Look:
The movie was not universally liked, though; Pauline Kael called it a "sickly whimsy" and referred to Mel Ferrer's "narcissistic, masochistic smiles."
His "narcissistic, masochistic smiles" were perfectly in character. He was supposed to be that way. As for "sickly whimsy," yes it's whimsical and if you have low sugar tolerance, it might prove "sickly" to you, as it must have to poor Ms. Kael, but the rest of us can take it just fine.
I loathe PK, who was arrogant, self-serving and much, much more interested
in drawing attention to HERSELF in her writings, rather than on the film
in which she was reviewing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Pauline Kael could never come to grips with the plain fact that not every movie was HAROLD & MAUDE.
And, yes, in her reviews, she was riding her own high horse.
Another 'Hollywood outsider' trying to be the "I'm so much smarter than all of you" self-proclaimed celebrity.
At least Roger Ebert actually wrote and sold a script, even if it wasn't that great (BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS), but it still found an audience. What did old Kael ever do but sit in her smug armchair and see what oh so witty remarks she could spit out.
She insults Janet Leigh. Talk about envy. Who ever gave Kael a second look? Most regret having even just a first cringworthy glance at this cinema pig. The old snooty bag wishes she had even 5% of her appeal.
If I ever make a movie I want it to be that one that all the Pauline Kaels hate.
Darlings be damned.
It gets rather maudlin, like that business of crying with puppets. By the way, does it make sense that a fox, being a fox, would buy a fox stole from someone? Wouldn't he be philosophically, not to mention existentially, opposed to people owning fox stoles?
Are we really to believe that Lili forgets that there is a puppeteer behind those puppets?
Wasn't the ending a steal from The Wizard of Oz?