-fi and had no interest in Star Wars... I suppose...

What's most striking about Star Wars: The Force Awakens is the fact that this multimillion dollar franchise blockbuster has real heart and soul.

You are welcome to your incorrect opinion Mark.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

My take on Kermode is that he's a horror/exploitation nerd who is okay but nothing special on those genres but just doesn't have the depth or the chops to be a general critic, particularly with more substantial auteurist films, but has managed to talk his way into gigs doing this.

I agree. Ta for replying and expounding.

[Brundle-Fly]

I happen to think The Excorcist is over-rated, dated silliness too. But maybe he saw it at an impressionable age, horror films can be very subjective like that.

I think The Exorcist is brilliant and entirely agree with Kermode on that.  I don't agree with all his opinions but believe him to be passionate and sincere about cinema.

Hatchet Job makes for an interesting read but the only thing that grates with me in the book was the constant self flagellation. It's all your fault, Dr Rock.

[Funcrusher]

It feels more like something he might have said once to be a bit confrontational[nb]back in the days before The AV Club and everyone made it commonplace to simply assert "This is the best thing ever made" without much justification[/nb], but now has to stick to it.  Or it could genuinely be what he thinks is the best film ever made, I dunno.  I don't think as little of it as you seem to, but it's definitely got its flaws - as do many of that William Friedkin's films.  He seems to have a knack for either writing or editing scenes together in a way which makes them quite confusing, they definitely don't "flow" particularly well.

The French Connection's pretty great. Better than The Exorcist, for sure.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

It feels more like something he might have said once to be a bit confrontational[nb]back in the days before The AV Club and everyone made it commonplace to simply assert "This is the best thing ever made" without much justification[/nb], but now has to stick to it.  Or it could genuinely be what he thinks is the best film ever made, I dunno.  I don't think as little of it as you seem to, but it's definitely got its flaws - as do many of that William Friedkin's films.  He seems to have a knack for either writing or editing scenes together in a way which makes them quite confusing, they definitely don't "flow" particularly well.

Friedkin attacked The Exorcist with his typically self-regarding, extravagant style - he always wants you to know who's in charge - but something unusual happened with this particular film. I don't mean in the over-mythologised "standing solemnly in a Catholic church altar" Kermode sense, but he does manage to create scenes of really quite unpleasant, unsettling intensity.

I'm not talking about the infamous Linda Blair exorcism set-pieces[nb]Although I still maintain that Regan stabbing herself in the vagina with a crucifix is horrendous. Yes, it's horribly funny in a way. Isn't it supposed to be? It's just so fucking bizarre and unpleasant, you have to go along with the film-makers intentions. It reminds me of Derek and Clive in that way.[/nb], but more the underplayed, pre-hysteria scenes involving Father Merrin, Father Carras and his mother, and Regan's mother dealing with her daughter's illness in an entirely naturalistic way.

Friedkin builds a lingering sense of unease and dread in that portion of the film, so much so that you might understandably be disappointed by the histrionics that follow.   

[checkoutgirl]

Kermode basically became the BBC's resident film critic by default, because he was someone who knew his cinema history and went to see loads of films. But he really has no interest in reviewing The Hangover 3 or whatever.

I don't blame him, I wouldn't either

Agree completely. For a few years I'd look forward to the next Kermode reviews but I haven't watched or read more than a couple in the last 2 years. It probably doesn't help that the majority of films that he has to watch these days are middling Hollywood fodder, remakes, superhero films or Judd Apatow, which he clearly has no interest in and struggles to articulate this. Like you, I wouldn't envy having to plough my way through that lot every week and occasionally I do feel sorry for him. And it just seems like he's fallen into the all to easy trap of being jaded by seeing the same ideas trotted out every week. That's sometimes the tragedy of doing something you like as a job. Being contractually obliged to watch The Hottie and the Nottie sounds like an arse ache.

Then again he does have a real love of horror including a doctorate. Agree with the sentiments about him being better with historical films that he cares about, although in his regular gigs these are rarely addressed.

Sometimes I want more feeling from him rather than him just referencing various films the one he is reviewing were influenced by. The amount of reviews of his where I still amn't sure of his opinion by the end of it even when he's been banging on for a good 10 minutes. I watch reviews to see if a film is worth watching and more than half the time he doesn't get his opinion across forcefully enough.

[Sin Agog]

From his glowing review of The Force Awakens, he says he was too old by the time the original Star Wars came out, already into darker stuff like Silent Running and Solaris. He would've been 13 in 1977. It's not impossible that a 13 year old would be into subtitled Russian sci-fi and had no interest in Star Wars... I suppose...

You are welcome to your incorrect opinion Mark.

I really wouldn't be surprised if he did see those two films pretty young.  As you guys were saying, I kind of suspect Kermode is a socially awkward, Harry Knowles-esque myopic geek at heart. There's a reason why Mayo (irritant that he can be) conducts the interviews.  Whenever Kermode tries his hand, he always makes it extremely awkward.  Take a look at how he buggers up the interview with Charlie Kaufman and Duke Johnson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfuaWPicXfY) right in the first minute by asking them if they liked Inside Out (which the 'mode adored), then, arms crossed and firing a gimlet-eyed glare at them, grills them on what Pixar movies they do like.  The interview never recovered from that.  Literally every time I've seen him contribute to an interview on that show, it's the same result.

He's definitely not putting anything on, though.  He's just got that weird geeky detail-oriented nature that stops him staying sufficiently frosty as a critic.  It pays off to know a name reviewer's quirks if you're going to start following their reviews.  Ebert used to get all moralistic about sexy fun time scenes in movies, too, which was bloody weird as he wrote that Beyond the Valley of the Dolls Russ Meyers pic.

[Bhazor]

I don't know why he became a mainstream film reviewer when it seems like those films are nothing but a chore to him. Its clear his passion is for horror and weird cult films. I liked him much more when BBC had cult or foreign language film seasons and he would be ten minute spiels introducing films he clearly adored.

[marquis_de_sad]

Yeah he's in a kind of weird place where he's famous enough for the BBC to want him, but they apparently don't want him to do the thing he's famous for.

[Peter P. Parrot]

Yeah he's in a kind of weird place where he's famous enough for the BBC to want him, but they apparently don't want him to do the thing he's famous for.

I'm pretty sure the thing he's most famous among the general public for is ranting about Transformers 4 etc.

[Glebe]

Has championed a lot of cult movies and did some top docs. Likes the Twilight series, oddly. I like him, even though I never fully agree with his opinions. Just read Hatchet Job and The Movie Doctors recently, actually (both presents).

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

I'm pretty sure the thing he's most famous among the general public for is ranting about Transformers 4 etc.

Yes, hence all the points of view expressed about him in this fucking thread and the one it sprang from.

No one actually takes the time to read anything any more, do they? No wonder Kermode is so fucking jaded.