Patrick Goldstein...Los Angeles Times writer pens pap! Wasted column inches...

Well, Patrick Goldstein is at it again.

Once again, he's penning ignorant musings for the morning daily, to satisfy his overblown sense of self-importance.

Just a few days ago, everyone was savoring a big chuckle over a silly piece he threw together on the Roger Ebert scandal.

If you recall, Roger Ebert confessed on his blog, that a nifty review on the feature - Tru Loved - was crafted without disclosing the fact the rotund little critic only screened about eight minutes of celluloid.

In response, Mr. Goldstein jumped into the fray (to rustle up some much-needed publicity for himself, no doubt. Poor baby!) and wildly predicted that Ebert's shame-faced admission would spark trouble for all critics around the country.

As I quipped at the time, baloney!

When I opened the newspaper and turned to the Calendar section and started to peruse his latest article this morning, I literally laughed out loud!

After noting that he attended a screening of a comedy this past week (Role Models), the ingenuous hack proceeded to ponder why the Academy didn't award more Oscars to that popular genre.

Duh!

In fact - he noted in the overly-long shallow piece - that after the screening he found himself "wondering" why the Oscars didn't recognize good work in comedy the way they do drama, animation, cinematography, editing (oh boy, he left no stone unturned on this one) - etc. etc. and so forth and so on!

The man is a piece of work, isn't he?

For starters, the subject he was whining about has been thoroughly covered - ad nauseam - for about two decades by a handful of top entertainment writers in the industry.

More galling, perhaps, is Goldstein's deceitful bold-faced effort to conjure up the impression that his take on the issue is a fresh insight!

Mr. Goldstein, do you honestly think everyone in the biz has lived in a vacuum for the past twenty years?

Or, just maybe, you thought we were born yesterday?

At this juncture, I think it's obvious why the Los Angeles Times is losing credibility (and suffering circulation losses) in recent months.

Who wants to read the tired old news that Mr. Goldstein is offering up under the pretense that it is his own original thought-provoking material?


Years ago, Frank Sinatra caught a lot of flack from the media for referring to journalists as a bunch of hookers.

In Mr. Goldstein's case, the label is right on the money.


If I was the managing editor at the daily, I would give Goldstein's butt a swift kick into the "Want ads" department.

His writing would be better-suited for drafting copy for used cars.

After all, his propensity for selling pre-owned properties, makes him well-suited for the task.

Roger Ebert...tawdry scandal! Ten lashes with wet noodle...

This past week, Roger Ebert posted a notice on his blog admitting that he did the unthinkable.

Allegedly he wrote a review of a film (Tru Loved) in spite of the fact he only took a peak at about eight minutes of the celluloid footage.

Yes, Ebert's attention span is short! (among other things)


The confession was enough to inspire a feature-length tirade by a staffer by the name of Patrick Goldstein at the Los Angeles Times, who asserted that Ebert's "blunder" would surely spell trouble for film critics.

Baloney!

For starters, Mr. Goldstein is a lousy critic.



On the occasion or two when I chose to struggle through one of his (um) critiques - it was obvious to my artistic sensibilities in about two seconds flat - that his pap not only underscored his lack of writing ability but his ignorance about film, too.


His chock-a-block phrases - and stilted way of expressing himself - signaled he was out to exalt himself (and his name and reputation) at the expense of whoever stood in the way.

For instance, in support of his ludicrous whining, he took a swipe at one of the reviewers in his own daily to elevate his status.

Here's what he had to say about fellow peer Kenneth Turnan.

"After reading Kenny Turnan's dismissal of "Quantum of Solace", one wonders whether Mr. Turan was dozing off during the film's breathtaking action sequences or simply walked out of the screening room after eight minutes, in emulation of Roger Ebert's rude dismissal of a movie earlier this year."

Goldstein is a back stabber, for sure!

True - it was wrong of Ebert to give the impression he caught the whole movie - simply from an ethical standpoint.

Also, patently unfair, when you consider that - bottom line - he didn't give the filmmakers two shakes in the final analysis.

Sometimes a film is a sleeper, starts slow, for instance.

On the other hand, if Mr. Ebert found it to be an impossible "yawn", he should have disclosed that in his review.

"Saw eight minutes of it. Hated it."

Occasionally, reviewers do face dilemmas.

But, a creative mind can fathom a way out of it.

For instance - this past week I caught sight of a couple of reviews on the new Madonna film - "Filth and Wisdom".

One critic hailed it as "naughty and nice".

I thought that Madonna deserved an advance write-up in view of the fact it was her first time out as a director, but since I hadn't screened the film, I could hardly plug it on that basis.

So, I put on my thinking cap!

I quoted a couple of the reviewers - pointed out how promotional blurbs were touting the sexy romp - and made mention of the fact I would attend a screening in the near future.

I remained honest and Madonna got a plug.

Earlier this year - due to a scheduling conflict - I was unable to attend the feature - "Memorial Day" - at a festival in the desert.

Since patrons walked out of the screening outraged - I thought the festival offering should be given some coverage - if only to warn audiences.

So, I interviewed an actress in the movie - in addition to - a handful of theatregoers who attended the premiere.

Hence, I was able to craft an article about the controversy.

In that instance - because of the way I broached the sticky problem - there was no dishonesty whatsoever.

But, getting back to Ebert.

For the most part, I find him to be a competent reliable critic.

On occasion, if he is passionate about a particular actor - or a project - he may be unduly influenced and go overboard.

Just maybe, the rotund little fella will end up with a stick up his butt, too.

In that instance, his opinion can not be trusted.

Funny that!

A few months ago I caught "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" at one of the local film houses.

Mr. Ebert was given a writing credit on that project.

What a disaster!

I could forgive Ebert for penning such a convoluted piece of trash - which didn't make any sense on any artistic level - in view of the fact the script was written about thirty years ago when he was starting out in a fledgling career.

Go figure - when the film screened at the min-fest - Ebert took the nod as a "sign" from the movie "Gods" (I surmise) that "Beyond" was on its way to cult status.

In fact, on the eve of the screening, he had the audacity to whiz off a telegram to the Festival Director in charge of the proceedings (to be read to the audience that night) in which he lamented that "Beyond" never received its due originally.

Maybe now, he added with gusto, the film would start screening at midnight screenings alongside classics like the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Well, I laughed!

It was bad enough that Ebert penned such an awful piece of trash - but worse still - to learn that he hasn't wised up to the fact "Beyond" was (and is) a stinker of high order.

What do they say?

Those who can't do, critique?

As to Mr. Goldstein, he should go write copy for brochures or flyers for garage sales.

After all, his contribution to the realm of cinema, is zip!