It is currently Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:03 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3595 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 140, 141, 142, 143, 144  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
TMDaines wrote:

It's easy to point and laugh, but would we do any better talking about a medium that we've spent next to no time with? I imagine I'd be equally crap about computer games or modern dance.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:35 pm
Blu-Ray.com managed to find the one person who liked The Book of Henry to review its Blu-Ray release.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
And yet, reading it, it's sometimes hard to know if it's supposed to be a serious review written straight faced when you can find things like this :
Quote:
Eleven-year-old Henry is sharp as a tack, smarter than not only anyone else in school but more capable than most any adult. He takes care of the family finances and has gamed the stock market and made his family very rich. But his mother Susan refuses to live in luxury. She refuses to give up to her run-down car and waitresses for next to nothing compared to what Henry has made for her, even if her time could be better spent taking care of Henry and her other son, Henry's younger brother, Peter.

If you weren't sure this seems like a pretty dumb movie, here you are.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Martin Liebman on Stranger Things is hilariously bad

Quote:
Stranger Things is an amazing show in a Twin Peaks meets something like The Thing and The Evil Dead (both of which have posters featured prominently in the show) meets Super 8 meets Insidious with a decidedly Spielberg flair and flavor. ... It's also overflowing with twists and turns, new ideas, fantastic narrative execution, an engaging and unique character roster, exceptional acting, a frightening central plot, and endless mystery.

Quote:
A great score, exceptionally conceived characters, wonderful acting, plenty of intrigue, lighting-quick pacing, balanced scares, infectious humor...the show has it all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 1:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am
"In conclusion, this has been my book report on Stranger Things."

(If I turn my head to the side and squint hard enough, I can almost - ALMOST - convince myself that Liebman's poor writing is an attempt at critiquing the empty nostalgia I gather the show fuels itself on. Alternatively, Liebman needs to be sent to re-learn structure, Clockwork Orange-style.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:37 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
The Blu-ray.com reviewer of Portrait of Jennie doesn't understand the climactic sound mix, something discussed thoroughly in the commentary he alleges to have listened to in grading the extras...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:56 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Brian Orndorf is the guy who writes [horrendous] theatrical movie reviews for them and that is far from the only thing he doesn't understand


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 4:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am
From Amazon, on Gus Van Sant's Elephant. The last line in particular is great.

Quote:
Not sure why this movie won the Palme d'Or at Cannes...although it is the French who gave the award, so that explains alot.

Anyway, what you have here is 80 of the most boring, pointless minutes you will spend in your life. You will wish you could have these minutes back, but alas, will eject this DVD from your player and just stare at it mournfully.

As another reviewer stated, this film is a series of shots showing kids walking school hallways, walking to school, driving to school, talking about nothing in particular, almost like an unedited version of The Real World. It is supposed to depict the events leading up to a Columbine-style shooting, but it is so monotonous watching and listening to these moronic kids, I was rooting for the killers to waste even more of them by the time the carnage begins. I was disappointed the annoying blond haired kid escaped the killers' wraith (Oops! Spoiler!).

Gus Van Sant, who is hit or miss (remember his appaling remake of "Psycho?), is in an apparently existential mood with this film, but it is so artsy and self-indulgent, it is not entertaining nor thought provoking, but instead soporific.

Finally, can someone please explain the title of the movie to me? Is it a metaphor for "the elephant in the room" that no one wants to address, or is it the fat kid who gets whacked?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm
I don't trawl the Amazon wingnut reviews like I used to, but this one is pretty interesting.
The trailer for the disaster epic 2012 urged viewers to "find out the truth" by putting "2012" into a search engine, and the marketing also included
Wikipedia wrote:
a viral marketing website operated by the Institute for Human Continuity, where filmgoers could register for a lottery number to be part of a small population which would be rescued from the global destruction. David Morrison of NASA, who received over 1,000 inquiries from people who thought the website was genuine, condemned it. "I've even had cases of teenagers writing to me saying they are contemplating suicide because they don't want to see the world end", Morrison said. "I think when you lie on the internet and scare children to make a buck, that is ethically wrong."

To "children" should probably be added gullible or paranoia-prone adults, but who knows whether the marketing had any influence on the mind of the Amazon "reviewer" who gave the film 1 star because "That's all Obama's fault" (review title), because immediately upon becoming president he somehow failed to have NASA instantly colonize space and get humanity off the planet before the 2012 apocalypse wiped us out.
Quote:
President Obama must see this movie "2012" and this film would teach him a lesson for our critical human survival that make the space colonization so vital.

Famous deaf Russian Konstantin Tsiolkovsky - the grandfather of modern astronautics and the Russian Jules Verne quoted that "Earth is the cradle of mankind, but one cannot live in the cradle forever." Therefore, we cannot live forever on the only human life-support planet Earth. The NASA space program is truly essential for the survival of American civilization and the world humanity. We must continue to go beyond our fragile life-support planet Earth to explore in outer space in order to preserve our species of homo-sapiens by spreading out and creating human colonies in the vast universe in order to save our humanity from its extinction. We must speedily up to build a whole fleet of starships to evacuate the people and animals from dying Earth, and leave the planet Earth quickly before the planet Earth will rupture and obliterate our human civilization in 2012.

US government, especially today's President Obama, has a lack of vision in setting priorities for the human space exploration and colonization since early 1970s. We are to be permanently stuck on Earth in secluded. Our species of homo-sapiens will be at stake for our planetary survival in the critical crisis.

Why does Obama want us to wait two or three decades to send humans to the planet Mars, and other planets and satellites that support life? Then it will be too little and too late for America to send humans on planetary exploration and colonization. Our species of homo-sapiens cannot survive beyond the apocalypse year of 2012. Thanks to socialist-minded President Obama for delaying NASA manned space program for a few decades and leave us to die wretchedly on doomsday Earth on 2012.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:02 am
This was an Amazon reviewer for Ode to Billy Joe:

Quote:
ODE TO BILLY JOE is another movie I watched and wanted to add it to my collection { and now I did loved this movie }


That's the entirety of the review. So. There.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 5:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
This isn't really a review, as such, but there are several incredible analyses in Scott Mendelson's latest article for Forbes entitled 'Justice League': One Huge Upside To Its Box Office Failure.

First of all, I have been following the box office for Justice League religiously, impressed that it's such a bomb, and hoping it will lead to severe changes at WB/DC. It's worth noting that Mendelson has repeatedly published articles in the past days that say Justice League is "about to cross" some milestone box office number well before it actually has--he published an article claiming it "near[ed] $500 million" one day ago, while that number is still about $20 million off by today--but this latest article had some really dumb observations, and some irritating vocabulary, like:

Using "white dudes" twice in one paragraph.

Quote:
[U]nless the unthinkable occurs...2017 is going to be a year where all three of the top-grossing domestic box office champions are distinctly female-led fantasy tentpole offerings. So, yeah, that’s awesome.


Bit of a cunty tone there from a "white dude".

Wrongly attributing the success of certain films to the diversity of minor or major characters like this:

Quote:
Obvious examples, Thor: Ragnarok was an event film for folks who yearned to see actresses who looked like Tessa Thompson play the heroic sidekick. And Black Panther is going to be a monster next year precisely because of how unique it is even in 2018.


Nobody went to see Thor: Ragnarok because of Tessa Thompson. People went to see it for the tone, and for Thor and the Hulk together. Also, maybe it's just me, but I don't feel a lot of hype for the decidedly-average looking Black Panther, so I highly doubt it will be a "monster" anymore than Doctor Strange was a "monster".

Quote:
So yes, Star Wars: The Last Jedi is more of an event than it otherwise would be because its heroes look like Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Oscar Isaac.


While I think people do appreciate Rey and Daisy Ridley, as well as the other diverse actors in The Last Jedi, I again highly doubt the film will destroy the box office because of the new characters, as Rogue One went some way to proving by taking in almost $1 billion less than The Force Awakens. It should be fairly obvious that the major reason, and for many, the only reason to see The Last Jedi, is to see what happens to Princess Leia and especially, Luke Skywalker. That's why, on all the promotional materials, Mark Hamill's face is much bigger than everyone else's. While I'm sure it will technically be a female-led film (because the production won't have the balls to make a blockbuster movie from the point of a 66-year-old Luke Skywalker), I'm not sure Ridley will make any more of an impression here than she did in the last film, and The Last Jedi is clearly more of an ensemble film than Beauty and the Beast or Wonder Woman is, anyway.

And I love how he feels like it's a victory for him that movies are now more diverse:

Quote:
This is the year that Wonder Woman was bigger than Batman, Belle was bigger than King Kong and Rey will still probably be the queen of the mountain. That’s a small victory. But in this grim time, I’ll take what I can get.


No, Wonder Woman was bigger than Justice League, which is not a Batman movie unless it is also a Wonder Woman movie. As for Belle being bigger than King Kong, that hardly proves anything, since Kong is a monkey, not a man, and Kong: Skull Island had a major character that was a strong female, which Mendelson is conveniently dismissing. And again, he repeats his nonsense idea that people are going to The Last Jedi because of Daisy Ridley, which they aren't, at least not by many more than those who came out for Felicity Jones in Rogue One.

You can tell that this is an article where he must have finished it and then smiled with the kind of satisfaction you get for doing a good deed, like helping a disabled person open a door.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:01 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:59 am
The blurb for Nazarin on letterboxd is to die for:
Quote:
A MOTION PICTURE FOR EVER…

Nazarín is the priest who leaves his order and decides to go on a pilgrimage. As he goes along subsisting on alms, he shelters a prostitute wanted by the police for murder. He is released from suspicion and she eventually catches up with him when she escapes imprisonment. Another woman joins the duo and soon the ex-priest is learning more about the human heart and suffering than when he wore robes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:22 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
McCrutchy wrote:
This isn't really a review, as such, but there are several incredible analyses in Scott Mendelson's latest article for Forbes entitled 'Justice League': One Huge Upside To Its Box Office Failure.


This looks as misguided as many of his recent BO predictions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
tenia wrote:
McCrutchy wrote:
This isn't really a review, as such, but there are several incredible analyses in Scott Mendelson's latest article for Forbes entitled 'Justice League': One Huge Upside To Its Box Office Failure.


This looks as misguided as many of his recent BO predictions.


The film is still only at $485 million worldwide today, two days after Mendelson said it was "near[ing] $500 million". I know it will more than likely get there, but Mendelson is the only one focusing on these larger, not-yet-real total box office numbers, while everybody else is rightly focused on actual totals, and what a bomb the film actually is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:45 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta
I guess I haven't paid attention to box office numbers since, oh, ever, but is $174 million domestic / $485 million worldwide what passes for a bomb these days? WTF?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana
Oedipax wrote:
I guess I haven't paid attention to box office numbers since, oh, ever, but is $174 million domestic / $485 million worldwide what passes for a bomb these days? WTF?

It needed, at least to my knowledge at least $750 million or so to make a profit. The film cost $300 million to make. And just for laughs it apparently cost millions simply to remove Cavill's mustache.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA
Exactly. The film is a failure, for sure, but given the intellectual property involved, and how long WB decided to stable that property before finally releasing it, the returns are really more in realm of "box office bomb" territory. In a post-Marvel universe, people forget that Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman were known to the masses for decades, so after the multibillion dollar Dark Knight Trilogy, and seeing what Marvel and Disney could do with The Avengers, the plan must have been for Justice League to rival Titanic and Avatar, until, of course, Man of Steel, and then the double-down with Batman v Superman happened.

WB basically took one of the few "certain" $1 billion plus box office properties and turned it into a project that may not make a profit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta
Insane. As someone indifferent at best to the endless churn of comic book tentpoles, it's nice to hear about one that loses money (even if it's largely because WB/DC are spectacularly bad at this).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:39 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Quote:
This is my first time watching this shows and I love it. It's for the whole family to watch. And I love that is Creasy Clean on language and visual, there is nothing inappropriate that you have to worry, your young kids will see, here, or learn. On the contrary I think they will be surprise, with disbelieve that there was such a time as this where kids respected their parents and the elderly. Thank you Jesus that we can still find some goodness in this world and that is not all lost for everyone. Thank you for bringing this clean shows back in our homes. I for one love to watch them with my 7-Year old daughter and enjoy every minute of it and enjoy teaching her about the true meaning of love and respect for the human life.

I mean, I respect Bobbie Jo's consistently on-point hair flip, even after swimming naked in the water tower, but I'm not sure how one gets anything else life affirming out of Petticoat Junction


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:22 am
I'm assuming that every episode ends with that parent turning to child and saying , "And that was back when liberals couldn't kill babies."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:49 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Transylvania
I can’t stop laughing at “Creasy Clean.” I want to be generous and assume that English is not this person’s first language, but what fondness could someone born outside the US possibly have for Petticoat Junction?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:10 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Intrigued by why the Blu-Ray.com thumbnail description for Husbands and Wives called it "ugly," I clicked and wished I didn't:
Quote:
Finally, we end with the most controversial release of the week: Twilight Time's Husbands and Wives disc. Even back in 1992, it was hard to process what filmmaker Woody Allen was doing here. The film premiered during the thick of Allen's public relationship with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn - not to mention Allen's contentious separation from Farrow - yet it seemed to lean into this whole ugly situation. In telling the story of two married couples (Allen and Farrow; Sydney Pollack and Judy Davis) that split apart, Allen gives his character a twenty-one-year-old paramour (Juliette Lewis) who motivates him towards divorce in much the same way Allen did when he met Previn. Often times, we find ourselves commenting on how Allen's art seems to resemble his life; Manhattan had his on-screen proxy romancing a seventeen-year-old (Mariel Hemingway) in a manner not dissimilar from his own relationship with then-seventeen-year-old Stacey Nelkin (Allen also fell in love with Hemingway during shooting because of course he did), but Husbands and Wives doesn't even need its mockumentary frame to fell like an honest-to-God documentary. This is one of Allen's most hostile, despairing movies, with Carlo De Palma's vérité camera darting about to catch every bitter insult exchanged between the four protagonists, and while I applaud the psychological depths it plumbs (Pollack and Davis are especially wrenching), I enjoy almost nothing about the experience. And in light of further sexual misconduct allegations levied against Allen, Husbands and Wives scans as all the more unendurable. Increasingly, I find it hard to separate the art from the artist, particularly in cases like this, where the artist is almost daring you to read them as one and the same.

What editor let a writer publish this in a general releases roundup??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:21 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: Los Angeles
domino harvey wrote:
Intrigued by why the Blu-Ray.com thumbnail description for Husbands and Wives called it "ugly," I clicked and wished I didn't

My thoughts exactly! I did exactly the same thing shortly before seeing your post and had the same regret!

The only reason I’m glad I saw the roundup was that it reminded me I should pick this release up, since I assume it’s not on Arrow’s slate (?) and it’s one of Allen’s best films, IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
domino harvey wrote:
What editor let a writer publish this in a general releases roundup??

The same that let Svet writing his far-right anti-Europe non-sense in his BD reviews, I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:14 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
StevenJ0001 wrote:
The only reason I’m glad I saw the roundup was that it reminded me I should pick this release up, since I assume it’s not on Arrow’s slate (?) and it’s one of Allen’s best films, IMO.


Arrow certainly won’t be picking it up, as it’s Sony. Powerhouse has made enquiries, but they’ve proved fruitless so far.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3595 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 140, 141, 142, 143, 144  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection