Cannes: Competition Movies Divide Critics; How Much Do The … 
Record-Breaking Memorial Weekend 2013! ‘Fast & … 
SAG-AFTRA Sued For Witholding Foreign Residuals And … 
Zach Braff Ends $3+M Kickstarter Campaign 
Fox Unscripted TV Czar Mike Darnell To Exit 
NBC Sets Oklahoma Tornado Benefit Concert For May 29 
Cannes: Directors’ Fortnight Honors ‘Les … 
SHOCKER: Tom Cruise Exits ‘Man From … 
A+E Rebuild: BBC’s Jana Bennett To Run Bio And LMN … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Hannibal’ Hits Low, … 
‘Katie’ Shakeup: Rachel Miskowiec Replaces … 
Hammond On Cannes: French Hero Jerry Lewis On His Return To … 
Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
Hammond On Cannes: Leo DiCaprio’s Moon Trip Tops … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Most of the critics were very positive about Marvel’s The Avengers opening at midnight tonight — which is why Samuel L. Jackson (aka Nick Fury) is so furious with The New York Times‘ negative review. The actor let his 825,315 followers on Twitter today know it. “#Avengers fans, NY Times critic AO Scott needs a new job! Let’s help him find one! One he can ACTUALLY do!”. The NYT’s AO Scott in his review of the Joss Whedon-directed Disney film said, “The Avengersis hardly worth raging about, its failures are significant and dispiriting.” Scott also called Jackson’s role as the head of superspy agency S.H.I.E.L.D “more master of ceremonies than mission commander” in his review.
Jackson received a lot of support from his followers amping up for The Avengers whose overseas box office is already a worldwide hit. But a couple of responses drew the Oscar nominated actor’s wrath. When @kramercapriati wrote to Jackson, “The critic has a right to his opinion. Just because the movie has made a ton of money does not mean it is a good movie.” The actor, who has appeared as Nick Fury in the Iron Man movies as well as Thor and Captain America, tweeted back, “Actually, sometimes IT DOES.” And “Disappointed to hear @SamuelLJackson respond irrationally to negative review of #Avengers. People aren’t entitled to their own opinion? 
” tweeted @TheFilmNest. “That is My Opinion! & what’s irrational about it? They aren’t going to fire his jaundiced ass & You & I Know It!,” replied Jackson. The last word, so far, went to A.O. Scott. “@SamuelLJackson @thefilmnest Jaundiced?” tweeted the critic who re-tweeted Jackson’s initial angry tweet to his own 15,894 followers. Many digitally leapt to Scott’s defense, including Alex Ross, one of The New Yorker’s music writers. “His call for you to lose your job only supports your point about ‘glowering authoritarianism’ in pop culture. Well said!” wrote Ross. Replied Scott: “Thanks @alexrossmusicand yet I have to say I feel more flattered than threatened. which may prove the point a different way,” Scott replied.
Deadline's Dominic Patten - tip him here.
Loading ...
It’s only ONE review. Everywhere else, they’re raving about the film. People are entitled to their opinions, even if they don’t like “The Avengers.”
Really silly. NYT has always been a bit snobbish anyway.
exactly, and Jackson has already made his zill’s from this, and the movie is already in the green. What the hell does he care?
Avengers is not a good film, Mr. Jackson. Maybe you were thinking of your work in Arena?
Or “Snakes on a Plane”?
NO matter how much money this film earns, it is still insubstantial, and it is also an example of how Hollywood is no longer the movie factory but the comic book factory, for people who seem to want to relive their childhoods into infinity. Didn’t HOllywood used to make movies like Shoot the Moon? Of course, if that film gets remade, every actor will have to wear a cape and mask. Thank goodness for foreign language films that aren’t comic books, video games, or theme park rides.
So, you saw it then?
It’s pretty sad, with the movie currently hitting 93% on the Tomatoemeter and on it’s way to being a monster hit at the box office, that this thin skinned actor would get upset at one of the few bad reviews and fly into attack mode. I thought more of him than that. Guess that was a mistake.
A. O. Scott is a great critic. Mr. Jackson should lighten up.
I’m backing Samuel L on this one. Most critics (Pauline Kael, Siskel and Ebert, and a few others exempted) are just frustrated and bitter wannabes. And in the age where everyone with an internet connection can be a critic, the difference between AO Scott’s opinion and my 12 year old niece’s is simply a matter of page views.
I like this trend of the artist confronting the critic. Critics have the right to their (mostly narcissistic and self important) opinions, and artists (Samuel L among them) have the right to voice their critique of the critique.
The tingle means it’s working!
Ebert and Kael are the bitterest wannabes ever! Ebert is the crabby failed screenwriter who hated Old School, Fast Times and Wet Hot American Summer. He’s the worst kind of critic, the kind who thinks he has a sense of humor and doesn’t. Kael saved Bonnie and Clyde, sure, but she also savaged countless worthy movies because they had sentimental moments. Why anyone listens to a bunch of professional wallflowers who sit on the bleachers at the showbiz prom, ripping on everyone who’s dancing… they should all shut the F up or get off their lazy asses and make better movies themselves. Good for Sam F.J. for calling Scott out.
Ah yes, the classic “[Insert Critic Here] hated [Movies A, B, and C] that I loved, therefore this critic is the scum of the earth” response.
Get over it. (And by “it” I mean “other people having opinions that are different from your own.)
Same to you. (And by “same,” I mean “follow your own advice re: people having different opinions from your own.”) For further reference, google “pot” and “kettle” and “black.”
Iron Man Fan? haha.
Going to have to agree with you on that one: Ebert may (and I do mean MAY) have mellowed some in later years, but in his heyday (pre-2004) he was one of the biggest offenders, plugging his own personal vitriol and smug venom into reviews, while curiously praising big-budget tripe (check his review of “The Phantom Menace”.) Sam Jackson may indeed be thin-skinned but critics should be able to receive what they dish out.
ROTFLMAO!
Ebert hated “Old School” and “Wet Hot American Summer”, so that makes him “the worst kind of critic”? There must be quite a lot of these “worst kind of critics” in the world, since the former film received a 60% on the RottenTomatoes meter, while the latter received a mere 31%.
So Scott’s opinion is narcissistic and self important? As opposed to Jackson’s?
Kael probably would have agreed with Scott. Didn’t she hate the original Star Wars?
She didn’t like it, but she conceded that it was “enjoyable on its own terms.”
The difference between your 12 year old niece and A. O. Scott isn’t simply the page views. Think about what you’re saying.
Pauline Kael died over 10 years ago you moron….and if you can’t take criticism then you shouldn’t work in the entertainment industry.
After suffering through MEETING EVIL and THE SAMARITAN this past week, I really can’t take anything Jackson says seriously.
This guy would show up to the opening of a Subway if the pay was right.
The fllm’s ok. Love Sam Jackson and he’s certainly entitled to his opinion. Just thought he would have been a lot ‘cooler’ in his defence of it.But then, maybe I’m confusing the guy with his image.
Bottom line: Scott won.
Did you not see the tracking? I think Jackson wins…
I may be wrong, but is Mr. Jackson, the first Actor to fire back at the Critics using a twitter feed because of a negative review for a opening movie?
Good point.
Next Sharpton will picket NY Times headquarters as Jesse Jackson demands a boycott— MSNBC will offer around the clock coverage of this racist outrage by the Times as CNN will offer Soledad special report about the internal racism evident not only in the Times movie review but the cooking section, as well— The pressure reaches its apex as Obama weighs in decrying the NY Times rush to judgement on The Avengers— NY Times issues formal apology as it announces the firing of A.O. Scott. NY Times announces the hiring of Toure as its new movie critic as it pledges never to criticize any movie ever again so as to not “hurt anyone’s feelings and human rights.”!
DJT posts unfunny tirade that literally no one finds interesting.
IF you do not find it interesting, WHY comment?
DJT,
Thanks for contributing the irrational, paranoid ravings of the lunatic racist right-wing. Go back to your cave and watch Fakes News until what’s left of your reason and sense have completely atrophied.
SORRY if you have no understanding of social satire.
Your post is in itself the textbook example of “paranoid ravings”.
Suggest medication.
” … Social satire”
Deluded,much?
Hey DJT,
No one but you has injected race into this. It’s really not relevant. Get a grip.
AND, who are you exactly to determine what is or is not RELEVANT?
IF you possessed a modicum of intellect you would not only grasp the notion of social commentary— but might actually be widely read enough to be aware that the connotations of Jackson “tweet” attacking a critic is not only in itself ironic, but is being discussed at other venues as “racist”. Perhaps shut up and read things other than comic books. A sound suggestion for the other heavy breathing lightweights for whom culture revolves around kiddie films derived from comic books and whom have wildly overreacted to mere social satire.
ALSO, next time, don’t comment in crayon.
WOW. I think you broke the record for a) how completely far afield from the original post you got and b) how many racial boogeymen (all African-American by the way) you could invoke in one rambling, run-on sentence. CONGRATS
SATIRE is TRUTH. TRUTH HURTS.
I actually like this tirade.
Tod, you clearly are a man of substance, wit and good taste!
Avengers is good movie not great…definitely not a movie to rave about….Jackson should shut up
The film is great fun. Very much like Firefly.
You I trust. If it’s even half as good as Firefly, I’m there.
I find Mr.Jackson’s reaction extremely childish. This also tends to change how I think of him. Also,fact is critics have a right to their opinions. The Avengers may make tons of money,but, 100 years from now-will it be on anyone’s best movies ever list?
Sam Jackson should shut up and go to bed. What a joke. Who cares what one reviewer thinks? Whether it’s some joker at the NY Times, or a kid on his Blog, it’s an opinion. Samuel Jackson has been in plenty of garbage films that deserve ridicule, so he should be pleased with the mostly happy reviews of his latest.
Well, golly. This is a kerfuffle. I suppose I should go and see it for myself. Ooh, there is a showing at midnight. Another ticket sold, courtesy of Sam Jackson’s umbrage.
Yes, marketing. And so it goes.
The Avengers was made for today’s 12 year olds, not for the grown ups who loved these characters as 12 year olds. It’s fun, but I hope that it’s not evidence of a larger trend of the Disneyfication of Marvel. Marvel’s stable of characters has at least as much storytelling potential as Nolan’s Batman and it would be sad to see it utterly kiddy-fied. It was truly farcical at times. Still, it’s a fun movie that’s making a boatload of cash and you gotta love Sammy Jack expressing himself. Hope Marvel spends some of that newly minted cash on satisfying the adults in the audience as well next time.
Problem is, regardless of his opinion, the review itself flat-out stinks. It’s an indictment of the entire genre and holds this film accountable for everything he doesn’t like about it. Far more time is spent bemoaning the state of cinema from the vantage of Scott’s elitist toilet than analyzing this particular film. I haven’t seen The Avengers, but I have a hard time imagining that the craftsmanship is worse than this lazy ass review.
‘Read the review’, I live in Australia and so I saw the film last week. Frankly, I think that some of Scott’s arguments are on-point. The reference to ‘Rio Bravo’ is well-chosen, and the comment “for all their maverick swagger, the Avengers are dutiful corporate citizens” is apt: for instance, Tony Stark is oddly characterised, as he perpetually makes anti-estbalishement comments yet – at the same time – he seems depserate to conform. So, I don’t mind those elements of his review.
Frankly, I was more offended by his ‘Thor’ review, in which he bemoans that Branagh’s film is not as good as ‘The Dark Knight’ (a film which he called “overrated”). Hence, he trashed that film because it was not as good as a film that he didn’t particularly rate either. Understand that logic? Because I don’t.
However, I agree with you ‘Read the review’ in your assessment of Scott’s style: whereas Manohla Dargis peppers her work with wit and intelligence, Scott is one of the most arrogant and pretentious writers in the biz. This is not limited to comic book films, though. For instance, look at his ‘One Day’ review. He never attempts to bring any genuine insight into the text (unless you count pretentious phrasing – like “wonderfully centrifugal” – as an adequate substitute, which I don’t). This particularly confused me: “One Day is less a conventional story than a mix-tape. This does not strike me as entirely an accident, or a wayward interpretation on my part.” In this instance, he substantiates his opinion not with evidence, but with his opinion – of his own opinion(!).
Frankly, I respect Armond White more as a writer because – for all his craziness – he is capable of coming up with interesting points, arising from his knowledge of film culture and theory (for instance, he knows more about the differences between film and digital than most critics). Scott, however, projects ignorance of both high and low culture, whether he is commenting that French filmmaker Eric Rohmer was not interested in politics or lambasting comic books movies, in general.
As Jonathan Rosenbaum previously said, “As usual, it appears that Scott is doing what many readers want from the Times‘ film writers: to assure them that their ignorance about certain matters is an “educated” ignorance, even if it isn’t.”
Look, the films just isn’t very good. But it’ll make some money. At least it’ll erase the mega-bomb -and far worse movie–ohn carter from recent memory.
Funny how the guy enshrined in white boys’ collective consciousness as Jules from Pulp Fiction is suddenly “thin-skinned” and told to “shut up.” Next thing you know, we’ll be hearing that all-purpose dog whistle “arrogant.”
Personally, I just think that Sam J. is trying to gin up a faux Twitter controversy in advance of The Avengers’ opening (which I have a ticket for by the way).
And for the record I unfollowed Sam as I thought his tweets were boring, haha.
Scott is a professional critic and is disinterested. Jackson is an actor and is very interested. I think Jackson is playing a game here that he cannot win.
@DiversityPolice
I don’t think Jackson brought race into tweets and neither did Scott. I’d be grateful if you don’t devolve this into some sort of race face-off.
This was two guys having a beef. Period. Their percentage of melanin is irrelevant. I’m sick of separatists jumping over any argument people have if they come from different cultural backgrounds, then using it to push an agenda totally separate from the original subject.
Jackson was peeved. So what? It’s still leagues away from the twisted insanity of Alec Baldwin, Charlie ‘Im really not winning’ Sheen, Mad Mel and Busey.
Hi Aaron,
My comment DIDN’T bring race into the discussion, but some of the posts commenting on Sam Jackson did, using the belitting, dog-whistle language I described.
On reflection I agree.
Apologies.
A. O. Scott – and a few Commenters – didn’t like Sam Jack in a superhero movie? “That’s Raaaacist!”
Diversity Police, don’t even you get tired of thinking like that? So tiresome, so dogmatic, so obvious. Can’t an actor who happens to be black defend his performance – in a playful manner! – without a silly white boy like you stumbling in with your magical Racist Detector?
Why would you assume I’m a white boy? Because I can actually write a sentence or two?
Careful, Frankfurt, your assumptions/pre-conceived notions are showing.
Hahaha, you guys keep proving my point here.
“Why would you assume I’m a white boy? Because I can actually write a sentence or two..?”
You said that, not me.
I know you’re a white boy because you write well but think poorly.
Ahh. Ignorance, we’ve been expecting you.
Maybe Jackson needs to relax a little, not everyone thinks this superhero movies are worth jack.
Jackson is only mad because he knows what Scott wrote was completely true. The quote in this article is a spot on description of The Avengers. It’s okay, but nothing anyone will care about after TDKR comes out.
The only good Marvel film has been Iron Man, the rest are not very good and the fact that Sam Jackson has been cast in this one will prove that. It may make money, but the movie can stink, Avatar anyone?
Does anyone see the irony…? The critic doesn’t like being criticized for his criticism. His defenders don’t like him being criticized for his criticism.
To be an artist you need a talent, what are the qualifications to be a critic… ?
…and remember, there’s a reason the Monday morning quarterback doesn’t play on Sunday
Hmmm…. Methinks Samuel L. Jackson’s Twitter-jaculation was a wee premature, especially considering the humongous Valentine the New York Times Magazine gave Mr. Jackson in a cover profile story just this past weekend. I really hate to see a world where artists are trying to subvert critics every which way. Just think of the Slippery Slope that would be unleashed if a thespian such as Ashton Kutcher, who has like a gazillion Twitter followers, unleashed his lemming-like minions just because one critic didn’t appreciate, say, his star turn in “Killers” or may have had the Eureka notion that “What Happens in Vegas” was a thousand pounds of yak excrement….
As an addendum, I do wonder what Samuel Jackson would think of the movie review in Seattle’s alternative weekly, The Stranger, in which the scribe, Paul Constant, raved about the movie — “Joss Whedon choreographs an awesome superhero rodeo…” — with one telling exception. Mr. Constant goes on to say: “The one big disappointment is Samuel L. Jackson, who phones in his performance as Nick Fury, the omniscient spymaster who organizes the heroes into a team; we expect better from him.”
Vincent “Why dya’ think that Samuel L. Jackson character is so fuckin’ full of himself.
Jules responding (while eating a Big Mac) “Beat’s the fuck outta me That pussy can’t act his way out of a role of quarters. Now pass me the God Damn ketchup!”
One articulated his thoughts in a well-written review. The other gave us some inane jibberish peppered with exclamation points. Guess which one is the fucking actor?
Jackson’s a haughty prick, and his silly bullshit movie isn’t so glorious that it’s above being reviewed.