What do you think?
Rate this book
The Film Writings #7
Taking It All in
Originally written for The New Yorker magazine between June 1980 and June 1983, her reviews bring to life over 150 films including Blade Runner, Tootsie, The Return of the Jedi. Her scathing essay, 'Why Are Movies So Bad' is also included in which Miss Kael takes on the Hollywood money-men whose love of a swift and easy financial return has led to the alarming number of truly bad films which are on show today.
527 pages, Hardcover
First published January 10, 1984
7 people are currently reading
344 people want to read
About the author
Pauline Kael
56 books188 followersPauline Kael was an American film critic who wrote for The New Yorker magazine from 1968 to 1991. She was known for her "witty, biting, highly opinionated, and sharply focused" movie reviews. She approached movies emotionally, with a strongly colloquial writing style. She is often regarded as the most influential American film critic of her day and made a lasting impression on other major critics including Armond White and Roger Ebert, who has said that Kael "had a more positive influence on the climate for film in America than any other single person over the last three decades."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
May 6, 2020
Definitely some laugh out loud lines in this one. Finally brought me around to appreciating Kael.
February 9, 2017
I'd never read Kael's work before, but kept hearing her name from contemporary critics as being a major influential force in American film criticism. While I did not always agree with her assessments on certain works (how dare she smear Raiders of the Lost Ark!) there were several astute observations and comparisons that I hadn't considered before, such as this one:
"Though made in 1972, Aguirre (,the Wrath of God) wasn't released here until 1977, which turned out to be perfect timing. Until the sixties, American anti-war movies had attempted to be realistic about war, but in the post-Vietnam period the horror of that war was all mixed together with the drug culture, and for many people psychedelic intensification began to seem the only true realism. The imagery of Aguirre—visionary, skewed, cuckoo—was a hallucinatory horror trip. The film took the edge off Coppola's still-to-come version of Conrad's dreamlike Heart of Darkness; Herzog had made the white-intruders-vs.-the-natives trip first. (Some moviegoers cheered each time an Indian's poisoned arrow hit its mark.) Apocalypse Now was clearly influenced by Aguirre, and Coppola may have acknowledged the debt in a visual gesture: his image of a wrecked plane nesting in a tree was possibly an homage to Herzog, though it couldn't match the shivery wit of that boat. Coppola's image could be accounted for; Herzog's had the purity of madness."
"Though made in 1972, Aguirre (,the Wrath of God) wasn't released here until 1977, which turned out to be perfect timing. Until the sixties, American anti-war movies had attempted to be realistic about war, but in the post-Vietnam period the horror of that war was all mixed together with the drug culture, and for many people psychedelic intensification began to seem the only true realism. The imagery of Aguirre—visionary, skewed, cuckoo—was a hallucinatory horror trip. The film took the edge off Coppola's still-to-come version of Conrad's dreamlike Heart of Darkness; Herzog had made the white-intruders-vs.-the-natives trip first. (Some moviegoers cheered each time an Indian's poisoned arrow hit its mark.) Apocalypse Now was clearly influenced by Aguirre, and Coppola may have acknowledged the debt in a visual gesture: his image of a wrecked plane nesting in a tree was possibly an homage to Herzog, though it couldn't match the shivery wit of that boat. Coppola's image could be accounted for; Herzog's had the purity of madness."
August 11, 2025
“The movies have been so rank the last couple of years that when I see people lining up to buy tickets I sometimes think that the movies aren’t drawing an audience—they’re inheriting an audience.” —Pauline Kael
July 2, 2023
Pretty much more of the same. As expected. Kael disposes about 150 films in 450 pages. i was reduced to skimming through many of the longer page reviews. I mean, who wants to read 5 pages about "Come back to Five and Dime, Jimmy dean" or 6 pages on "Shoot the Moon"?
While I wouldn't describe Kael's tone as "sour" she's much more critical than in previous books,and starts out with an essay called "Why are films so bad? The numbers". which begins: "The movies have been so rank the last couple years ..that I sometimes think moves are drawing an audience, they're inheriting one"
But having said that, there are plenty of positive reviews, especially when they involve one of Kael's favorite directors/actors. Goldie Hawn, Richard Pryor, Striesand, Pinter, Speilberg among others. And she has her dislikes too: George Lucas, Eastwood, woody allen, Cimino, Kathleen Turner among others. In her review of Raiders poor George is blamed for everything wrong, Speilberg is praised for everything that is right.
Still the reviews are more consistent than previous books. We don't get any hysterical over-the-top praise (she must have learned from "Last Tango in Paris") or vicious attacks, (cf: her review of "Dirty harry"). There are of course plenty of insults and putdowns. Woody is described as a "Self-hating Jew", "Mad Max" is dismissed as a movie for "boys who go around slugging each other on the shoulder, and men who wish John Wayne was alive and 50 again". . Star Trek II is labeled "Callow dumb fun" based on the TV show which is damned with faint praise as: "comforting Druggy blandness" with a "Stretched out quality" withe Gene Roddenberry described as "the L. Ron Hubbard of TV SciFi)"
And every review has those quirky odd sentences and pronouncements that make you scratch your head. Such as:
1. Watching this movie you feel you can really learn something essential about girls from looking at their thighs.
2. Some of the scenes seem to have 6 subtexts, but no text and and no context.
3. The picture might have been regpugnant with a more militant female star. But Goldie Hawn has her smudged sweetness, her infant persona, and her little baby belly.
4. The Tone of all night-long is slapstick irony.
While I wouldn't describe Kael's tone as "sour" she's much more critical than in previous books,and starts out with an essay called "Why are films so bad? The numbers". which begins: "The movies have been so rank the last couple years ..that I sometimes think moves are drawing an audience, they're inheriting one"
But having said that, there are plenty of positive reviews, especially when they involve one of Kael's favorite directors/actors. Goldie Hawn, Richard Pryor, Striesand, Pinter, Speilberg among others. And she has her dislikes too: George Lucas, Eastwood, woody allen, Cimino, Kathleen Turner among others. In her review of Raiders poor George is blamed for everything wrong, Speilberg is praised for everything that is right.
Still the reviews are more consistent than previous books. We don't get any hysterical over-the-top praise (she must have learned from "Last Tango in Paris") or vicious attacks, (cf: her review of "Dirty harry"). There are of course plenty of insults and putdowns. Woody is described as a "Self-hating Jew", "Mad Max" is dismissed as a movie for "boys who go around slugging each other on the shoulder, and men who wish John Wayne was alive and 50 again". . Star Trek II is labeled "Callow dumb fun" based on the TV show which is damned with faint praise as: "comforting Druggy blandness" with a "Stretched out quality" withe Gene Roddenberry described as "the L. Ron Hubbard of TV SciFi)"
And every review has those quirky odd sentences and pronouncements that make you scratch your head. Such as:
1. Watching this movie you feel you can really learn something essential about girls from looking at their thighs.
2. Some of the scenes seem to have 6 subtexts, but no text and and no context.
3. The picture might have been regpugnant with a more militant female star. But Goldie Hawn has her smudged sweetness, her infant persona, and her little baby belly.
4. The Tone of all night-long is slapstick irony.
September 23, 2021
I love Pauline Kael. However, you may want to read this book in well-spaced installments.
She's hilarious, but after a while, you start to wonder how happy she was watching movies she hated and reviewing them. :)
And you might be surprised at the ones she hated. Including (perhaps, especially) Return of the Jedi! You should see what she has to say about that one!
She's hilarious, but after a while, you start to wonder how happy she was watching movies she hated and reviewing them. :)
And you might be surprised at the ones she hated. Including (perhaps, especially) Return of the Jedi! You should see what she has to say about that one!
January 1, 2017
My first Kael book and a life altering experience. and the movies discussed were a golden period for me.
December 22, 2019
Wise, witty, and very bad for your bank balance - I've lost count of the films I felt compelled to buy after reading the relevant review.
January 29, 2009
I didn't always agree with what she had to say, I still don't think Shoot the Moon was as good or the French Lieutenant's Woman (or Meryl Streep) was all that bad. But I can see why she hated them in clear and precise prose. I heard she made movies once, and it is the great tragedy of my life that I never saw them.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews