'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism both old and new, as well as memorializing public figures we've lost.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3876 Post by Brian C » Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:26 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:22 am
Martin Liebman's Green Book review is something else. indulge me in a lengthy quote:
Green Book star Viggo Mortensen ran afoul of controversy when the actor used the "N" word during a Q&A session following a screening. The word was certainly not spoken in a hateful or derogatory manner but rather within the film's narrative and historical contexts during a discussion of how racism has evolved in today's society. Nevertheless, its utterance sparked outrage. Co-Star Mahershala Ali was understandably offended, but Mortensen was quick to apologize and Ali was quick to accept the apology. Hopefully, there's no long-term tainting of Mortensen's character or damage to the film's legacy, a film of purpose, profoundness, and, yes, quality entertainment value at the same time. It's a terrific film from every angle. It does not shy away from the harsh realities of the racial strife in its time while painting a picture of bonding between two very disparate individuals who both change for the better on their journey not just through the heart of the American South but through their own own hearts and souls.
I mean, it sounds like he basically just summed up the general sentiment of the film’s admirers.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3877 Post by tenia » Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:28 pm

I have to say, with all I'm reading about it, I'm getting more and more eager of wasting in a silly way 2hrs just to see how much of a socio-political trainwreck Green Book can be. I wonder how it fares against Black Panther, which was already quite something.
And hell, I've already watched Bohemian Rhapsody, Venom and The Predator while my Bergman set is left untouched, so I have this going at least, I guess.
(my GF being away for work and us seeing each other only a few days per month explaining why I'm quicker currently at watching brainless garbage rather than anything more demanding, but hey, still makes for unwilling comedies !)

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3878 Post by domino harvey » Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:55 pm

What’s so outrageous about anything quoted in the Blu-ray.com review?

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3879 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:12 pm

It's just bad writing... "a film of purpose, profoundness, and, yes, quality entertainment value at the same time," lord

User avatar
DarkImbecile
LightGenius
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3880 Post by DarkImbecile » Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:14 pm

Also, those last two quoted sentences can be scientifically proven to be wildly inaccurate.

User avatar
Cremildo
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:19 pm
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3881 Post by Cremildo » Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:24 pm

Quality of the writing aside, I agree with everything he wrote.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3882 Post by knives » Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:03 pm

I think what we are trying to say is stick to your strengths and post in the covers thread.

User avatar
Never Cursed
Such is life on board the Redoutable
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3883 Post by Never Cursed » Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:40 pm

I've seen loads of hot takes on the internet unfairly slagging off The House That Jack Built, but

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3884 Post by domino harvey » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:45 pm


DAMIEN CHAZELLE GIVES US NOTHING.

What a disgrace. To claim you grew up loving cinema is a lie to us all. What do you say with your most famous picture? That art requires sacrifice?

But what do you tell us about yourself - YOU'VE NO HUMILITY.
You don't understand why cinema exists.
You don't show us even a single frame telling us WHY art matters.
You detract from the medium in every sense of the word.

Damien Chazelle deserves no review. You are just a banker masquerading as an artist - and cinephiles eat it up.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
LightGenius
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3885 Post by DarkImbecile » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:49 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:45 pm
You detract from the medium in every sense of the word.
Every sense? Even as it relates to the size of clothing or a person who can communicate with the dead?

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3886 Post by domino harvey » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:55 pm

This guy unfortunately only has a few Letterboxd reviews, but enough to verify that he's the most exhausting human being alive

Godard on BREATHLESS
It was more Alice in Wonderland than a Mark Dixon detective story - I was anguished - I was completely out of control. I didn't understand it
Why is it, Godard, like all geniuses, that your most famous picture is your most misunderstood, and least important. Godard said in 1980 that 'Every Man for Himself' was his second first movie - and for good reason. As the original film lover, Godard referenced all films into BREATHLESS - yet the pleasure Godard had once received from american genre cinema had been tainted, thanks to wrongful praise. He shows this by talking to us directly in his following films - whether it be from his dialogue (autobiographical) or his disinterest in his previous films. Breathless was itself a mistake. Godard, ahead of his time had managed to destroy conventional cinema - yet everyone still can't wrap their head around him as if BREATHLESS would give them the answer.

The so called 'professionals' that praise this level of Godard only expose their own weaknesses and indifference to film.

User avatar
Fiery Angel
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3887 Post by Fiery Angel » Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:56 pm

Armond?

MongooseCmr
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3888 Post by MongooseCmr » Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:17 pm

This guy is either the same person or a specific copycat of the Griffith obsessive a few pages back. They even follow one another.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3889 Post by domino harvey » Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:41 pm

I forgot about that reviewer, but they didn’t forget about us. They may have forgotten during writing what movie they are allegedly reviewing here, though
You know how 4chan's /v/ says Western female game characters are always so ugly?

I say that the girls in Overwatch couldn't be that sexy if the game wasn't so GAY!

Lara Croft is another example, defs gay in Tomb Raider 2013 where she looking for her female "friend", and in the second one, that scene with lady in grey coat. Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite is defs gay, Disney eyes. Cortana from Halo is DEFS GAY, ESPECIALLY IN 4. She has no sexual drive for man, she's just an AI, notice in Halo on females it's just military lady and Cortana. Any strong female is going to be a "gay" female, Wonder Woman is gay too. A different breed of feminism opposed to the kinds that insists on making their women to look "normal". The certain Tumblr shade, it's a movement to mix idealism with regular looking people prepping for ethnic mixing. There's this show on Netflix I saw called Sex Education, and I saw the most normal looking people I've ever seen in a TV show that's not a reality TV show. They're trying to reach balance where shades of normal can be ideal. Sometimes it's egregious, sometimes it works on large front.

But even celebrities over years have seen the downgrade, Emma Stone couldn't exist in 1920s maybe, Emma's much more normal. The 1920s was height of idealism with figures and individuals in movies, Classic Hollywood is caricature sexy, cartoon sexy, impossible sexy to a degree. That's why I think people don't really care about Classic Hollywood stars too much anymore, they turn them off because some people feel threatened by that much sexy. There's a SPECIFIC line that separates modern standards with classic, you see. What's considered "normal sexy" is NOT entirely same as GAY sexy. And even gay sexy has VARIOUS shades that flips around from camp and tight modern from Emma, to DRAG QUEENS. We're not on drag levels of course because we're BI. The mainstream sexy right now favors the Kardashian look I'm really not all for, the kind that gets MAJOR traction on Twatter reposts. WE have different APPEALS from THERE, OUR sexy is the BUBBLE sexy, so Nicki is more our type.

Another thing too to note is for pictures, depending on what you want, the caricature fits more for what you're trying express. So Garbo represents ambiguous Euro vamp and disappointed beleaguered depression faded euro aristocracy, but Selena Gomez represents the increased ethnic diversity of the 2010s. For certain types that don't exude a personality fitting a type or mode requisite for the expression, then they get relegated to minor status, they end up TV and wafer as generic sexy. Same in Classic Hollywood, very hot girls that don't exhibit persona for what required they go to comedy roles. But BECAUSE Hollywood stars are known for their ideal TYPES, they get typeCASTED and cannot be mobile with anything they choose. So Garbo left after the Euro vamp appeal disappeared for good. Garbo even was reported of being in decline in 30s already. It's a BIG mystery for movie buffs but it's plenty apparent when you hear what producers say and what box office say. Her type wasn't a 30s type so it moved around in 30s a lot, 30s wanted vulgar ladies and modern mobile by late 30s.

I really don't like the Mad Queen thing they ended up doing with old Hollywood stars. It's hagsploitation. Very insulting because it makes it seem like they were never noteworthy and their hag roles end up over-shining what they created to begin with. The exploration of "washed-up" actresses has been done before with Blanche Sweet in Showgirl in Hollywood, but not in the decadent decay gothic style like Sunset Boulevard because the time between wasn't that big of gap, early 30s versus 50s. Gloria Swanson is the most fabulous queen of the silents, Joan Crawford was premier flapper. People like Mommie Dearest because it mocked Joan Crawford, but she already did that better herself. So really they don't know or care about Crawford. She's just a skin for generally mocking Classic Hollywood (but they already did that better themselves). Little low budget nothing productions and Oscarbait are considered more noteworthy than the enormity of what Stroheim made, he's more famous as the butler now, glad Griffith never did anything like that, just left and disappeared entirely, doesn't exist essentially. That's why I put Keaton's 30s garbage on a higher pedestal than any of his silents, those should get the attention for what he is, a clown, not an underdog do-gooder. Sloppy slapstick in 30s Keaton tripping on his pants.

50s Hollywood is wholly a weird junction to me, there's lot of conflict essentially because of the natural conflict historically speaking. The age gap becoming a paramount thing. Why teenage films became the big thing, the postwar youth, I told my dad yesterday that the conflict today of internet youth with boomer parents is essentially same conflict as the 50s. Postmodernism versus today that is ghost modernism. What trips me up especially though is why there seems to be such disconnect between the modern eras even though modernity is essentially a single era. It's only been 100 years versus how there isn't a disconnect with pre-modern eras in terms of what people historically gravitate to. Pre-modern history is all included when people are interested in that. there is no stigma of Shakespeare versus the Greeks. But for Modernity, there is a stigma of "I DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT A FUCKING SILENT FILM" versus looking at something from 70s. There just to me always appears to be a MASSSSSIVE stigma against anything involving the transition period of 1890s to 1930s, people prefer WWII or the hippie movement. We know the stigma of the 50s as being pixie land with decadent unruly underbelly. that been ingrained in pop culture. 1910s and 20s were very vague even though we know of it being equally unruly time, but the unruliness then was more OPEN per se. But as long as you can easily gloss everything up with swanky fashion and oldie pop tunes that have a certain stylistic kitsch to them as opposed to the "zippidy-doo-dah" of the 30s, you've got them by the balls.
Thankfully their next two reviews are far more succinct
Griffith was a schizo.
Eisenstein was an autist.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3890 Post by Gregory » Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:23 pm

Godard on BREATHLESS
It was more Alice in Wonderland than a Mark Dixon detective story - I was anguished - I was completely out of control. I didn't understand it
I like how the person trying to set everyone else straight about Godard can't even quote him accurately. The interview he's quoting is from The Dick Cavett Show, and he did not say "I was anguished."
I guess it's a lot easier to illustrate one's point with a quote from the director himself if one either invents a dramatic sentence to add to it or just quotes loosely from memory (I can't fairly assume it was the former).

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3891 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:30 am

If we may be allowed to extend the parameters of this thread to include preposterous PR blurb à la Private Eye's 'Pseud's Corner' I will submit this little gem that had me slavering at the mouth scouring the internet for stockists of the disc-

Allégeance's rustic drumming, talkative, acidulous, colourful and overarticulated, with almost clownish desinences, eventually dies out in this very respite. The iterative and puffy shimmering of Esquive with its dull, thin and precise sounds, shifts and is engulfed into another sonic world — which appears as a gaping and collapsed response to this prime insistency.
This is, indeed, a ‘volatile allegiance’ and ‘avoidance’ from the sonic to the musical elements: the musical phenomenon anticipated and pursued as the non-sound of sound — or, in other words, the void of sound. This seems to be the lesson of the concrete attitude in music. Such is the kind of questioning that stirs the composer.

User avatar
Cremildo
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:19 pm
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3892 Post by Cremildo » Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:20 pm

BITTER MOON is notorious for being one of the worst movies ever made.

It’s reputation and cult enjoyment is similar to THE ROOM.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3893 Post by MichaelB » Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:00 am

Notorious amongst whom? That’s certainly not the impression I’ve ever had.

User avatar
tarpilot
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:48 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3894 Post by tarpilot » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:37 am

I only rate movies that I've seen within a day or two for accuracy purposes. My reviews are mostly just for personal reference (it's amazing how forgettable most films are). After the initial ten minutes, every film I rate starts off with a score of 100. Fuck-up points are then subtracted.

The first ten minutes are the most important part of the film, that's where I judge most critically. If a film doesn't make me want to continue after ten minutes, it goes to 0, and then it has to find it's way back to redemption, point by point, while simultaneously still having points subtracted. So essentially it always comes down to the first ten minutes. A film will not change greatly after the tenth minute. And even if it does, it can go to hell for wasting ten minutes of my life, unless wasting my time was absolutely necessary to make a good point.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3895 Post by domino harvey » Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:45 am

The movie watching equivalent of those diners who lay out a few ones on a restaurant tabletop and take away a bill every time the server does something wrong

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3896 Post by Brian C » Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:04 am

I hope he loses track of his points easily.

“Wait, was I at 81 or 79??? Aw FUCK, now I have to start all over again.”

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3897 Post by swo17 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:11 am

Distraction from the point count is a point reduction, obviously

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3898 Post by tenia » Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:49 am

I actually pretty much does that already, but in a more simpler way : the more the movie bores me, the lesser the grade.

kidc
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:23 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3899 Post by kidc » Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:22 am

What if the film gets better as it goes along, could a film end up with a score of over 100?

Have to admit though, if this person's reviews were minute-by-minute breakdowns of point deductions and additions, I would read them.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3900 Post by Michael Kerpan » Sun Apr 07, 2019 10:20 am

As silly as this sounds all sounds ( due to explicit point counting), it probably is the way I approach films. I approach a new film with a positive attitude, but a really bad start can very much affect my response to the rest of the film (and it does have to, in effect, earn its way back into positive territory).

Post Reply