There are two kinds of nutter film critics -- the good (i.e., scrappy, finger-poking, irreverent) and the bad (lazy, smarmy, go-alonger). But ask around about the nutters who irritate or tick people off the most, as I did last weekend, and you'll find that most of them ignore the softies and take aim at the rarified's. I guess it's always the oddball malcontents in any society who get singled out for punishment.

"Good" nutters may irritate people, yes, for their picayune, contrarian, high-horse pans of movies many of us have enjoyed or loved, or for their praising of movies that only they and other nutters have seen at European film festivals, but at the end of the day their occasional support of obscure filmmakers and a general willingness to buck the popular tide obviously lives up to the job description of "film critic" and is better for us culturally than not.

Whereas the easy lays who give passes and sometimes raves to big-studio dreck and whose pulses invariably race at the prospect of taking home another goodie bag...well, fill in the blank.

Who are the biggest nutters working today, or at least the ones with the biggest reps? I sent out an e-mail last weekend to a group of mostly journalists, publicist and filmmakers, and I said in part:

"I'm trying to cook up a piece about nutter film critics -- i.e., those whose tastes you've come to regard as so esoteric and peculiar and beyond-the-pale, or whose tastes seem unbearably flaccid and flat-footed and lightweight.

"I'm speaking of critics whose rave about a certain film makes you think right away, 'Well, I guess I won't see that one' or, at the least, has you saying 'Uh-oh.' Or, conversely, hearing one of them talk about how much they despise this or that film leads you to think, 'Hmmm, this could be interesting or even good. If Blankety-blank hates it, it can't be all bad.'"

I only got back about 25 or 30 replies, so my findings are obviously far from comprehensive. Still, favorites emerged. Among the impudent nutters, the male and female champions were the NEW YORK PRESS's Armond White and the LOS ANGELES TIMES' Manohla Dargis. Runner-ups included, in alphabetical order, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY's Owen Gleiberman, VARIETY's Robert Koehler, the CHICAGO READER's Jonathan Rosenbaum, the San Diego READERS's Duncan Shepard, and NEW TIMES critic Luke Y. Thompson.

The kings of softball, drop-their-pants nutter critiques, in the judgment of my sometimes agenda- driven correspondents, are the LOS ANGELES TIMES' Kevin Thomas and WNBC's Jeffrey Lyons. Others mentioned were FOX NEWS' columnist Roger Freidman (when it comes to Miramax product), KNBC's David Sheehan, NY1's Neil Rosen, ACCCESS HOLLYWOOD's Clay Smith and ROLLING STONE's Peter Travers.

Two serious print critics, PREMIERE's Glenn Kenny and VARIETY's Robert Koehler, felt that my descriptions of ivory-tower nutters set the wrong tone.

"I cannot state strongly enough that I don't believe that any critic's taste can be too 'esoteric, peculiar and beyond-the-pale,'" Kenny wrote. "The whole point of the exercise, both professional and personal, with which I am bound up, is to learn more, and I take my learning wherever I can get it.

"I can vividly remember, at the age of 14 or so, reading in CREEM magazine a facetious response to a letter to the editor which mentioned composer Gavin Bryars' 'The Sinking of the Titanic,' which had then been recently released on Obscure Records, an experimental label founded by Brian Eno. I sought the piece out, and it opened up an entirely new world of music which I've been exploring ever since -- and the reference was meant as a joke! (I believe the author was Lester Bangs, incidentally). So I don't mind where a critic's taste is at, since it's really all about how compellingly and convincingly a critic makes his or her taste known."

"The point is that you write a piece that gets the experience of [seeing] the movie on the page," Gleiberman told me on Tuesday. "That's what it's all about. I might disagree with David Denby's opinon of a film I've just seen, but he tends to capture the experience of seeing that movie better than others. It doesn't matter if I like or dislike the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. What matters is that it means something. What matters is the writing."

Koehler, pegged as a foreign-film effetist by a Los Angeles publicist in the next piece, feels that nutter types are the only ones keeping the true spirit of film criticism alive in today's degenerated climate.

"I have grown increasingly suspicious of the vast majority of American film critics today, since they have either deliberately, unconsciously or out of laziness greatly limited their own perspective on how to judge films," he writes. "Far too many are too willing to accept the parameters that marketers and the studios have set up for them. The sheer laziness with which many don't attend screenings is frankly shocking to me. In any critics group you usually find a solid core of hard workers and cogent thinkers, and then, frankly, there's a surrounding group of slackers who should get out of the profession."

Worse than any nutters, he claims, are those who are "burned out, and yet, still somehow dictate the arena of taste. Ebert's decline is truly stunning; I can't even keep up with his horrific verdicts and his unending positive, thumbs-up judgments on weekly garbage. He has achieved the nearly impossible, which is to make Richard Roeper look like a tough critic. I can't explain it either, given my previous argument about lazy critics, because Roger steadily does go to festivals, and generally does know what's going on. It's strange, and sad to watch."

Unkind Cuts

Some of the opinion-givers were willing to be quoted, but most weren't, so I've decided to keep everyone anonymous. Here's a sampling, starting with their thoughts about the pointy heads and ending with some carpings about the pushovers. Only four or five took the time to express themselves at length -- the others just threw darts. I've thrown in some of my own remarks here and there to round things out.

"If Armond White says [some movie] is the best thing ever and a thousand times better than CITIZEN KANE, I know in full confidence that I can skip it. His reviews are.... insane! If he says something is absolute rubbish, it's probably one of those films that will be around for centuries, picking up hundreds of critics' awards and entertaining millions. He is always monumentally, stupendously wrong about everything and I love him for it. There are not many like him. A broken clock is right twice a day...but not Armond." -- New York-based movie publicist

"He's erudite, he writes well, he's capable of penetrating insights (his take on THE HOURS was dead-on) -- but Armond White has to lead any list of nutty film critics. He's utterly incapable of praising one film without using its example to blast another film; in fact, the former is often only an excuse for the latter. The films he singles out for praise are usually films that most other critics disparage, and vice versa. Sometimes he's right -- but often, he's just being perverse.

"I get the feeling White takes an inordinate amount of pride in this stance, although running exactly contrary to the herd is its own form of herdlike behavior. In fact, on the rare occasions when White joins a critical consensus, he'll profess that most reviews were the opposite of his -- even if they weren't. Similarly, there are times when it takes a mighty effort for him to knock a thoroughly good film, so he has to almost willfully misunderstand the principles of the film to find something to criticize (as with MEMENTO or THE BELIEVER).

"And like Pauline Kael at her most blinkered, he has directorial pets who can do no wrong in his eyes; it's hugely entertaining watching him do somersaults over even the lamest De Palma or Spielberg films. I actually paid money to see MISSION TO MARS after reading White's paean to its genius. As my late father-in-law used to say, I took White's advice twice -- the first time and the last time.

"[On the other hand], he's endlessly more readable and thought-provoking than many saner, duller critics. Between his ravings and the genuine brilliance of his PRESS colleague Matt Zoller Seitz -- arguably the best film critic writing in America today -- I never miss an issue of the paper." -- Manhattan Media Hot-Shot

"While his knowledge is exemplary and his taste intriguing at the least, [White] tends to frame his arguments with such overly righteous indignation that he completely blurs the line between being a voice in the wilderness and a major loon. It's not enough for him to argue his points passionately. He must condemn those who might disagree with said points as stupid, illiterate, and often immoral." -- New York-based magazine film critic

Wells comment: White eviscerated THE HOURS better than anyone else I've read. For this he gets a permanent gold star.

"I think Manohla Dargis is out of her mind. The 'Ask the Critic' column just irritates the hell out of me. Even when I agree with her, I wish I didn't have to -- she's so in love with her own quirks. I never get the feeling that she just loves movies; she loves writing about them." -- Post-Production Polly

"I would put Manohla right up there with Rosenbaum or Wilmington or Armond White. What they all are are intellectuals who by definition have a strong and particular point of view, and who sometimes go off the board. Except there's really no such thing as off the board...except maybe to say FREDDIE GOT FINGERED or FEMME FATALE are the greatest films of their respective years." -- Los Angeles based Hollywood columnist

"Manohla Dargis, though obviously smart and impassioned, comes pretty close [to nutter status]." -- Oakland-based internet editor/film critic --

"This is completely ridiculous, since Manohla is one of the only interesting daily critics in the country right now. It's so ridiculous that I have to wonder who you're asking for their takes, and I have to really wonder what their reasoning is." -- Los Angeles-based film critic

Wells comment: Dargis is the best thing to happen to the LOS ANGELES TIMES in a long while, and my kind of fruitcake.

"Jonathan Rosenbaum is exactly as you describe -- the kind of critic who when they say they like a certain movie, you decide right away you're not seeing it. He strikes me as very weasel-like. If they ever make a Fantastic Four movie, the guy is a dead-ringer for the part of Mole Man. When I met him at a panel at [a film festival] I encountered this really schlumpy, fat, fragile guy with a cold, sweaty handshake who smelled of b.o. and looked like he never really dealt much with the public, much less people." --Los Angeles Website Editor

"I've heard several colleagues chirp about Jonathan Rosenbaum behind his back about some of his supposedly 'peculiar' choices, but for me, it only demonstrates that Jonathan is a more adventurous moviegoer and critic than they are. Imagine, for instance, the puzzlement on the part of our respected and widely-known movie arbiters when Jonathan was championing Hungarian director Bela Tarr and his amazing mega-film, SANTANTANGO, back in '95 - '96. Tarr was someone they hadn't heard of, and was thus of no importance.

"He was also, as I later discovered for myself, the most gifted and brilliant film director working today, anywhere -- an artist of the depth and breadth of Eisenstein, Renoir, Dreyer, Bergman or Antonioni, and making the kind of movie that radically challenges everything that is clogging up the commercial movie pipeline these days. Just because Jonathan had seen him before his American colleagues, and applauded him, he sounded like a nut-case to these people." -- Los Angeles-based Film Critic

Wells comment: Entertainment journalism needs guys like Rosenbaum to discover and celebrate the Bela Tarr's and all the other super-obscure directors, so we can take notice and then ignore them.

"Robert Koehler of VARIETY only likes foreign language films that no one other than himself has seen." -- Los Angeles-based Publicity Guy

"He's not a critic, but Roger Friedman clearly only likes Miramax Films." -- ditto

"Owen Gleiberman, hands down, is the biggest nutter. He strikes me as someone who feels he needs to be contrarian to have any street cred; I don't trust that he reacts authentically to a film." - New York magazine editor.

" Owen Gleiberman's taste worries me. I often use it as a reverse litmus test!" -- Manhattan- based writer/filmmaker

"With Luke Y. Thompson, the question is 'is it an act?' or 'is he really nuts?'" -- Los Angeles Hollywood columnist

Wells comment: Keep it coming, Thompson. The nuttier, the better...as long as you really mean it.

"Jeffrey Lyons has the most bizarre taste in the business, but is utterly sincere." -- New York magazine editor.

"Jeffrey Lyons, Clay Smith from ACCESS HOLLYWOOD, Kirk Honeycutt from the HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, Kevin Thomas from the L.A. TIMES and Richard Roeper of EBERT and ROEPER. [These are people] I never trust in the flat-footed, flaccid category." -- Los Angeles-based columnist and freelancer.

"As far as nutters go, the hiring of Roeper continues to be unfathomable. It's as if Ebert's goal was to hire someone obviously less intelligent and interesting, with the result being he now he is categorically 'the man' on the show, unchallenged by a kindred spirit. As such, the show is one-tenth as interesting as the old team, which was genuinely entertaining to watch." -- Los Angeles Malcontent

"Does Peter Travers win the flat-footed medal for all eternity? Has he ever written a negative review, or even a mildly critic one? Have you ever seen an ad for the worst movie ever? It'll have a rave from ROLLING STONE, dollars to donuts. I just assume if he likes it and the rest of the quotes are from some AM radio guy in Tulsa, that the movie sucks." -- Post-Production Polly

"Peter Travers is a wash as a critic now, and probably for all time. Any time his name is within 4 font-size points of the film title, blink and move on." -- Los Angeles-based indie filmmaker

Wells Comment: I've read plenty of critical slams by Travers in Rolling Stone. It's just that his raves always turn up in print ads early on.

"This is sooo mean. If anyone names me, f**k them. Otherwise this column idea is 'riveting, gripping, compelling and a laugh riot. A hot ticket! I laughed till I cried so hard that it went over the other side and became laughter again!' -- David Sheehan." -- New York TV Entertainment Commentator/Critic .

"The worst critic is undoubtedly Kevin Thomas, who has an unerring capacity to love any film that's simply in focus. Then again, he also loves many that aren't." -- Los Angeles Director/Screenwriter

"The only sin a film can commit for Kevin Thomas, as far as I can tell, is homophobia. The dear man is just a little too happy for his readers good." - Los Angles Film Producer

"Duncan Shepard from the SAN DIEGO READER has always been insane. Apart from Walter Hill films like THE DRIVER and THE WARRIORS, Shepard gives nothing above one star. Actually, he's gotten a little better [lately], but consider that he gave one star to RABBIT-PROOF FENCE, one star to TALK TO HER, no stars for FRIDA or CHICAGO, and only one star to ANTWONE FISHER. The man is a loon. " --Oakland-based internet editor/film critic

"I nominate Neil Rosen, a walrus-moustached cretin on a New York cable channel whose taste gives new dimensions to the word 'pedestrian' and whose critiques are among the most unimaginative ever written or delivered. His customary construction almost always relies on the words 'overall,' 'found' and 'quite,' as in 'Overall, I found the film quite entertaining.' The fellow's also a sniveling coward. He hated LORD OF THE RINGS: THE TWO TOWERS, but wouldn't say it on his own channel, a Time-Warner subsidiary, and instead unloaded his scorn as a guest on Bill McCuddy's show on the Fox New Channel." -- New York magazine film critic

That's it for now. If anyone has any other nominations, send 'em along and I'll run Round Two on Friday.

Farrell

"I liked your thoughts on this wild Irishman, who seems to really be the right guy at the right time for current casting and marketing concerns. I think his appeal though isn't just that he fits the Gibson/ Crowe mold. I think his appeal is in his range. He can play your most noble hero or some hideous villain. By the way, SWAT has been written by David Ayer and directed by Clark Johnson, who directed a lot of great episodes of THE SHIELD. Sounds a bit better than your average studio movie to me." -- Justin Merkin

Wells to Merkin: I saw Farrell's Bullseye in DAREDEVIL last week and he's great. The part is all humor, all punchlines...and he has a great time with it.

Shot From Brooklyn

"Rarely do I find myself agreeing with Armond White, but I'm glad you reprinted his pan of THE HOURS because he's right on the money here. If this thing wins Best Picture at the Oscars, that faint screaming sound you hear coming from somewhere outside the Kodak Theatre will be me.

"I also hated the Michael Cunningham novel it was based on -- in fact, I couldn't finish it -- and while the movie's a tad better, that's not saying an awful lot. This film is obvious, melodramatic, and so full of self-pity I wanted to shake each of the women on display and yell Get over it!" (with the possible exception of Julianne Moore's character, though, as others have pointed out, her character bears too much resemblance to the one she played in the far superior FAR FROM HEAVEN).

"If you wanted to see a triumph of ensemble female acting, PERSONAL VELOCITY was the real deal, not this pseudo-profound tripe. And considering how normally intelligent critics are falling for this crap, don't worry about sounding like, in your words, a broken 78 rpm.

"However, I don't share your antipathy towards CHICAGO. True, there were better films this year (THE PIANIST was my favorite of the year, and like you, I'm also hoping ADAPTATION makes a strong showing), but I was entertained throughout. Admittedly, unlike yourself (or so it seems), I like musicals, but I found this fun and entrancing, and well-acted to boot. If this ends up winning Best Picture, I will certainly be polite about it." -- Sean Gallagher, Brooklyn, NY.

Solidarity

"I saw ADAPTATION and CHICAGO over the weekend, and I have to say that I agree with you completely. I haven't seen THE HOURS or THE PIANIST yet, but for me right now ADAPTATION is the best of the year and a CHICAGO is mere child's play.

"I just don't see what the big deal is. So it's a musical -- who cares? Sure, it's glitz and glamour and lots of brassy musical numbers (which make a it feel more like a filmed play than a film), but what does it all amount to? It's just a silly popcorn flick, and it somehow seems wrong to reward it as heavily as voters and critics seem to be doing right now.

"And those performances weren't anything special. I thought Catherine Zeta-Jones and John C. Reilly were the best, Renee Zellweger good but nothing special, Queen Latifah laughable, and Richard Gere even worse -- and they actually gave him an award! Maybe CHICAGO deserves a few nominations (and that's a big maybe), but certainly not wins -- especially when a picture as beautiful and creative as ADAPTATION is also in the running." -- Jacob W., Harrisonville, Missouri

Role Playing

Matthew J. Stollak was first to identify Friday's cast. They appeared together in Stephen Frears' THE GRIFTERS (1990).

Today's cast: Peter Sellers, Herbert Lom, Katie Johnson, Cecil Parker, Edie Martin Jack Melford, Alec Guinness, Danny Green, Kenneth Connor.

What's That Line?

George Pangis of Washington Township, New Jersey, was first to identify Friday's dialogue. The film is A Man for All Seasons, (1966, Best Picture Winner), written by Robert Bolt and Directed by the late, great Fred Zinnemann. The 3 actors in the scene are Paul Scofield as Sir Thomas More; Leo McKern as Oliver Cromwell, and a young John Hurt as the cleric Rich.

Here's a nice easy one to start the week off. In fact, I may have already run this last year. A 40ish guy walks in to a slightly shabby record store with a sales guy in his early 30s standing behind the counter.

Customer: I'm looking for a record for my daughter. For her birthday. "I Just Called To Say I Love You." Do you have it?
Sales guy: Oh, yeah. We got it.
Customer: Great. Can I have it then?
Sales Guy: (amused) Uhhhn, no -- you can't.
Customer: Why not?
Sales Guy: Because it's sentimental tacky crap, that's why not. Do we look like the kind of store that sells "I Just Called To Say I Loved You"? Go to the mall.
Customer: What...? What's your problem? Why...?
Sales guy: Do you even know your daughter? There is no way she likes that song. Ooops...is she in a coma?

The customer throws up his hands and starts out of the store.

Customer: Okay, okay, buddy. I didn't know it was Pick on the Middle-Aged Square Guy Day. My apologies. I'll be on my way.

Sales guy: B'bye!

Anger gets the better of the customer. He turns and throws up a middle finger and....

Customer: Fuck you!

Name the film, the year of release, the director, the screenwriter(s), and at least one of the actors in the scene.