What do you think?
Rate this book
Movie Freak: My Life Watching Movies
Entertainment Weekly's controversial critic of more than two decades looks back at a life told through the films he loved and loathed.
Owen Gleiberman has spent his life watching movies-first at the drive-in, where his parents took him to see wildly inappropriate adult fare like Rosemary's Baby when he was a wide-eyed 9 year old, then as a possessed cinemaniac who became a film critic right out of college. In Movie Freak , his enthrallingly candid, funny, and eye-opening memoir, Gleiberman captures what it's like to live life through the movies, existing in thrall to a virtual reality that becomes, over time, more real than reality itself.
Gleiberman paints a bittersweet portrait of his complicated and ultimately doomed friendship with Pauline Kael, the legendary New Yorker film critic who was his mentor and muse. He also offers an unprecedented inside look at what the experience of being a critic is really all about, detailing his stint at The Boston Phoenix and then, starting in 1990, at EW , where he becomes a voice of obsession battling-to a fault-to cling to his independence.
Gleiberman explores the movies that shaped him, from the films that first made him want to be a critic ( Nashville and Carrie ), to what he hails as the sublime dark trilogy of the 1980s ( Blue Velvet , Sid and Nancy , and Manhunter ), to the scruffy humanity of Dazed and Confused, to the brilliant madness of Natural Born Killers, to the transcendence of Breaking the Waves, to the pop rapture of Moulin Rouge! He explores his partnership with Lisa Schwarzbaum and his friendships and encounters with such figures as Oliver Stone, Russell Crowe, Richard Linklater, and Ben Affleck. He also writes with confessional intimacy about his romantic relationships and how they echoed the behavior of his bullying, philandering father. And he talks about what film criticism is becoming in the digital a cacophony of voices threatened by an insidious new kind of groupthink.
Ultimately, Movie Freak is about the primal pleasure of film and the enigmatic dynamic between critic and screen. For Gleiberman, the moving image has a talismanic power, but it also represents a kind of sweet sickness, a magnificent obsession that both consumes and propels him.
Owen Gleiberman has spent his life watching movies-first at the drive-in, where his parents took him to see wildly inappropriate adult fare like Rosemary's Baby when he was a wide-eyed 9 year old, then as a possessed cinemaniac who became a film critic right out of college. In Movie Freak , his enthrallingly candid, funny, and eye-opening memoir, Gleiberman captures what it's like to live life through the movies, existing in thrall to a virtual reality that becomes, over time, more real than reality itself.
Gleiberman paints a bittersweet portrait of his complicated and ultimately doomed friendship with Pauline Kael, the legendary New Yorker film critic who was his mentor and muse. He also offers an unprecedented inside look at what the experience of being a critic is really all about, detailing his stint at The Boston Phoenix and then, starting in 1990, at EW , where he becomes a voice of obsession battling-to a fault-to cling to his independence.
Gleiberman explores the movies that shaped him, from the films that first made him want to be a critic ( Nashville and Carrie ), to what he hails as the sublime dark trilogy of the 1980s ( Blue Velvet , Sid and Nancy , and Manhunter ), to the scruffy humanity of Dazed and Confused, to the brilliant madness of Natural Born Killers, to the transcendence of Breaking the Waves, to the pop rapture of Moulin Rouge! He explores his partnership with Lisa Schwarzbaum and his friendships and encounters with such figures as Oliver Stone, Russell Crowe, Richard Linklater, and Ben Affleck. He also writes with confessional intimacy about his romantic relationships and how they echoed the behavior of his bullying, philandering father. And he talks about what film criticism is becoming in the digital a cacophony of voices threatened by an insidious new kind of groupthink.
Ultimately, Movie Freak is about the primal pleasure of film and the enigmatic dynamic between critic and screen. For Gleiberman, the moving image has a talismanic power, but it also represents a kind of sweet sickness, a magnificent obsession that both consumes and propels him.
338 pages, Hardcover
First published January 12, 2016
22 people are currently reading
873 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
April 24, 2016
I had a subscription to Entertainment Weekly throughout my teen years, an era where the magazine had smarter pop culture critics than its glossy newsstand format required. Gleiberman, the lead critic for the movie section, was a peculiar figure because he wasn’t as easy on films as would be assumed of a critic for a Time-Warner publication, but he wasn’t a snob either, and most crucially (what separated him from a lot of high-profile critics in the ‘90s), he understood the innate drug-quality of filmgoing.
It should also be said, he isn’t someone whose work I’ve really thought about much in the past fifteen years, even if he had some subconscious influence on me. We both became regularly published film critics at a very young age (he at the Boston Phoenix; me at The Coast, though I was several years younger when I started, which isn’t bragging, but… who am I kidding?), viewed ourselves as outside observers of real life BECAUSE of the power movies had on us, and for a while I took to his habit of ending reviews with a declarative sentence containing an em dash.
Reading his autobiography, though, a lot of our similarities end there. Though he’d never say it in these words, Gleiberman tends to like movies based on how much they get him off. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. As I said, movies, for those who live by them, are a drug, but this demand looks away from the power movies also have to get us outside of our own neuroses.
This is strictly an issue of taste and perspective. Until the age of twenty-five, I didn’t feel fully human, as though I was incapable of discussing anything but pop culture. It was around then that I discovered I actually was writing about life and politics all along. I became increasingly interested in how movies could unite people by connecting them with lives that were superficially different than their own. The world still hasn’t reached this place, and a lot of media discussion is actually becoming more pro-segregation genre-divisive, which makes me sad, but in my position as The Coast’s only movie critic for the better part of a decade, I had a similar agenda to Gleiberman’s: By covering EVERYTHING, it wasn’t about highlighting what’s good and burying what’s bad; writing about film was the process of chronicling modern existence through the culture we consume.
Criticism has changed drastically in the past five years. The dream of the internet was that it would open a wide variety of voices and opinions. Instead, it’s created a landscape where nobody has to think because we’re more enslaved to consensus than ever.
Anyway, Gleiberman’s book… he writes a lot about the movies he likes, and it’s weird to devote four pages to Dazed and Confused in your damn autobiography, but that’s what life is for some people, and this is most compelling as a history of Entertainment Weekly before even it got swallowed by the Infotainment Era, as well as a history of the American Indie Film Movement of the 1990s. Somewhere within that, it’s a story about becoming human.
It should also be said, he isn’t someone whose work I’ve really thought about much in the past fifteen years, even if he had some subconscious influence on me. We both became regularly published film critics at a very young age (he at the Boston Phoenix; me at The Coast, though I was several years younger when I started, which isn’t bragging, but… who am I kidding?), viewed ourselves as outside observers of real life BECAUSE of the power movies had on us, and for a while I took to his habit of ending reviews with a declarative sentence containing an em dash.
Reading his autobiography, though, a lot of our similarities end there. Though he’d never say it in these words, Gleiberman tends to like movies based on how much they get him off. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. As I said, movies, for those who live by them, are a drug, but this demand looks away from the power movies also have to get us outside of our own neuroses.
This is strictly an issue of taste and perspective. Until the age of twenty-five, I didn’t feel fully human, as though I was incapable of discussing anything but pop culture. It was around then that I discovered I actually was writing about life and politics all along. I became increasingly interested in how movies could unite people by connecting them with lives that were superficially different than their own. The world still hasn’t reached this place, and a lot of media discussion is actually becoming more pro-segregation genre-divisive, which makes me sad, but in my position as The Coast’s only movie critic for the better part of a decade, I had a similar agenda to Gleiberman’s: By covering EVERYTHING, it wasn’t about highlighting what’s good and burying what’s bad; writing about film was the process of chronicling modern existence through the culture we consume.
Criticism has changed drastically in the past five years. The dream of the internet was that it would open a wide variety of voices and opinions. Instead, it’s created a landscape where nobody has to think because we’re more enslaved to consensus than ever.
Anyway, Gleiberman’s book… he writes a lot about the movies he likes, and it’s weird to devote four pages to Dazed and Confused in your damn autobiography, but that’s what life is for some people, and this is most compelling as a history of Entertainment Weekly before even it got swallowed by the Infotainment Era, as well as a history of the American Indie Film Movement of the 1990s. Somewhere within that, it’s a story about becoming human.
Read
July 8, 2016#garbage
Gleiberman comes off as a petty, sanctimonious blowhard. I couldn't find him saying anything positive about any other film critic contemporary that wasn't immediately followed by some snide dismissal.
"Ebert was okay BUT he was an argumentative know-it-all"
"Lisa Schwartzbaum was a talented feature writer BUT not a critic"
"I personally got along with (insert critic here) but his/her opinions were vacuous and misinformed"
To hear it from him, OG was the only film critic worth his salt for the last quarter century.
Also, he wrote out the term 'finger fucking'! He typed it! And then an editor read it! And then it was printed! I didn't even realize that term EXISTED outside of circles of gross 13 year olds!
Gleiberman comes off as a petty, sanctimonious blowhard. I couldn't find him saying anything positive about any other film critic contemporary that wasn't immediately followed by some snide dismissal.
"Ebert was okay BUT he was an argumentative know-it-all"
"Lisa Schwartzbaum was a talented feature writer BUT not a critic"
"I personally got along with (insert critic here) but his/her opinions were vacuous and misinformed"
To hear it from him, OG was the only film critic worth his salt for the last quarter century.
Also, he wrote out the term 'finger fucking'! He typed it! And then an editor read it! And then it was printed! I didn't even realize that term EXISTED outside of circles of gross 13 year olds!
September 2, 2016
I read this book extremely masochistically. It's the anatomy of a mediocre critical mind, and you see what forms an essentially timid, work-averse sensibility. In this case, it's a domineering dad who loved high culture: therefore, every Godard movie gets zero stars. Gleiberman is a junk food junkie who thinks he's Kael. I found this book endlessly depressing.
September 4, 2018
I think that this might be a better book if it hadn't been written by Owen Gleiberman. It seems more like a "life of," as with Pauline Kael: A Life in the Dark by Brian Kellow, which had a similar mix of biographical material and opinions about film.
Gleiberman in this book does not, for the most part, seem to be a nice person. He is petty and never forgives a slight. He goes through life crippled by resentment of his family, his cold, uncaring, miserly father and weak mother. He refers only in passing to his brothers, one with severe depression, the other with Tourette's Syndrome.
He was a young man who never even kissed a woman until he was twenty and then went on to become a self-acknowledged sexual predator, a man whose behavior, he realizes, would certainly be unacceptable now. He went on a vacation with a co-worker with whom he was having a clandestine sexual relationship, ran into another woman from their workplace, and immediately tried to seduce her.
Why does he disclose all this? I really can't tell. There is nothing attractive about his behavior, nothing daring or desperate enough to justify telling about it. Granted, at the very end of the book, he seems to be a better version of himself, but this is not a conversion to sainthood, justifying forgiveness for his younger persona.
But, of course, there is a reason that the title of the book states that it is about Gleiberman's "life watching movies." A substantial part of the book deals with working as a film critic; another large part details Gleiberman's opinions about films in general as well as about individual films.
First off, Gleiberman seems to have much less background in the arts than one might expect in a film critic. There is very little indication that he has much knowledge of literature or of drama. He is familiar with some music, especially current music. I don't see any signs that he is knowledgeable about painting, sculpture, architecture, dance, or opera. Does this matter? More than Gleiberman thinks, I believe.
He admits to not having made a huge effort to find out more about the history of cinema, which unquestionably does matter. Wait: he doesn't admit that, because he obviously sees no reason why this would be an admission, rather than just a statement.
I wish that at some point in the book, Gleiberman had said, "These are my favorite films, these are my favorite actors, these are the minutes in film that have given me the most pleasure." Of course, if I had read more of Gleiberman's work as it appeared, I would know much more of this, and it is scarcely Gleiberman's fault that I have not done so. If we disagree about specific films, well, those are simple differences of opinion; I can't really state that I am right and Gleiberman is wrong. (Although how anyone claiming to be a film critic can dislike Jules and Jim...)
(I want to quote something that has almost nothing to do with the book, except that I find it genuinely disgusting. Gleiberman says that he wrote a negative review of the highly-praised film Tender Mercies, which starred Robert Duvall. He received the following note in response:
Dear Mr. Gleiberwitz,
If you had spent less time in a synagogue and more time in the world of the south, I might understand you better. Acting you know nothing about.
Sincerely,
Robert Duvall
Clearly being a decent human being is not a field in which Duvall has any standing. Whatever sins critics commit, rabid prejudice is not an appropriate response.
Yes, I know I have wandered far off-topic.)
Much of the last part of this book is devoted to a consideration of the current and future status of film criticism. I hope that film continues to exist and that caring and knowledgeable critics continue to share that caring and knowledge with others who love movies.
Gleiberman in this book does not, for the most part, seem to be a nice person. He is petty and never forgives a slight. He goes through life crippled by resentment of his family, his cold, uncaring, miserly father and weak mother. He refers only in passing to his brothers, one with severe depression, the other with Tourette's Syndrome.
He was a young man who never even kissed a woman until he was twenty and then went on to become a self-acknowledged sexual predator, a man whose behavior, he realizes, would certainly be unacceptable now. He went on a vacation with a co-worker with whom he was having a clandestine sexual relationship, ran into another woman from their workplace, and immediately tried to seduce her.
Why does he disclose all this? I really can't tell. There is nothing attractive about his behavior, nothing daring or desperate enough to justify telling about it. Granted, at the very end of the book, he seems to be a better version of himself, but this is not a conversion to sainthood, justifying forgiveness for his younger persona.
But, of course, there is a reason that the title of the book states that it is about Gleiberman's "life watching movies." A substantial part of the book deals with working as a film critic; another large part details Gleiberman's opinions about films in general as well as about individual films.
First off, Gleiberman seems to have much less background in the arts than one might expect in a film critic. There is very little indication that he has much knowledge of literature or of drama. He is familiar with some music, especially current music. I don't see any signs that he is knowledgeable about painting, sculpture, architecture, dance, or opera. Does this matter? More than Gleiberman thinks, I believe.
He admits to not having made a huge effort to find out more about the history of cinema, which unquestionably does matter. Wait: he doesn't admit that, because he obviously sees no reason why this would be an admission, rather than just a statement.
I wish that at some point in the book, Gleiberman had said, "These are my favorite films, these are my favorite actors, these are the minutes in film that have given me the most pleasure." Of course, if I had read more of Gleiberman's work as it appeared, I would know much more of this, and it is scarcely Gleiberman's fault that I have not done so. If we disagree about specific films, well, those are simple differences of opinion; I can't really state that I am right and Gleiberman is wrong. (Although how anyone claiming to be a film critic can dislike Jules and Jim...)
(I want to quote something that has almost nothing to do with the book, except that I find it genuinely disgusting. Gleiberman says that he wrote a negative review of the highly-praised film Tender Mercies, which starred Robert Duvall. He received the following note in response:
Dear Mr. Gleiberwitz,
If you had spent less time in a synagogue and more time in the world of the south, I might understand you better. Acting you know nothing about.
Sincerely,
Robert Duvall
Clearly being a decent human being is not a field in which Duvall has any standing. Whatever sins critics commit, rabid prejudice is not an appropriate response.
Yes, I know I have wandered far off-topic.)
Much of the last part of this book is devoted to a consideration of the current and future status of film criticism. I hope that film continues to exist and that caring and knowledgeable critics continue to share that caring and knowledge with others who love movies.
October 1, 2016
This wasn't what I was expecting, but I liked it, for the most part. I expected more on the critic's thoughts on film and less about his personal (and sometimes very dark and intimate) life. But a person's life experiences has a lot to do with his/her taste, to a certain extent.
As anyone who knows me can attest, I grew up a "movie freak" too: As a child, I watched Siskel & Ebert as religiously as I did The Muppets; by junior high I was completely smitten by Katharine Hepburn; in high school I was reading Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael. I studied film in graduate school. So, it's surprising how uncannily similar some of my favs/peeves with movies are to Owen Gleiberman's, (except his fascination with Blue Velvet--that's a resounding "nope" for me. I agree with Ebert's analysis of that one.) yet I never read him before. I think my husband picked this one up at a bookstore and handed it to me. I'm glad he did, because it's always life-affirming to find someone who is as passionate about something as you are. Movie Freaks unite!
As anyone who knows me can attest, I grew up a "movie freak" too: As a child, I watched Siskel & Ebert as religiously as I did The Muppets; by junior high I was completely smitten by Katharine Hepburn; in high school I was reading Andrew Sarris and Pauline Kael. I studied film in graduate school. So, it's surprising how uncannily similar some of my favs/peeves with movies are to Owen Gleiberman's, (except his fascination with Blue Velvet--that's a resounding "nope" for me. I agree with Ebert's analysis of that one.) yet I never read him before. I think my husband picked this one up at a bookstore and handed it to me. I'm glad he did, because it's always life-affirming to find someone who is as passionate about something as you are. Movie Freaks unite!
April 2, 2017
I won this book in a goodreads drawing.
It's been popular for probably 20 years or more for baby boomers to write books about how the subsequent generations just don't want to work. This is a complete reversal.
This is about a guy who grew up in Ann Arbor, Michigan (the Berkeley of the Midwest), and without ever working very hard managed to make a living reviewing movies. He writes a lot about how Hollywood has changed from the last golden age of the 1970's into a shell of its former self. He loves the movies, but he's also a complete egomaniac.
The later parts of the book is about how the business of reviewing movies has changed. Now that this baby boomer might actually have to work, he's frightened. His authority to deem movies good or bad is being threatened by regular people! He's also on the wrong side of the generation gap and can't quite deal with it.
To me, that's actually the most interesting portion of the book.
A fairly good book that does discuss many movies that may have passed under the radar.
It's been popular for probably 20 years or more for baby boomers to write books about how the subsequent generations just don't want to work. This is a complete reversal.
This is about a guy who grew up in Ann Arbor, Michigan (the Berkeley of the Midwest), and without ever working very hard managed to make a living reviewing movies. He writes a lot about how Hollywood has changed from the last golden age of the 1970's into a shell of its former self. He loves the movies, but he's also a complete egomaniac.
The later parts of the book is about how the business of reviewing movies has changed. Now that this baby boomer might actually have to work, he's frightened. His authority to deem movies good or bad is being threatened by regular people! He's also on the wrong side of the generation gap and can't quite deal with it.
To me, that's actually the most interesting portion of the book.
A fairly good book that does discuss many movies that may have passed under the radar.
February 21, 2016
Could / should be titled "My Life AND Watching Movies," but that is not a criticism. It's the biography and film review book that you didn't know you wanted to read. I'm glad I won this from the giveaway section of 'goodreads.'
January 13, 2017
A fast, fun read shot through with in a hothouse, Pauline-Kael-inspired, strung-together-hyphenates style. Glieberman examines the role of the film critic from the 70s to current day, pondering what function (if any) film criticism serves anymore. The book is generously sprinkled with lots of juicy parenthetical bits from some of his best reviews from EW and the Phoenix. OG puts blockbusters, indies, middlebrow movies, directors, actors, and the entire entertainment industrial complex under his microscope, but the subject that receives the intense brunt of his unrelenting critical gaze is himself (his daddy issues, drug use, porn appreciation, jealousies, rivalries and on and on). He's certainly not afraid to come across petty or small (the chapter about his father's death - yeesh!) That he does all that while also serving up dishy bits about directors (clubbing with Oliver Stone), starlets (catching Moulin Rouge! with Patty Clarkson) and friends, foes, and fellow critics (don't even get started on his fraught loveship/hateship with the All Powerful Ms. Kael) - is a real achievement.
February 6, 2017
I've subscribed to Entertainment Weekly since the very first issue and through the years I grew to respect Owen Glieberman's reviews. While not in agreement with him on all movies, I would read his first and agree more often than not. I was saddened by his departure from EW and curious as to why he left. As the story of a magazine, it's excellent. As a treatise on movies, it's very good. As a memoir, not so interesting. But, I got what I wanted to read about from it.
November 13, 2021
Owen Gleiberman: A Man Battling with Himself…
Written by Blake Patterson.
B+.
In the back of my mind, I have longed to read Owen Gleiberman’s autobiography, Movie Freak: My Life Watching Movies. As a cinephile and reader, I have always found Gleiberman to be one of the most fascinating writers in modern film criticism. When many mainstream critics love the same movies, Gleiberman is confident enough to defend his viewpoint on any film. Gleiberman’s term for the enforcer of the new groupthink is “Media Mike.” Even before the internet, Gleiberman admits to going against the grain on acclaimed films—like Brian De Palma’s Blow Out and François Truffaut’s Jules and Jim. From the sixties to the 2010s, Gleiberman documents his observations and experiences as a moviegoer and human being, yet the autobiography is more than the origin story of a “movie freak.”
Born in Switzerland due to his father’s studies, Gleiberman’s escape from a dysfunctional family is watching movies. “I Lost It at the Drive-Inn,” the first chapter of the book, is a clever reference to Pauline Kael’s movie collection, I Lost It at the Movies. Gleiberman discusses the influence of Rosemary’s Baby and The Boston Strangler on his taste as a young moviegoer. As he progresses through his childhood, Gleiberman continuously struggles with his embittered father who does not care for him and the other children. Gleiberman describes his mother as Elaine Miller from Almost Famous because of how she desires for him to be a successful scholar. During his childhood, Gleiberman discovers his radical sensibility politically and cinematically through the Chicago Seven court proceedings and the viewings of A Clockwork Orange and Last Tango in Paris. Concentrating on this phase, Gleiberman demonstrates how his political energy would lessen due to the fate of the counterculture, but his passion for bold movies would strengthen.
Gleiberman fearlessly discusses his internal conflicts with sexuality and the films that would rewire his brain in college. What is most surprising about Gleiberman’s book is how he speaks of embarrassing events in his life without any concerns about what people will think. From a racial conflict with a middle school teacher to his obsession with pornography, Gleiberman reveals situations not many writers would be willing to express. This is an admirable quality to have, and it is part of the reason why he is an engaging author. In terms of the films he would observe, Nashville, Carrie, and Mean Streets would have the strongest effect on Gleiberman’s sensibility. To Gleiberman, these motion pictures represent a daring selection of American visions. Due to the influence of these films, this would eventually lead Gleiberman to the greatest film critic of all time, Pauline Kael. As Gleiberman suggests, a single reading of Kael’s work is like a powerful drug.
When Gleiberman courageously writes and sends a letter to Kael, they begin an interesting friendship as she helps the initiation of Gleiberman’s career as a critic. During the eighties at the Boston Phoenix, Gleiberman would become aware of Kael and her Paulettes by being around people in her groupthink—like former film critic David Edelstein. One circumstance with Edelstein will leave the reader in shock because of how vicious a Paulette can be. As much as one praises Kael’s writing, Gleiberman’s stories about Kael and her acolytes are never questionable, and they appear to be true to her domineering character. Despite issues with Kael and the Paulettes, Gleiberman watches three significant movies—Blue Velvet, Manhunter, and Sid and Nancy—that would inspire and revive his love for cinema. In each act of his life, Gleiberman emanates how the movies save and invigorate his life.
As wonderful as his personal observations are, Movie Freak: My Life Watching Movies becomes occasionally impersonal when Gleiberman ventures into the latter section of his life. Instead of focusing on situations affecting him, Gleiberman snidely complains about critics and others because of their occupational choices or influence on viewers. For example, Gleiberman’s criticisms against Roger Ebert are not only unnecessary, but they reek of elitism. When Gleiberman criticizes Ebert’s openness to all kinds of cinema, it reminds readers of why several viewers cannot stand to read critics. There is a tradition in film criticism where numerous critics believe they must not adapt to different forms of the cinematic language. It is most common today through the writings of the veteran reviewer, Rex Reed. Frankly, this narrow-minded mentality limits the cinephile from exploring and challenging themselves.
In the twentieth chapter “How I Became a Nutter,” Gleiberman conveys another issue most readers may have with the autobiography. At the beginning of this chapter, Gleiberman expresses the following about Armond White: “I say that only because he’s constantly talking about the opinions of others in his reviews—he seems more obsessed with others than he does with himself.” Ironically, this is a hypocritical statement because Gleiberman needlessly writes about his issues with people in film criticism instead of focusing on his story. As unique as Gleiberman’s taste is, the man does take too much pleasure in being different from his colleagues. When Gleiberman discusses his disinterest in filmmakers like Jean-Luc Godard and Akira Kurosawa, Gleiberman includes the following notation: “Cue the screams of outrage!” Gleiberman should be above this kind of “Oh, look how cute I am” syndrome. These problems in his autobiography distract the readers from who Gleiberman really is.
Despite the novel’s main description, Movie Freak: My Life Watching Movies is more about a man preventing himself from becoming his father and finding his identity as a writer and individual. As a person, Gleiberman is funny, sharp, and one of a kind. In terms of his writing, Gleiberman is at his best when he is honest and is not trying to seem like a vapid provocateur. Even though Gleiberman admires John Simon, he should not resort to Simon’s shallow and condescending rhetoric. It causes Gleiberman to be as pathetic as Wayne Gale from Natural Born Killers. In conclusion, Movie Freak: My Life Watching Movies is an enjoyable and frustrating portrait of a complex writer.
Written by Blake Patterson.
B+.
In the back of my mind, I have longed to read Owen Gleiberman’s autobiography, Movie Freak: My Life Watching Movies. As a cinephile and reader, I have always found Gleiberman to be one of the most fascinating writers in modern film criticism. When many mainstream critics love the same movies, Gleiberman is confident enough to defend his viewpoint on any film. Gleiberman’s term for the enforcer of the new groupthink is “Media Mike.” Even before the internet, Gleiberman admits to going against the grain on acclaimed films—like Brian De Palma’s Blow Out and François Truffaut’s Jules and Jim. From the sixties to the 2010s, Gleiberman documents his observations and experiences as a moviegoer and human being, yet the autobiography is more than the origin story of a “movie freak.”
Born in Switzerland due to his father’s studies, Gleiberman’s escape from a dysfunctional family is watching movies. “I Lost It at the Drive-Inn,” the first chapter of the book, is a clever reference to Pauline Kael’s movie collection, I Lost It at the Movies. Gleiberman discusses the influence of Rosemary’s Baby and The Boston Strangler on his taste as a young moviegoer. As he progresses through his childhood, Gleiberman continuously struggles with his embittered father who does not care for him and the other children. Gleiberman describes his mother as Elaine Miller from Almost Famous because of how she desires for him to be a successful scholar. During his childhood, Gleiberman discovers his radical sensibility politically and cinematically through the Chicago Seven court proceedings and the viewings of A Clockwork Orange and Last Tango in Paris. Concentrating on this phase, Gleiberman demonstrates how his political energy would lessen due to the fate of the counterculture, but his passion for bold movies would strengthen.
Gleiberman fearlessly discusses his internal conflicts with sexuality and the films that would rewire his brain in college. What is most surprising about Gleiberman’s book is how he speaks of embarrassing events in his life without any concerns about what people will think. From a racial conflict with a middle school teacher to his obsession with pornography, Gleiberman reveals situations not many writers would be willing to express. This is an admirable quality to have, and it is part of the reason why he is an engaging author. In terms of the films he would observe, Nashville, Carrie, and Mean Streets would have the strongest effect on Gleiberman’s sensibility. To Gleiberman, these motion pictures represent a daring selection of American visions. Due to the influence of these films, this would eventually lead Gleiberman to the greatest film critic of all time, Pauline Kael. As Gleiberman suggests, a single reading of Kael’s work is like a powerful drug.
When Gleiberman courageously writes and sends a letter to Kael, they begin an interesting friendship as she helps the initiation of Gleiberman’s career as a critic. During the eighties at the Boston Phoenix, Gleiberman would become aware of Kael and her Paulettes by being around people in her groupthink—like former film critic David Edelstein. One circumstance with Edelstein will leave the reader in shock because of how vicious a Paulette can be. As much as one praises Kael’s writing, Gleiberman’s stories about Kael and her acolytes are never questionable, and they appear to be true to her domineering character. Despite issues with Kael and the Paulettes, Gleiberman watches three significant movies—Blue Velvet, Manhunter, and Sid and Nancy—that would inspire and revive his love for cinema. In each act of his life, Gleiberman emanates how the movies save and invigorate his life.
As wonderful as his personal observations are, Movie Freak: My Life Watching Movies becomes occasionally impersonal when Gleiberman ventures into the latter section of his life. Instead of focusing on situations affecting him, Gleiberman snidely complains about critics and others because of their occupational choices or influence on viewers. For example, Gleiberman’s criticisms against Roger Ebert are not only unnecessary, but they reek of elitism. When Gleiberman criticizes Ebert’s openness to all kinds of cinema, it reminds readers of why several viewers cannot stand to read critics. There is a tradition in film criticism where numerous critics believe they must not adapt to different forms of the cinematic language. It is most common today through the writings of the veteran reviewer, Rex Reed. Frankly, this narrow-minded mentality limits the cinephile from exploring and challenging themselves.
In the twentieth chapter “How I Became a Nutter,” Gleiberman conveys another issue most readers may have with the autobiography. At the beginning of this chapter, Gleiberman expresses the following about Armond White: “I say that only because he’s constantly talking about the opinions of others in his reviews—he seems more obsessed with others than he does with himself.” Ironically, this is a hypocritical statement because Gleiberman needlessly writes about his issues with people in film criticism instead of focusing on his story. As unique as Gleiberman’s taste is, the man does take too much pleasure in being different from his colleagues. When Gleiberman discusses his disinterest in filmmakers like Jean-Luc Godard and Akira Kurosawa, Gleiberman includes the following notation: “Cue the screams of outrage!” Gleiberman should be above this kind of “Oh, look how cute I am” syndrome. These problems in his autobiography distract the readers from who Gleiberman really is.
Despite the novel’s main description, Movie Freak: My Life Watching Movies is more about a man preventing himself from becoming his father and finding his identity as a writer and individual. As a person, Gleiberman is funny, sharp, and one of a kind. In terms of his writing, Gleiberman is at his best when he is honest and is not trying to seem like a vapid provocateur. Even though Gleiberman admires John Simon, he should not resort to Simon’s shallow and condescending rhetoric. It causes Gleiberman to be as pathetic as Wayne Gale from Natural Born Killers. In conclusion, Movie Freak: My Life Watching Movies is an enjoyable and frustrating portrait of a complex writer.
February 24, 2022
Movie Genius: Owen Gleiberman's Life of Watching Movies.
A long time fan of Owen Gleiberman's reviews and writing, when I heard Movie Freak was coming out, I was pretty excited so I ordered it immediately. This memoir of watching movies is an energized and highly entertaining look into one of the great movie critics of our time. As a long-time subscriber to Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman's home for movie reviewing of many years, I can honestly say that what kept me rapt in loyalty to the magazine was 90% Owen Gleiberman's reviews. I always felt he added a certain empathetic and intelligent view into movies and movie-watching-- both popular and obscure-- that really had a unique value to them. I almost always agreed with his reviews-- and even when I didn't, I often found, he still made hugely valid points in the way he saw the movies he watched. His appreciation and obsession with movie watching, talking and reviewing is infectious throughout the book and well, it takes one to know one. I felt like I was reading about someone who truly found genuine meaning in sitting and experiencing a really great movie. And even if the movie wasn't all that great, he goes on to say that it's still an experience worth having-- that great movie fans are collectors of experiences, each movie a kind of experience to delve and sink into. He couldn't have been more right.
When Entertainment Weekly let Mr. Gleiberman go (I refuse to use the word fired)-- I was infuriated and truly upset over their decision. Immediately the quality of movie reviews and film critique went down tremendously and I found myself unattached or even barely interested in any of the MULTIPLE people who sat down to offer their opinions on any recently released movies. I would have loved to see what Owen Gleiberman had to say about The Lobster or The Girl on the Train and many others whose most basic of unconvincing reviews appeared in the pages of Entertainment Weekly. Even if he would have agreed with the more common consensus on such recent films, I know, that Mr. Gleiberman would have added an extra something to drive that point or opinion home. A way of wording a thought or feeling conveyed in the film that would have elevated it and allowed me to see it more profoundly. That was the sheer power of Owen Gleiberman's great writing. Sadly, I and many thousands of others were not allowed such a luxury within the pages of Entertainment Weekly anymore.
I know Owen Gleiberman will be fine and is working steadily at Variety Magazine and that Entertainment Weekly has never been the same since his most sought after reviews disappeared from its pages-- so I am very glad he decided to write this book. I have thoroughly enjoyed learning more about this man, his life and especially his love for movies. He doesn't hold back, he's humble and genuinely reflective in a much refreshing way. I find myself getting giddy when he talks about all the great movie "loves" of his life-- and in a way, it's almost like reading one of his reviews, albeit in a more edited way. My only request next for him would be, to publish a book with all of his many great film reviews before, during and after his time at Entertainment Weekly. There is a fan base of people who would really appreciate a compilation and collection of this sort.
Owen Gleiberman, you have become as inspiring and entertaining a film critic as you considered your muse-friend-mentor, Pauline Kael to be. I'd even go so far as to say you far surpassed even her greatness.
A long time fan of Owen Gleiberman's reviews and writing, when I heard Movie Freak was coming out, I was pretty excited so I ordered it immediately. This memoir of watching movies is an energized and highly entertaining look into one of the great movie critics of our time. As a long-time subscriber to Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman's home for movie reviewing of many years, I can honestly say that what kept me rapt in loyalty to the magazine was 90% Owen Gleiberman's reviews. I always felt he added a certain empathetic and intelligent view into movies and movie-watching-- both popular and obscure-- that really had a unique value to them. I almost always agreed with his reviews-- and even when I didn't, I often found, he still made hugely valid points in the way he saw the movies he watched. His appreciation and obsession with movie watching, talking and reviewing is infectious throughout the book and well, it takes one to know one. I felt like I was reading about someone who truly found genuine meaning in sitting and experiencing a really great movie. And even if the movie wasn't all that great, he goes on to say that it's still an experience worth having-- that great movie fans are collectors of experiences, each movie a kind of experience to delve and sink into. He couldn't have been more right.
When Entertainment Weekly let Mr. Gleiberman go (I refuse to use the word fired)-- I was infuriated and truly upset over their decision. Immediately the quality of movie reviews and film critique went down tremendously and I found myself unattached or even barely interested in any of the MULTIPLE people who sat down to offer their opinions on any recently released movies. I would have loved to see what Owen Gleiberman had to say about The Lobster or The Girl on the Train and many others whose most basic of unconvincing reviews appeared in the pages of Entertainment Weekly. Even if he would have agreed with the more common consensus on such recent films, I know, that Mr. Gleiberman would have added an extra something to drive that point or opinion home. A way of wording a thought or feeling conveyed in the film that would have elevated it and allowed me to see it more profoundly. That was the sheer power of Owen Gleiberman's great writing. Sadly, I and many thousands of others were not allowed such a luxury within the pages of Entertainment Weekly anymore.
I know Owen Gleiberman will be fine and is working steadily at Variety Magazine and that Entertainment Weekly has never been the same since his most sought after reviews disappeared from its pages-- so I am very glad he decided to write this book. I have thoroughly enjoyed learning more about this man, his life and especially his love for movies. He doesn't hold back, he's humble and genuinely reflective in a much refreshing way. I find myself getting giddy when he talks about all the great movie "loves" of his life-- and in a way, it's almost like reading one of his reviews, albeit in a more edited way. My only request next for him would be, to publish a book with all of his many great film reviews before, during and after his time at Entertainment Weekly. There is a fan base of people who would really appreciate a compilation and collection of this sort.
Owen Gleiberman, you have become as inspiring and entertaining a film critic as you considered your muse-friend-mentor, Pauline Kael to be. I'd even go so far as to say you far surpassed even her greatness.
July 14, 2016
My main quibble with this book is that now I can't use this title for my own memoirs someday! In all seriousness, this is a well written and intriguing deep dive into the films that Gleiberman has loved and loathed over the years interspersed with his own life story which was fascinating and a bit sad. Full disclosure: Entertainment Weekly has been my pop culture Bible for almost twenty years now so I am intimately familiar with Gleiberman's reviews and his writing style. I've always found him to be a bit pompous and a bit showoffy and so this book is basically that in a longer form. So, there were definitely parts that grated on me. Also, I think he and I disagree more than agree when it comes to movies. I'm sorry but anyone who thinks that the Texas chainsaw massacre is a better movie than Halloween is just wrong. Also, why so much hate for Lord of the Rings? One of the greatest fantasy epics of all time and he doesn't seem to get it. Although Moulin Rouge was definitely the best film of 2001 and the fact that he acknowledges that and expresses regret for not saying it at the time wins him a lot of points in my book.
It is also interesting to me that he doesn't even bother to mention Roger Ebert until 200 pages in. He spends lots of time on Pauline Kael (who I have never read because I came of age after she retired) but very little on Ebert except to talk about how they didn't really get along. I happen to be an Ebert acolyte and so those passages really bugged me. What I did like was how he gave us an insider's perspective of Entertainment Weekly, one that I hadn't seen before. It was so interesting to see how the magazine came together and how integral he became in those early days. I also liked that he refused to hold back on his opinions of his editors and managers at the magazine. It was refreshing to hear him be so candid about all the ways in which he felt screwed over by the higher ups at the magazine. For the record, I think he is right in his final pages about the state of movie criticism today. It has become so much less than what it used to be. He absolutely gets it right there. And I think he is also right that Entertainment Weekly has also morphed into something completely different. It's not the same magazine it was just a few years ago. Overall, I found this book to be a great overview of a life lived through movies. Not a bad life at all, if you ask me! I'm glad I took the time to read this. Not as good as Ebert's memoirs but still a great read full of insights. Now, I have to go watch the movies he wrote about so extensively! There were so many in here that I still haven't seen!
It is also interesting to me that he doesn't even bother to mention Roger Ebert until 200 pages in. He spends lots of time on Pauline Kael (who I have never read because I came of age after she retired) but very little on Ebert except to talk about how they didn't really get along. I happen to be an Ebert acolyte and so those passages really bugged me. What I did like was how he gave us an insider's perspective of Entertainment Weekly, one that I hadn't seen before. It was so interesting to see how the magazine came together and how integral he became in those early days. I also liked that he refused to hold back on his opinions of his editors and managers at the magazine. It was refreshing to hear him be so candid about all the ways in which he felt screwed over by the higher ups at the magazine. For the record, I think he is right in his final pages about the state of movie criticism today. It has become so much less than what it used to be. He absolutely gets it right there. And I think he is also right that Entertainment Weekly has also morphed into something completely different. It's not the same magazine it was just a few years ago. Overall, I found this book to be a great overview of a life lived through movies. Not a bad life at all, if you ask me! I'm glad I took the time to read this. Not as good as Ebert's memoirs but still a great read full of insights. Now, I have to go watch the movies he wrote about so extensively! There were so many in here that I still haven't seen!
June 1, 2016
I have finally finished this book. Although it is well written I found it to be a difficult read. There are really three sections to this book: Owen's life as a child and how he decided he wanted to become a critic, his life as a college student/young adult and the start of his professional career, and then his long career at Entertainment Weekly. Individually each of these parts have their interesting moments but they are obscured by many overly dull, or uninteresting to people who aren't directly affected by the events, moments. I can certainly appreciate how these were formative moments in his life, as we all have our own similar epiphanies and experiences. But who really cares about ALL of these influential events except for the person experiencing them? The most challenging issue I had was that as I continued to progress through the material - which was rather difficult in the early chapters - I struggled to figure out the point of the story. I realize this was a memoir, but was the story about how he was influenced to become a critic and the challenges this career posed? Was it a history of the EW magazine, or was it a study in the rise and fall of journalism/critical reviews over the past few decades? This ambitious book tries to address each of these elements but I found that I had to force myself to read through much of the seemingly extraneous material before I could figure out the underlying message and understand the story's progression. Compounding these problems was a main character that I couldn't decide if I liked/hated/didn't really care about (I still can't). However, there were some interesting reflections in the book about the professional aspects of Owen's career that would be of interest to aspiring journalists/critics.
I received this book as part of the Goodreads Firstreads program.
I received this book as part of the Goodreads Firstreads program.
February 3, 2017
I picked Movie Freak – My life watching movies by Owen Gleiberman from the ‘pick of the month’ table at our library. I am not sure who picks the ‘pick of the month’ but I thought I would give it a try. I had never heard of Owen Gleiberman previously, thus it was an entirely new experience. I had no expectations. I found the life of Owen Gleiberman to be fascinating. He describes in great detail his life growing up in Ann Arbor Michigan and how he became so enthralled in watching movies. He is a good writer and his book is well written. It was fun to read about the movies at the beginning of his career. Being a film critic is an entirely new world for me, and I enjoyed have a ‘sneak peek’ into his world. I may not agree on his critique, but I can’t criticize his passion for movies. The book is much better the first half then the second. He gets a bit wordy and long. But it is still a good book. Just not a great book.
August 29, 2018
Smart guy, obviously knowledgeable about film and a great writer but seems like a real arrogant dick human being.
May 24, 2019
A tiny bit of disclaimer before this review, I reviewed movies on disc for a website called Upcomingdiscs.com for a period of 8 years from 2004 - 2012. The last 7 years I have written for them in an off and on capacity while getting married (for the third time) and being a dad (for the first time). So in a sense since I adore writing about movies (even more than books), I should love this book about movie critic Owen Gleiberman and his life watching movies. By my rating, I did come to appreciate the book a lot, but it didn't start that way.
For the first hundred pages, I thought Owen was a pompous jerk. At one point, in three consecutive pages, he actually puts down Return of the Jedi, Dressed to Kill and the Warriors. In one fell swoop! What person with a soul actually puts down movies like the Goonies and Willow? Safe to say if you grew up in the 80's like I did, there is probably a movie he mentions in this book that he hates that you love. And for the record Owen, I can't stand Kramer vs Kramer and Sid & Nancy. (But I do really enjoy Manhunter and Blue Velvet for what's it worth). Okay I feel better.
But something happened as the book went on. Sure, I was not agreeing with many of his viewing choices (Chuck & Buck, really?), but I was finding something unexpected. A soul. A person that I could really resonate with not because of his reviews by and large but because of the way he says exactly what he wants. Often in my writing style, I don't pull any punches. Well, the same thing can be said for Owen Gleiberman.
Owen writes in a way to be admired. Sure, he's a bit pompous and off putting but there is some real heart to this book and thankfully it is not all about the movies. There is some depth on his father, his kids, and his wife. But one negative is that most of that information is near the back of the book which judging by some of the comments here I doubt many of the readers got to. Those chapters takes the critic and really humanize him.
I actually think that if Owen were to sit down across from me I would immensely enjoy his company. Sure we would disagree, but it would be a wonderful disagreement as they say. This book is going to piss off people who are passionate about the movies but much like the center of a Charms Blow Pop (Cherry of course), it's crazy satisfying. Owen seems to be in a good place and is now working at Variety (as of May 2019) where he is the chief film critic.
So I give this book a great recommendation as long as you are willing to proceed throughout the entire book. I was fully ready to award this two stars and spend a couple of pages complaining about his film choices. But it's a clever, well written book about a film critic who has rarely compromised and that should be deeply respected. I often wish I could be a paid movie, game or book critic but I'll settle in this case reading about the lives of a really good movie one. Enjoy.
For the first hundred pages, I thought Owen was a pompous jerk. At one point, in three consecutive pages, he actually puts down Return of the Jedi, Dressed to Kill and the Warriors. In one fell swoop! What person with a soul actually puts down movies like the Goonies and Willow? Safe to say if you grew up in the 80's like I did, there is probably a movie he mentions in this book that he hates that you love. And for the record Owen, I can't stand Kramer vs Kramer and Sid & Nancy. (But I do really enjoy Manhunter and Blue Velvet for what's it worth). Okay I feel better.
But something happened as the book went on. Sure, I was not agreeing with many of his viewing choices (Chuck & Buck, really?), but I was finding something unexpected. A soul. A person that I could really resonate with not because of his reviews by and large but because of the way he says exactly what he wants. Often in my writing style, I don't pull any punches. Well, the same thing can be said for Owen Gleiberman.
Owen writes in a way to be admired. Sure, he's a bit pompous and off putting but there is some real heart to this book and thankfully it is not all about the movies. There is some depth on his father, his kids, and his wife. But one negative is that most of that information is near the back of the book which judging by some of the comments here I doubt many of the readers got to. Those chapters takes the critic and really humanize him.
I actually think that if Owen were to sit down across from me I would immensely enjoy his company. Sure we would disagree, but it would be a wonderful disagreement as they say. This book is going to piss off people who are passionate about the movies but much like the center of a Charms Blow Pop (Cherry of course), it's crazy satisfying. Owen seems to be in a good place and is now working at Variety (as of May 2019) where he is the chief film critic.
So I give this book a great recommendation as long as you are willing to proceed throughout the entire book. I was fully ready to award this two stars and spend a couple of pages complaining about his film choices. But it's a clever, well written book about a film critic who has rarely compromised and that should be deeply respected. I often wish I could be a paid movie, game or book critic but I'll settle in this case reading about the lives of a really good movie one. Enjoy.
November 14, 2017
Great critic, right about EW, didn’t need so much autobio details
OG is a great movie critic. Do I always agree with his reviews? No. Do I like that I don’t agree with every single review by critics? Yes. The criticism, whether you concur or don’t, at least provides food for thought. In this book, I just didn’t take well to the autobiographical parts, but that’s ok. As an EW subscriber since the magazine was first published, I’ve always felt that the editors, esp as time passed, didn’t give enough space to reviewers. At this point, EW is like a fan-zine, reaching out to the lowest common denominator. Each issue looks like a comic book. It’s reading IQ is tantamount to Highlights magazine. If staying marketable means turning your magazine into a fawning picture book, is it really worth it? The editors brag every week (er, bi-weekly) about how great that week (er, two weeks’) issue is fantastic. How they can do it with a straight face is beyond me. EW is now dumber and more afraid of criticism of all forms of media than People! There was a time EW was more probing, more intellectual. Now it’s just 5 sentence stories. Even cover stories are picture-filled pablum. Owen is right. The magazine turned to garbage, and it’s probably for the best the OG moved on. There are still those of us who love reading film and media criticism, told in depth, not just 2 paragraph garbage heaps. Owen, they dropped you, but be happy you’re no longer associated with them and their corporate drivel and ass kissing. Your writing is too good to be tied to today’s equivalent of a corporate ass-kissing pamphlet.
OG is a great movie critic. Do I always agree with his reviews? No. Do I like that I don’t agree with every single review by critics? Yes. The criticism, whether you concur or don’t, at least provides food for thought. In this book, I just didn’t take well to the autobiographical parts, but that’s ok. As an EW subscriber since the magazine was first published, I’ve always felt that the editors, esp as time passed, didn’t give enough space to reviewers. At this point, EW is like a fan-zine, reaching out to the lowest common denominator. Each issue looks like a comic book. It’s reading IQ is tantamount to Highlights magazine. If staying marketable means turning your magazine into a fawning picture book, is it really worth it? The editors brag every week (er, bi-weekly) about how great that week (er, two weeks’) issue is fantastic. How they can do it with a straight face is beyond me. EW is now dumber and more afraid of criticism of all forms of media than People! There was a time EW was more probing, more intellectual. Now it’s just 5 sentence stories. Even cover stories are picture-filled pablum. Owen is right. The magazine turned to garbage, and it’s probably for the best the OG moved on. There are still those of us who love reading film and media criticism, told in depth, not just 2 paragraph garbage heaps. Owen, they dropped you, but be happy you’re no longer associated with them and their corporate drivel and ass kissing. Your writing is too good to be tied to today’s equivalent of a corporate ass-kissing pamphlet.
February 24, 2024
Recommended.
This is not a book about movies. It is certainly not a collection of movie reviews. It is an autobiography, and a forensic dissection of what it means (at least to Gleiberman) to be a critic, specifically of movies, and a journalist. He uses some of his reviews, and sometimes those of others, to make his points and to fill out and date various aspects and explanations of his development.
At first, I thought it very self-indulgent (which it is), but then it became honestly and nakedly self-indulgent, so it was easier to swallow. Then it became interesting. And like other reviewers/critics I've read, the writing is scintillating, and verbose, and intelligent, but also arrogant, and maybe a little pompous.
I'm glad I read it. I wish I had his vocabulary, and his talent, and his intelligence, and his expressiveness. His last two chapters kick ass, focusing on what has become of the movie critic in the culture of movie making, and more to the point, publishing and periodicals, today. I agree with most of what he writes, but not all of it. I can think of a few places off the top of my head that allow for honest criticism of the medium, that are not beholden to marketing. Perhaps it is just sour grapes on his part, reflecting how he was let go at Entertainment Weekly.
It was published in 2016. I would like to know his thoughts on the succeeding years to the present regarding what the film industry has produced and how the print industry, and especially the job of critics, has dealt with the product.
This is not a book about movies. It is certainly not a collection of movie reviews. It is an autobiography, and a forensic dissection of what it means (at least to Gleiberman) to be a critic, specifically of movies, and a journalist. He uses some of his reviews, and sometimes those of others, to make his points and to fill out and date various aspects and explanations of his development.
At first, I thought it very self-indulgent (which it is), but then it became honestly and nakedly self-indulgent, so it was easier to swallow. Then it became interesting. And like other reviewers/critics I've read, the writing is scintillating, and verbose, and intelligent, but also arrogant, and maybe a little pompous.
I'm glad I read it. I wish I had his vocabulary, and his talent, and his intelligence, and his expressiveness. His last two chapters kick ass, focusing on what has become of the movie critic in the culture of movie making, and more to the point, publishing and periodicals, today. I agree with most of what he writes, but not all of it. I can think of a few places off the top of my head that allow for honest criticism of the medium, that are not beholden to marketing. Perhaps it is just sour grapes on his part, reflecting how he was let go at Entertainment Weekly.
It was published in 2016. I would like to know his thoughts on the succeeding years to the present regarding what the film industry has produced and how the print industry, and especially the job of critics, has dealt with the product.
April 15, 2020
For a book I picked up randomly from a free library- I did enjoy bits of this book more than I expected. It was slim pickings from the choices I had and was desperate to have something to read- but interesting enough to finish it. I enjoyed Owen’s candid honesty about his life and the not so glamorous or proud moments of his life as a film critic. It took me awhile to read because I was picking up my phone and googling references he made throughout- and sometimes it was so heavily referencing things- I got to a point where I was feeling like it was an assignment and wasn’t enjoying it anymore. I kept reading though because I was curious to read his thoughts on movies I knew would show up in the late 90’s and new millennium. As a person who isn’t a movie fanatic per say- I still found some parts of this book enjoyable though. Though I wouldn’t necessarily give it a rave review, I came out of it with a list of movies I’d now like to watch and an appreciation for what film critics do and offer to society.
December 27, 2017
I never expected a book about movie criticism to suck me in so much! Must be all the film reviews I read. I'm such a film geek, that many a person has suggested I get into film criticism, but judging by the contents of this book, maybe I'll stick to comedy writing instead. The film critic, Gleiberman writes all about his life as it relates to movies, which is to say, his whole life it seemed to me.
I wanted to read about other film critics' lives, and how movies and fame has rubbed off on them. Makes me want to research film criticism in general (when did it really start?). Honestly though, I wish all entertainment-esque writing was this good, and seeing how he used to write for Entertainment weekly, maybe some of it is this good. Maybe Gleiberman is ushering in a new wave of film criticism. I want to get in on it if he is!
I wanted to read about other film critics' lives, and how movies and fame has rubbed off on them. Makes me want to research film criticism in general (when did it really start?). Honestly though, I wish all entertainment-esque writing was this good, and seeing how he used to write for Entertainment weekly, maybe some of it is this good. Maybe Gleiberman is ushering in a new wave of film criticism. I want to get in on it if he is!
December 4, 2018
Admittedly I find most autobiographies tedious. I tend to skip the first 50-75 pages, which usually hold in them all the reflections on childhood and loves lost type of stuff I can barely stand going over with my own life let alone someone else’s (my favorite auto-bio, anarchist Emma Goldman’s, mercifully begins with her life as an anarchist already rolling at age 17). And though I revere (as much as one can) the film critic (something I tried my hand at, being a cinephile myself, and hope to maybe return to someday), Gleiberman is a) not one I’m too familiar with, b) find, from this book, to not be all that great, and c) didn’t capture me with his insight, his gossip, or his openness and honesty (though I appreciated the style). I flipped around, got bored in different sections, and gave up. Good review? It’s about as good as the book.
June 16, 2021
When I bought this book a couple years ago I didn't know who Owen Gleiberman was, nor did I when I started reading it, but as a self-addmitted cinema addict I was curious to read a biography of a career film critic.
Gleiberman's writing flows throughout the pages, as expected from a professional writer, and when he writes about films, especially the ones he loves, it's great getting some superb analysis (even if I don't always agree with the opinion itself) and in 300 pages Owen demonstrates exactly how he carried his career for so long. There's a frankness and an honesty in the pages of Movie Freak that makes reading it an interesting experience. While I don't think many people not into films or film criticism would be able to power-through this book, and I can't blame them, if you love film Gleiberman manages to articulate a lot of great things about the love of film.
Gleiberman's writing flows throughout the pages, as expected from a professional writer, and when he writes about films, especially the ones he loves, it's great getting some superb analysis (even if I don't always agree with the opinion itself) and in 300 pages Owen demonstrates exactly how he carried his career for so long. There's a frankness and an honesty in the pages of Movie Freak that makes reading it an interesting experience. While I don't think many people not into films or film criticism would be able to power-through this book, and I can't blame them, if you love film Gleiberman manages to articulate a lot of great things about the love of film.
June 3, 2020
4.25. Is it rude to call a book about the life of film critic surprisingly enjoyable? I (and Owen) would have to say so, but that was what I thought before going into it. Obviously it's well-written, in the best type of way to be well-written, which is to present a quality of writing that seems subconscious more than intentional, as if Gleiberman just knows writing and criticism so well that he couldn't write poorly if he tried. I loved the swirling of film analysis and self-analysis, as I am a sucker for both. His evaluations of movie trends, cultural shifts, and where these stem from, were also strikingly astute and exciting. Overall it was an enthralling portrait of a specific life I will be happy to recommend.
February 19, 2019
⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2: Gleiberman, chief film critic for Variety, wrote for Entertainment Weekly for twenty-five years. I’d enjoyed his contrarian reviews and looked forward to reading about his history with film. Initially, I was worried though: Gleiberman spends much time talking about his life and, more annoyingly, his dating life. Thankfully, the film reflections increase in frequency, and Gleiberman offers fascinating insights about the impact of television and social media on film criticism, as well as the very nature and importance of criticism and film. I also have a better understanding about how EW lost its way— I cancelled my subscription long ago.
April 30, 2021
Even though Owen (we're on a first-name basis now that I've read his autobiography) mostly likes the kind of movies I despise, I loved this book! It is truthful, sleazy, humorous, interesting, inspiring and even romantic. SO well-written, revealing and personal, it opens a window into the life of a movie critic (no, "movie freak" is the correct term), and takes us to film festivals, the offices of Entertainment Weekly, the pages of The Boston Phoenix and now the internet. To quote The New Yorker: "The book is exuberant and candid, a celebration of appetite, an essential, turned-on guide to American pop culture in the last forty years." Kudos, Owen!
June 18, 2021
Not sure I'd like this guy in person but I definitely enjoyed Movie Freak for its insider view of the business and politics of film criticism, including a tetchy relationship with the renowned Pauline Kael (yes, I'm a fan) and other critics. The fact that Nashville one of his favorite films of all time endeared him to me because it's also one of my favorites. Some readers might find his machismo obnoxious, but it's substantially tempered by self-awareness that makes it more confessional than boastful.
February 10, 2024
Gleiberman was the long time film critic for Entertainment Weekly magazine, I wasn’t overly familiar with his work but I needed something to read on the trip home and wasn’t gonna pass this up for just $12, plus he gives a glowing summation of Blue Velvet meaning he is clearly a man of good taste!
The most fun parts are his sideway glances at fellow critics with a significant portion of the book dedicated to the influence and eventual acquaintance with Pauline Kael, and various run-ins, competitive jibes and broad swipes at the likes of Roger Ebert and Peter Travers.
The most fun parts are his sideway glances at fellow critics with a significant portion of the book dedicated to the influence and eventual acquaintance with Pauline Kael, and various run-ins, competitive jibes and broad swipes at the likes of Roger Ebert and Peter Travers.
February 8, 2018
This the first time I've read a biography of someone I'd never heard of before reading. I think it was the title and the friend recommendation that convinced me to start the book. I think there are similar parallels between the author's life and mine as I read his earliest movie experiences. Though our career paths were wildly diverging, I enjoyed Gleiberman's life story without having to know where it would end.
December 26, 2022
I'm only half way through, but I absolutely love it. Gleiberman's raw confessionals around his private life have taught me so much about my own life, addictions, and habits. As a film buff and aspiring reviewer of films, this book is totally engrossing with its blend of personal life and its front row seat during one of the greatest eras of movie creation. I don't get through many books but I cannot put this one down. Essential reading.
July 19, 2024
I always liked Gleiberman when I read him in Entertainment Weekly for many years, and now I like him even more for his brutal honesty about himself--warts and all, as they say. His takes on film and filmmakers are insightful and make up a large part of the book, but the gradual realization over the course of his lifetime of who he is (and why he is who he is) makes this more than just a critic's reminiscences. It's the universal story of someone slowly coming to grips with themselves.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews