Comments:
I'm of two minds about this site--on one hand it's wonderful to have all of Kael's short reviews available for online perusal, but on the other, such copywright infringement deprives her heirs of royalties (I wonder how long this site will stay up). I think that what still draws people to Kael is the emotional urgency of her work--she wrote as though the universe was at stake. Some people can't handle passion on that scale, as some of the ill-made comments below indicate. She was a critic of immediate reactions, which explains her one-viewing only approach. She undoubtedly had major flaws--her interest in foreign films tailed off, her research in "Raising Kane" was sloppy, she could sometimes be too anti-theoretical for her own good, and she was an often negative influence on her acolytes. But all great critics have idiosyncratic flaws and blind spots. Kael didn't care about "saphead objectivity" and if people found her work arrogant, her proper response was something along the lines of "tough shit!" Her work is anything but bland. It remains polarizing, like all trailblazing writing. I can understand why anyone would have their reseravtions about Kael, but anyone who outright dismisses her is little more than a fool.

Comments:
While I disagree with the fact that there are copyright laws because I think there are very few writers who deserve to live, Pauline Kael was not one of those writers.

Comments:
Hope you enjoy federal prison -- your new home once the New Yorker finds this site.

Comments:
Have you obtained permission to put this material on the web? I suspect that it's copyrighted, and that it's owned by Pauline's estate. If you don't have official permission, I think you'd be best off taking this site down.

Comments:
although i love her writing style, and agree with many of her reviews--especially her trashing of persona and her overall opinion formed of de palma--i feel that there is no way she can ever be considered a great film critic. Why? she only saw each film once. NEVER more than that! some movies date badly over time. she would never know that, though.

Comments:
Why are Kael-haters signing this guestbook?? Personally, I think Pauline was the greatest film critic ever and I always enjoyed reading her engaging and insightful reviews. Andrew Sarris was also very good. The only contemporary film critic worth reading these days (IMHO) is Stephanie Zacharek at salon.com Even when I enjoyed some of the movies that Pauline Kael was less than enthusiastic about (or vice versa), I could always appreciate where she was coming from and it made me think. She was a highly intelligent, educated and cultivated lady as well as a great writer. She was also great fun and knew how to have a good time. If you want to hate somebody - hate that roly-poly hack Roger Ebert.

Comments:
Hey, put them all on one page. Easier to browse and Ctrl-F.

Comments:
Agreed: Kael had bad taste and no aesthetics to speak of. This site is a good resource though, as she is considered "important" and a good writer, although I find her capsules bland and pretty superficial.

Comments:
Personally, I loathed Pauline Kael. She often criticized movies as "overblown," without realizing that her reviews were the most overblown of any film critic. She was also extremely narcissistic and arrogant. Very few of her reviews could even be considered somewhat fair. However, I love this site because when I need to blow off steam, her reviews just about do it for me.