Scan barcode
ericfheiman's review against another edition
4.0
Makes a good argument for critics to ignore recent calls of contemporary woke, “everyone deserves a trophy for trying” generosity and instead return to the scabrous flaying that so much contemporary cinema, especially mediocre studio franchise fare, so richly deserves.
themorsecode's review
4.0
Strong collection of film criticism; Hamrah is an intelligent and frequently amusing writer (particularly in his short cranky demolitions of mainstream Hollywood films), who is also interested in the nature of criticism itself. Recommend the bonus Covid-era interview from March 2020 in the ebook version where he moans about how terrible TV is compared to film.
mybrilliantbasset's review
4.0
some blistering and amazing one-liners, most memorably at the expense of the steve jobs movie and in praise of alameda, ca
nickdleblanc's review
5.0
This is a great collection of top notch film and cultural criticism. I may not want to discuss my personal film opinions with him directly as his takes tend toward the acerbic and anti-entertainment. But, I certainly enjoy reading as he tears films apart and weaves cultural analysis into his takes without becoming preachy or heavy handed. If you hate the current climate of blockbuster friendly recaps in most magazines/websites, you will dig this. I highly recommend.
mdebeni's review against another edition
4.0
I particularly liked the essay about zombies. All of the coverage about 9/11 films was also extremely enlightening. This book also convinced me to watch Looker (1981)--a film with one of the gnarliest title songs ever made. I also liked the cheekiness of Hamrah having the intention to see a film, other things getting in the way, and that being the bulk of the review. Hamrah plays with other things in the film critic genre as well such as reviewing films he watched without sound in airports and bars.
beepbeepbooks's review against another edition
4.0
quite difficult to read in a single sitting lol. But that's almost the point. Hamrah's style of film writing is never about the easy digestible take or single sentence phrase to be blasted on DVD covers as advertisements. His writing is like nettles, acerbic and bristling, but at the same time starkly refreshing. In one batch of reviews he adds a dream he had about a certain streaming giant, in another he adds a call he gets from his aunt. The freedom of his writing is its' key, his ability to contextualize movies within the framework of life. The inability to watch, or the frustration of watching on an iPhone or computer is as much a part of the criticism of the film itself, if not the shaky foundation 21st century criticism has to surmount.
His essay "Jessica Biel's Hand" is rightly lauded, as is his essay on zombies (although his grouping of Hunger Games and Divergent within the same category has me troubled, as I see those in the distinct YA tradition of the Battle Royale genre). Yet there are some hidden gems to be gleamed in Hamrah's writing in this period that should be looked over again. His piece "Kiarostami and The Purge" is melancholic and deeply mournful of the direction of contemporary cinema, and the very real and tangible ways that the vulgar Western entertainment complex fails Kiarostami and other directors doing real work in cinema. His essay on traveling through California is astonishing honestly. And makes me wonder if Hamrah could retire hopefully as a travel writer. Like J. Hoberman or Jonathan Rosenbaum, Hamrah creates a film criticism all his own, linking films together with their release and at the same time reminding readers of the fractured and often staggered ways that some films trickled down to the viewers. The most cynical Oscar watcher, the ironic Hollywood diehard, Hamrah is king.
His essay "Jessica Biel's Hand" is rightly lauded, as is his essay on zombies (although his grouping of Hunger Games and Divergent within the same category has me troubled, as I see those in the distinct YA tradition of the Battle Royale genre). Yet there are some hidden gems to be gleamed in Hamrah's writing in this period that should be looked over again. His piece "Kiarostami and The Purge" is melancholic and deeply mournful of the direction of contemporary cinema, and the very real and tangible ways that the vulgar Western entertainment complex fails Kiarostami and other directors doing real work in cinema. His essay on traveling through California is astonishing honestly. And makes me wonder if Hamrah could retire hopefully as a travel writer. Like J. Hoberman or Jonathan Rosenbaum, Hamrah creates a film criticism all his own, linking films together with their release and at the same time reminding readers of the fractured and often staggered ways that some films trickled down to the viewers. The most cynical Oscar watcher, the ironic Hollywood diehard, Hamrah is king.
partypete's review against another edition
5.0
wildly funny, extremely knowledgeable book on film. his essay on Thomas Kinkade was astounding
jacob_wren's review
5.0
Three short passages from The Earth Dies Streaming:
Todays Republicans go out of their way to insist that the GOP is the party of Ronald Reagan, but after seeing Emile de Antonio’s films you realize that it’s the party of Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover – de Antonio’s obsessions, his main villains. He has located the end of American democracy in these three figures. Sneaks, liars, and hypocrites who would be at home in John Ashcroft’s Justice Department, all three were smear specialists. They owed what power they had to their ability to make the population as paranoid as they were, to their ability to instill fear – of pinkos, the Vietnamese, the Russians, “subversives,” anyone who didn’t see things their way.
If that’s what a feel-good movie is, I can’t stand to feel that good. It’s physically painful for me to feel that good.
Farber states that he is not interested in pronouncing movies good or bad, but he is still always for or against something.
Todays Republicans go out of their way to insist that the GOP is the party of Ronald Reagan, but after seeing Emile de Antonio’s films you realize that it’s the party of Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover – de Antonio’s obsessions, his main villains. He has located the end of American democracy in these three figures. Sneaks, liars, and hypocrites who would be at home in John Ashcroft’s Justice Department, all three were smear specialists. They owed what power they had to their ability to make the population as paranoid as they were, to their ability to instill fear – of pinkos, the Vietnamese, the Russians, “subversives,” anyone who didn’t see things their way.
If that’s what a feel-good movie is, I can’t stand to feel that good. It’s physically painful for me to feel that good.
Farber states that he is not interested in pronouncing movies good or bad, but he is still always for or against something.
boithorn's review
4.0
Very solid collection of contemporary film criticism. Older and lesser-appreciated films get large treatments, while new releases get 1-3 paragraph writeups that are wickedly funny. Hamrah is certainly disenchanted with the film industry for its lack of imagination and how it carries water for some of the worst institutions in America, but he has an affinity for protecting underdogs that keeps his meanness from sliding into nihilism.
rachelcomplains's review
5.0
didn't expect to enjoy this as much as i did — funniest culture crit i've read in a while