'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3151 Post by domino harvey » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:48 pm

Trigger warning: If you or someone you love is a fuckboy, do yourself a favor and steer clear of Run the Jewels 2.
Opening line to the Pitchfork review. Someone got paid to write that. Someone else was paid to read it first and approve it for online posting. Why is music reviewing a dying art again?

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3152 Post by Zot! » Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:44 am

domino harvey wrote:
Trigger warning: If you or someone you love is a fuckboy, do yourself a favor and steer clear of Run the Jewels 2.
Opening line to the Pitchfork review. Someone got paid to write that. Someone else was paid to read it first and approve it for online posting. Why is music reviewing a dying art again?
Can you tell me what any of that means? Run The Jewels sounds like the name of a puzzle game for the Atari Lynx. Love - Dad

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3153 Post by warren oates » Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:50 am

I'm just kind of disappointed that Trigger Warning isn't the band name or album title.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3154 Post by domino harvey » Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:00 pm

Image

Movie-Brat
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:14 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3155 Post by Movie-Brat » Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:39 pm

Oh sure, nobody's ever heard of The Cabinet of Dr. Calagari.

That twit.

Zot!
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3156 Post by Zot! » Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:57 am

Perhaps they meant "horror movies you've probably never heard."

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3157 Post by Gregory » Fri Oct 31, 2014 4:25 pm

The list includes Jarmusch's Only Lovers Left Alive, which made its debut on DVD/Blu two months ago. Way to really dig into the history of horror film there.
Her write-up of Funny Games has an inaccuracy in the single sentence summarizing its plot (a vacationing family tormented by "their psychotic neighbors") and asserts that Haneke's timing elevates the film "beyond mere horror," perhaps showing a fundamental contempt for the genre itself.
I thought it was the film's critique of some of the prevailing features of the horror/thrillers—the vicarious and voyeuristic enjoyment of violence within calculated and safely reassuring constraints—that set Funny Games apart from conventional horror fare, not the "timing" of it.
Maybe this is what happens when someone cranks out something like 17 blog entries in a single week, most of them skimming along the trends of pop culture.

User avatar
DeprongMori
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:59 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3158 Post by DeprongMori » Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:28 pm

They seem to have given the HuffPo article a better title. It's now "11 Art-House Horror Movies To Watch This Halloween Instead Of The Typical Slashers"

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3159 Post by swo17 » Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:36 pm

And Under the Skin was on a "you've probably never heard of these" list too? Isn't it one of the biggest films of the year (or is that just on this forum)? There's also this sister list which rattles through Eyes Without a Face (again), Suspiria (again), Cannibal Holocaust, Audition, and The Haunting before finally confessing with Nosferatu that "Okay, you might have heard of this one."

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3160 Post by Gregory » Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:19 pm

DeprongMori wrote:They seem to have given the HuffPo article a better title. It's now "11 Art-House Horror Movies To Watch This Halloween Instead Of The Typical Slashers"
Typical "clickbait-and-switch": the links often have one title, but when you go to the article there's a different title. The enticement is that there may be great horror films out there that we haven't even heard of. What we get is a list of capsule reviews of "art-house horror movies."

Years ago, I copyedited one of these Halloween-season fluff lists by someone who wasn't much of a film fan but threw something together based on hasty internet research. The author ended up recommending Feuillade's Les Vampires as one of the earliest examples of vampires in cinema, or words to that effect!

User avatar
sir_luke
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:55 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3161 Post by sir_luke » Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:28 pm

Indiewire wrote:From its silent-era underwater French documentaries to campy Andy Warhol horror films to Beastie Boys music videos and art-punk pictures like "Border Radio," the Criterion Collection provides thousands of hours of entertainment and provocation.
Definitely an interesting selection of representative titles...

User avatar
bottled spider
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3162 Post by bottled spider » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:33 pm

Comment regarding the 2014 Godzilla, posted at (where else?) Mubi:
My friend and I had a good laugh after this movie about Godard having made this film as a meta-satirical joke at Hollywood and calling it Godardzilla.
It's a pun, you see. Me and my intellectual chums had many a jolly meta-chortle about that one.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3163 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:41 am

For real what does 'meta-satirical' mean, like a satire about satires?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3164 Post by domino harvey » Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:42 am

He meant "mecha-satirical," the newest kaiju

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3165 Post by domino harvey » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:25 pm

I was lent this by a friend, but couldn't watch more than half an hour or so. It's ridiculous - stupid school-girl antics and lots of French speaking.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3166 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:37 pm

domino harvey wrote:
I was lent this by a friend, but couldn't watch more than half an hour or so. It's ridiculous - stupid school-girl antics and lots of French speaking.
Some slightly more useful observations (from a one-star review of the same film):
Lots of ligering shots of marshland and geography that was definitely not Scotland. I knew that this was a Swiss production shot on the continent, but it actually wouldn't hurt if somehow some stock footage of Scotland could have been used.
;~}

User avatar
sir_luke
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:55 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3167 Post by sir_luke » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:35 am

Variety on Freddy Got Fingered:

"Green's one-of-a-kind vanity project achieves a kind of Buñuelian brilliance when he delivers a baby on screen and then chews through its umbilical cord."

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3168 Post by Gregory » Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:06 pm

That reminds me of part of Ebert's review:
Many years ago, when surrealism was new, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali made "Un Chien Andalou," a film so shocking that Bunuel filled his pockets with stones to throw at the audience if it attacked him. Green, whose film is in the surrealist tradition, may want to consider the same tactic. The day may come when "Freddy Got Fingered" is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3169 Post by MichaelB » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:14 am

I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it, but a review of Michael Winner's Scream for Help quoted the director as saying "It's not your Luis Buñuel, but...", whereupon the reviewer went on to argue that its sheer illogicality meant that from a certain angle it actually had a great deal in common with Buñuel.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3170 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:38 am

sir_luke wrote:Variety on Freddy Got Fingered:

"Green's one-of-a-kind vanity project achieves a kind of Buñuelian brilliance when he delivers a baby on screen and then chews through its umbilical cord."
You know, Freddy Got Fingered is as excrutiating to watch as everyone says, perhaps the bluntest and most misanthrophic 'daddy issues/spoilt son' film there has ever been, but I think it reaches a brief peak of sublime Lynchian insanity in the sequence where we finally get to see Freddy's animated film that he has been working towards (the moment that in a worse film would normally be a lazy justification for the character's previous actions as he turns out to have made a masterpiece) and it involves the character being horrifically torn apart whilst scream-pleading his love for his father over and over and begging not to be hurt!

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3171 Post by domino harvey » Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:35 pm

Top YouTube comment on an All About Eve trailer
no one has to apologize for old movies being boring. Like this is supposed to hold up against pulp fiction, and rushmore, and Bladerunner, and Heat, etc etc etc. Stop apologizing for old films. The 60's had a handful of films that were decent. Try and compare them to Godfather or The Shining. It's night and day. Even Citizen Kane can't compete with 80's-present cinema. Let it go. This movie is boring. 

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3172 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:00 pm

Heat and Blade Runner are so much more boring than All About Eve

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3173 Post by zedz » Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:33 pm

domino harvey wrote:Top YouTube comment on an All About Eve trailer
no one has to apologize for old movies being boring. Like this is supposed to hold up against pulp fiction, and rushmore, and Bladerunner, and Heat, etc etc etc. Stop apologizing for old films. The 60's had a handful of films that were decent. Try and compare them to Godfather or The Shining. It's night and day. Even Citizen Kane can't compete with 80's-present cinema. Let it go. This movie is boring. 
Speaking of boring, why are the favourite films of these guys always exactly the same ones, drawn from a 1998 Empire magazine's 'Way Coolest Films EVER!" puff piece? It can only imagine his culture shock at encountering a film with female protagonists, the poor wee lamb.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3174 Post by domino harvey » Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:44 pm

I was pretty mortified but then I clicked around and found an effusive video by a young boy of probably fifteen who had just seen All About Eve for the first time. He spent seven minutes raving about the film and how amazing it was and it restored my faith in humanity again

(No prizes for guessing what film I'm teaching tomorrow!)

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3175 Post by swo17 » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:57 pm

From a movie review blog primarily dedicated to "guy movies," where most of the reviews appear to have a WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? section:
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? It depends on if they a film buff. Everyone who claims to be a movie lover should see "Battleship Potemkin". It is a true classic. It is not particularly macho and since it is not in smell-o-vision, females should be able to get into the story. Certainly the staircase scene tugs at female emotions as many of the victims are women.

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? It depends on whether they enjoy Westerns. "The Searchers" is well-balanced. The plot includes some female roles and some gentle humor. Two men fight over the same woman. Women love that. The action is not graphic. The themes should be interesting for women.

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? The movie does have a lot of talking and is not graphic in its violence. It is also very educational which might be appealing to some females.

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Although there is not a single female that has a speaking role in it, I would think most women would enjoy it but wonder what all the fuss is about.

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? There are strong female characters, even though they are terrorists. It's an interesting movie for both sexes.

WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? More than a male war movie lover. There are two main female characters and one of them kicks ass. The other manipulates two suitors. Something for every female viewer.

Post Reply