I've gotten into a few arguments regarding movies over the years. Over favorite directors (still mostly like Woody Allen, despite his personal flaws), over favorite actors (think Paul Giamatti is overrated) and especially over work emanating from countries with inflated reputations (I ever share my opinions on French film?).

But nothing beats the arguments that I've had about Pauline Kael. I know moviegoers who worship the late New Yorker film critic. I know some who loathe her. My own feelings fall somewhere in between. I recognize that she was a force in the field. Her reviews, especially during her golden years (1964-79, which included a stint at The New Republic), helped bring popular consciousness to a critical school previously held mostly by academics or snobs or both. At the same time, even when I agreed with her -- which wasn't all that often -- I usually found her reviews to be grating, often dogmatic and overly long (and even, sometimes, sloppily written).

Which is why I was so interested in Nathan Heller's New Yorker article/book review that centers on Kael. Here is a link to the online version of it. Check it out and see what you think.

One thing for sure, I'll pick up a copy ... either a Kindle version or when it comes out in paperback. Not sure I'm willing to pay full freight ... unless it came with a year's supply of popcorn.