Look, I know this may be as surprising to you as it is to me.
But Rex Reed does not quite scrape the bottom of the barrel.
Not since the creation of the internet, at least.
Since then, every yutz who has ever been within fifty meters of a movie can start a review blog, and, let’s face it, a few of them, not many, but a few, are so bad at the job that they ennoble him by establishing that he is not quite as terrible as it’s possible to be.
You have folks who rate movies by the size of the lead actress’s boobs, who get so excited when they are sufficient volume that they will exclaim, BOOBIES!, all in capitals.
You have folks so upset at the appearance of a non-white character as anything but a porter that they will accuse the filmmakers of fighting a jihad against white people.
You have folks creating listicles of the most (adjective) movies of all time who imply by example that no movies were made before, oh, 1995.
Rex Reed is guilty of none of those things.
It may astonish you to contemplate that there are movie reviewing sins Rex Reed is not guilty of, but no, he is not guilty of any of those.
So he does not scrape the bottom of the barrel.
He is just very near the bottom of the planet, still part of the sediment, not any of the stuff you’ll need steel wool to scrape off, if you’re into cleaning barrels.
He is not the worst movie reviewer on the planet.
Merely the worst among the prominent.
And let us say something else.
A movie reviewer does not “suck” merely by loving movies you hate and hating movies you love.
It is not a reviewer’s job, it cannot be a reviewer’s job, to duplicate and anticipate the exact reaction of every member of the theatre audience. That is not only an impossible goal, it is also likely an unworthy goal. It is the critic’s job to write entertainingly, and informatively, with wit and perception. Roger Ebert hated The Godfather Part II. He had his head up his ass on that one and on many others, and so what? He wrote entertainingly, and informatively, with wit and perception. There are likely any number of times when his verdict on a given movie was identical to Rex Reed’s, when they were likely shouting in unison, and it just as inevitable that on those occasions Ebert wrote entertainingly, and informatively, with wit and perception, and Rex Reed, saying the same things, was just a contemptible jackass.
These thoughts are prompted by a brouhaha over Reed’s review for Guillermo del Toro’s The Shape of Water. It is a negative review, of course, a given because Reed does not understand and does not like any films with fantastic elements, ever. But those are minor sins compared to reporting that the unrelated Benicio del Toro was the director, and that the character played by Sally Yates is mentally disabled, when in fact she’s just mute.
Let us forgive the del Toro confusion as a simple brain fart.
Of course, if you excused every error of fact in a Rex Reed review as a brain fart you would have to assume that he thought about nothing but baked beans all day.
But let us be kind and assume that. That could have been predictive typing.
The fact of the matter is this would be a minor sin in Rex Reed’s catalogue.
The man has been known to hallucinate plot points that never take place in the movies he’s written about.
He attacks lead actresses for being fat, even if, like Melissa McCarthy, who he did it to, the actresses know damn well that they’re fat and have incorporated that feature into their art.
He doesn’t understand anything not written down to him.
He doesn’t understand anything out of formula.
He said of Barfly, a film about skid-row alcoholics, “Nobody could possibly care about these people!”
He further whined about that film that movies are supposed to be about glamour, which to me says that he had difficulty processing a story with characters who did not look like they’d just gotten off a sound-stage.
But these things don’t make him the worst movie reviewer on the planet.
These are things that make him the enemy of art, in general.
As a movie reviewer, he would make a good pumper of septic tanks, but that doesn’t literally make him the worst on the planet. Certainly not while the internet exists.
Even the single stupidest thing he’s ever said about any movie, which is a difficult and remarkable distinction given how many stupid and objectionable things he’s written, doesn’t do that.
That was when, giving a TV review, he said of David Lynch’s Dune, a movie that it is indeed very possible for an intelligent and perceptive person to loathe, that he had never read the “drugged-out sci-fi novel” it was based on, but after seeing the movie, snort, chuckle, snort, wouldn’t read it on a bet! Ha, ha!
Frank Herbert’s Dune is of course a novel that has garnered mixed critical reactions since its publication more than fifty years ago, and it is indeed very possible for an intelligent and perceptive person to loathe it.
Rex Reed’s sin in that case was of course somehow managing to have been a paid movie critic for many years at that point without ever encountering the premise that a bad movie can be made of a good book, or that it’s ignorant to warn people off a book he hadn’t read simply because he hated the movie made from it.
That was a pretty spectacular demonstration of recklessness and bone-stupid idiocy, and though it stuck in this writer’s memory, one must be fair: it is nowhere near uncharacteristic of the recklessness and bone-stupid idiocy he is known for.
So, yeah, one of the worst movie reviewers on the planet, yes.
Maybe the worst who has ever consistently earned money — and fame! — from that profession.
The very worst?
For that you have to read all the way through the work of unpaid assholes, including your cousin’s blog, Freddie’s Fractured Flickers, the one that he writes all in caps, with multiple exclamation points at the end of every sentence, excoriating every movie that isn’t Die Hard.
Freddie might be worse.
Or that might be being unfair to Freddie.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
December 21st, 2017 at 11:17 am
Bilge Ebiri, Matthew M. Foster, Josh Olson, John Skipp
Comment By: Chuck Messer
December 21st, 2017 at 11:17 am
Rex Reed is the Bosley Crowther of this “modern” age.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
December 21st, 2017 at 12:19 pm
Crowther, who was actually defeated and driven into retirement by a movie.
Comment By: Chuck Messer
December 21st, 2017 at 12:19 pm
Which movie?
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
December 21st, 2017 at 1:18 pm
BONNIE AND CLYDE, which he slammed as violent and anti-American. That same week, a young critic named Roger Ebert praised it. The critical consensus for BONNIE AND CLYDE resolved to Ebert’s, and Crowther — who had been in the words of one observer a boring old fud for twenty years, among other things condescending to Akira Kurosawa with a review that amounted to, “Oh, look, it thinks it can make a western!” — retired feeling that the art had passed him by.
The Crowther / Ebert synchronicity was a great example of one door closing while another opened.
Comment By: Chuck Messer
December 21st, 2017 at 9:17 pm
How delicious. Thank you.
Comment By: Michael Grover
December 21st, 2017 at 11:17 am
I read his review of THE SHAPE OF WATER, and was appalled. Not because he didn’t like it, which is fair, but because of the way he repeatedly referred to Sally Hawkins’ character as someone who cleans toilets, as if that makes her less human. In that regard, he’s just as bad as the character played by Michael Shannon.
Comment By: L.J. Bothell
December 21st, 2017 at 2:19 pm
He must have loved the main character in Jupiter Rising. . .
Comment By: Brian Siano
December 21st, 2017 at 11:17 am
Along the same lines, Enver Hoxha was not the worst dictator on the whole damn planet.
Comment By: Eric Cline
December 21st, 2017 at 2:19 pm
There are not enough Enver Hoxha references on the internet!
Comment By: Eric Cline
December 21st, 2017 at 8:19 pm
Really into public works projects….
Comment By: Julie Anstaett
December 21st, 2017 at 12:19 pm
Wow. I havenât thought of, nor heard anything from Rex âis my lipstick on straightâ Reed for years! I never took anything he had to say seriously, because (letâs face it), the man is on this earth to diss anything he doesnât understand.
Comment By: Bob Toy
December 21st, 2017 at 12:19 pm
My problems with Reed have always been twofold… First, that somehow, his reviews always seem to tell us more about *him* than the film he’s theoretically reviewing, and second, that he’s apparently aware that he knows little of what constitutes a good film, cares less, and is proud of his lack of knowledge. He’s to film what Mr Blackwell was to fashion.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
December 21st, 2017 at 12:19 pm
Prior to Rex Reed, my pet hate among movie reviewers was one Bernard Drew, dead for decades now. He was so awful that I wrote a four-page letter to the syndicate daring them to let me review even one movie he would have been assigned to, so I could show him how the art was done. (They declined.) Drew’s flaws went further than his (again) hatred of genre of film, and his loathing of gay characters however chaste on film; he basically wrote plot synopses, up to the last twenty minutes of the film, at which point he provided his only reaction, an up or down vote. Unlike Rex Reed, though, Drew did little in the way of actual damage.
Comment By: George Peterson
December 21st, 2017 at 1:18 pm
Just to note that the woman in the movie is not deaf, just mute.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
December 21st, 2017 at 1:18 pm
Ah, okay. I will fix. I haven’t seen it myself.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
December 21st, 2017 at 1:18 pm
Fixed!
I am a big fan of Sally Hawkins, from a movie made just for her: HAPPY-GO-LUCKY.
Comment By: Josh Olson
December 21st, 2017 at 2:19 pm
I must take you to task, my friend. âFilm critic,â like âwriter,â is a job. The dipshit with a website you say is certainly worse is not a professional.
Rex Reed is the worst critic working. (Michael Medved has retired, right?)
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
December 21st, 2017 at 2:19 pm
Except that some of those guys — except my most extreme examples — are paid.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
December 21st, 2017 at 2:19 pm
Josh Olson, that said, an excellent point, and I have therefore made a couple of little changes to cover the difference.
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
December 21st, 2017 at 2:19 pm
Orson Scott Card is paid for his review columns, and he is certainly in the running for that bad.
Comment By: Joe Harris
December 21st, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Rex Reed is not the worst film critic as long as Armond White is still working. That reminds me, where did I put my DVD of Myra Breckinridge?
Comment By: Josh Olson
December 21st, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Joe Harris Nah. Armond White is brilliant and has an actual moral and ethical worldview, even though itâs kind of awful. He has a functioning brain. Plus, I love him for shitting on 12 Years A Slave.
Comment By: Joe Harris
December 21st, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Good point, although I think half of White’s reviews are written with the aim of trolling his readers. BTW, your adaptation of Harlan Ellison’s The Discarded is brilliant and heartbreaking. I don’t often thank writers for turning me into a puddle, but thank you.
Comment By: Josh Olson
December 21st, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Joe Harris Sure, but he makes it an art. And thanks! That was a blast to work on.
Comment By: Bruce E. Berger
December 21st, 2017 at 3:18 pm
When I was in graduate school, there was a movie reviewer who wrote for the local free weekly who I made it a point to read every week. I disagreed with him about almost every movie. But he was consistent and reliable; once I read what he liked and didn’t like about a movie, I had a very good idea whether I’d want to see it.
Comment By: Steve Perry
December 21st, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Always considered Rex the King of Snark. Working so hard to show how clever he was, and never quite managing it.
Comment By: James Ross
December 21st, 2017 at 4:17 pm
He’s the guy who shits all over any 90+ minute film, non?
Comment By: Adam-Troy Castro
December 21st, 2017 at 5:18 pm
Does he do that? (Thinking) Well, he did attack THE SHAPE OF WATER for being (in implied scandal) almost two hours. So.
Comment By: James Ross
December 21st, 2017 at 5:18 pm
I have not read one of his reviews in years. That was my vague recollection.
Comment By: Walter Greatshell
December 21st, 2017 at 4:17 pm
I started my writing career doing freelance movie reviews for a local newspaper (my first sale was “Howard the Dud: Tar and Feathers”), and there were some critics I admired and aspired to be like, but Rex Reed always seemed too much the Hollywood insider.
Comment By: Matthew M. Foster
December 21st, 2017 at 5:18 pm
Yes, it is the fact that he is paid, and not by patrion or some such, and is vetted, that makes him special. And even then, I’d rather go with some of your example of worse. Hey, the “BOOBIES” guy, if consistent and reasonably well written, could supply a useful review to people looking for boobies. I cannot think of anyone that Reed supplies a useful review for. Since the great unwashed masses of Youtube and blogs are not vetted, they are like the slush pile, and we have become slush readers (or viewers). Yes, this week I have found worse–the guy who despised The Last Jedi by repeatedly exclaiming how he hated that “fat Asian bitch” is my current pick for lowest of the low (I haven’t checked if The Daily Stormer has a film reviewer…) But Reed is supposed to be a pro. He is technically a pro. And I do agree, it doesn’t matter if he liked it or not–it is the hows and whys and how it is expressed. Ebert disliked Blade Runner when it came out–my favorite film. On the other hand, I agreed with him on The Godfather II. Reed can dislike movies I like, but he needs to understand them–too watch them fully, and then make a sensical review. He does none of those things (and this review of his is nowhere near his worst), making him an embarrassment, and annoying to those of us who would like this job. Hell, I’d be happy to see one of those slush pile critics who happens to be good, and not me, be vetted and put into the position that Reed does not deserve.
Comment By: Steve Perry
December 21st, 2017 at 5:18 pm
There are reviewers, and there are critics. The latter, as often as not, spend much time telling you why you shouldnât like something that a vast majority of the audience who saw it liked it.
Lot of literary elitism going on, and usually without merit.
Mark Twain could gleefully eviscerate Fenimore Cooper because he knew how to â and did â write better than Cooper ever did.
So many critics donât have any skills past being able to sneer at something they canât do.
Fred Allen: Where were you when the page was blank?
No critic starts with a blank page, they are completely reactive.
Better the worldâs worst artist than the worldâs best critic â if thatâs all you got.
Roll âem in corn meal and deep-fat fry âem. Takes a lot of catsup to make âem palatable, but at least they are crunchy that way.
Comment By: Matthew M. Foster
December 21st, 2017 at 5:18 pm
Nah. I like reviewers, and I like critics a lot more. I like people being knowledgeable in a subject (and do not reject educated examinations for being elite–if that is elitism, give me more of it). I have noticed only a floppy, haphazard connection between being able to do something and being able to comment on it. Those are different skills. Editors are at heart a combination of reviewer and critic. I run a film festival–that makes me a film reviewer, and a bit of a critic, as I must choose from piles of films the ones I think my audience will like (reviewer) and the ones that I think are good–with reasons for thinking they are good (critic). It is up to our fest’s audience to decide if I am good at it, but so far, it’s worked out.
Comment By: Steve Perry
December 21st, 2017 at 5:18 pm
Our mileage varies — too many critics I’ve read try to show how very clever and superior they are by denigrating somebody whose pencil box they couldn’t carry. Rex is right up there in that ilk.
Comment By: Scott Elyard
December 21st, 2017 at 6:17 pm
We need a reviewer rating system, maybe. The Reed? How many Reeds is this review?
Oh, it’s way off in the Reeds.
Comment By: B.J. Thrower
December 21st, 2017 at 7:17 pm
As an artist and writer, nobody beats Peter Travers of Rolling Stone. He doesn’t like everything I do, but it’s a pleasure to read.
Comment By: Rich Horton
December 21st, 2017 at 9:18 pm
Rex Reed is still alive? I thought he had the reputation of being the worst blurb factory –, er, I meant “movie reviewer” — back in the ’70s when I first knew there were movie reivews.
Comment By: Rich Horton
December 21st, 2017 at 9:18 pm
Actually, Roger Ebert was the reviewer at Chicago Sun-Times (as I suspect most people here know) — which was the paper we had delivered. So I grew up reading Roger Ebert’s reviews. (And was delighted to later find his tracks at the Champaign-Urbana Science Fiction Association when I joined it at college, and to see a story of his in a back issue of FANTASTIC I picked up.)
Comment By: Dennis Morrigan McDonough
December 21st, 2017 at 11:18 pm
Does Reed not have an editor?
Comment By: Bagofcats
December 22nd, 2017 at 6:05 am
On a slight tangent and related to specialized reviews, I’m surprised John Bloom’s Joe Bob Briggs hasn’t come up yet.
Comment By: Jamie Flower
June 3rd, 2018 at 12:56 pm
“Roger Ebert hated The Godfather Part II. ”
No he didn’t. He didn’t think it worked on the same level as the original Godfather but he didn’t hate it and originally gave it 3 out of 4 stars.
“You have folks who rate movies by the size of the lead actress’s boobs, who get so excited when they are sufficient volume that they will exclaim, BOOBIES!, all in capitals.”
I don’t think anyone considers “Mr. Skin” to be a film critic.