Does Anybody Do Negative Reviews Better than A.O. Scott?

aos_good_luck_chuck.jpgReading A.O. Scott's review of MacGruber over the weekend, it occurred to me that the NY Times critic might be the single best take-down artist reviewing movies today. Armond White may have his quips about retroactive abortions, and Rex Reed may expend a gallon of acid per drop of ink he uses to cover, say, Kevin Smith. But more often than not, Scott approaches bad films from a genuine place attempting to ask and answer the fundamental question guiding all intelligent criticism: "What was that?" Read on as the Movieline Nine takes a look at some of his greatest hits.

Don't get me wrong: Scott's positive reviews are often very good as well! I used to have all kinds of issues with what came across as a smugness complex, and to the extent he improved, I think I probably grew up. Whatever. The point is that tracking the evolution of Scott's most vicious pans yields a redoubtable consistency. For almost a decade, this man has pushed the envelope of how to creatively trash a film in a voice that's funny, definitive and authoritative. He almost makes you want to view his targets -- almost.

Again, in honor of his excellent recent pan of MacGruber, let's visit AOS-Smackdown Memory Lane (in chronological order):

· Sorority Boys (March 22, 2002)

"Sorority Boys, every bit as clever as its title, is a frat-house cross-dressing comedy: Some Like it Hot and Animal House slammed together and reworked as a Bazooka Joe comic, but with nudity and swearing, and of no use at all in the disposal of chewed gum. To give you an idea of the humor: the sorority where the nerdy misfit women live is called Delta Omega Gamma, which spells dog. Get it? I can't even tell you the Greek letters in the name of the fraternity. [...] Our three heroes, in one of the least convincing feats of cross-dressing ever perpetrated on screen (and if you think back on To Wong Foo, Flawless, and _Bosom Buddies, that's saying something), go undercover as DOG pledges. Dave gets involved in some heavy pseudo-lesbian Tootsie action with Leah, the humorless feminist; Doofer takes a Mrs. Doubtfire turn cleaning house and offering a motherly shoulder; and Adam does, I don't know, Angie Dickinson in Police Woman. Rrrrowf."

· Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat (Nov. 21, 2003)

"Under the supervision of Brian Grazer, who was responsible for the monstrous Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas three years ago, and with the permission of Audrey Geisel, the author's widow and the custodian of his posthumous reputation, the first-time director Bo Welch has put together a vulgar, uninspired lump of poisoned eye candy that Universal has the temerity to call Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat. It is nothing of the kind, despite voice-over narration that occasionally tries to imitate the cadences of Seussian verse and sets that sporadically evoke Seuss's antic draftsmanship. [...] I am tempted to say that this Cat should be tied up in a sack and drowned, but I wouldn't want to condone cruelty to animals, even metaphorically. Cruelty to classic works of children's literature is bad enough."

· The Wicker Man (Sept. 2, 2006)

"A movie like this can survive an absurd premise but not incompetent execution. And [director Neil] LaBute, never much of an artist with the camera, proves almost comically inept as a horror-movie technician. He can't even manage an effective false scare, or sustain suspense for more than a beat or two. Nor does the crude, sloppy look of the film turn into cheesy, campy excess. It's neither haunting nor amusing; just boring. [...] I'm trying to imagine how this movie was pitched. There's this island, see, and it's ruled by women. Goddesses! Most of them are blond, and a lot of them are twins, and they have all this honey, and these wild costumes. Porno? What are you talking about? It's a horror movie. Don't you get it?"

· Wild Hogs (Mar. 2, 2007)

"The main thing about these guys -- the main source of the movie's fumbling attempts at humor -- is that they're not gay. Really. Seriously. No way. They may worry about people thinking that they're gay, and they may do things that might make people think that they're gay -- dance, touch one another, take off their clothes, express emotion -- but they're absolutely 100 percent not gay. No no no no no no. No sir, I mean, no ma'am. That's what makes it funny, see. After camping out one night, for example, they have a conversation that's overheard by a highway patrolman (John C. McGinley) who decides, based on his misunderstanding of the perfectly innocent things they're saying, that they must be gay. But the thing is -- get this -- he's the one who's gay! You think he's a stereotypical homophobe, but he turns out to be a homophobic stereotype. It's magic!"

Pages: 1 2



Comments

  • Overstreet says:

    Does Anybody Do Negative Reviews Better than A.O. Scott?
    Yes.
    Read [REDACTED]'s review of "Shrek Forever After" here:
    [REDACTED]

  • Thank you for the self-promotional comment and link! And, um, no. I read the review, and I'm sorry -- until you can disprove the existence of Shrek Forever After via thorough ontological analysis, Movieline can't help you.

  • Mike the Movie Tyke says:

    Having caught some of "Good Luck Chuck" on cable over the weekend, I feel for him having had to sit through the whole thing. I mean, WOW this movie is bad. A completely inept, unfunny script poorly acted by charmless characters. It's amazing what gets greenlit these days, somebody could have worked an hour on that script and easily made it 20% better.

  • bess marvin, girl detective says:

    I think everyone pulled out all the hate they've ever felt to write the Transformers 2 review. However, the notables are of course Roger Ebert's. Also read his review for "Armageddon." Hilarious.

  • FilmDrunk says:

    Check out his review of Letters to Juliet. It's magical.

  • FilmDrunk says:

    Excerpt:
    "The people in tragedies, according to Aristotle, are better than the rest of us, while the people in comedies are worse. In a certain kind of modern comic romance, though, the two primary stipulations are that the main characters be better-looking and duller than the audience, which produces a self-canceling wash of emotions. No cathartic tears or therapeutic laughter, but instead a mild, smiley stupefaction. Look at how pretty Italy is! And how pretty Amanda Seyfried is! She’s drinking a glass of wine. I’ll bet that tastes good. Isn’t that fellow handsome? Doesn’t that old lady look sad? A wedding, how nice!"

  • One of the most favorite PC software for online free movies offers over 3000 channels from around the world. One may not need a translation here to understand this universal language of sex.