'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[furbicide]

Screen Rant again – I’m seriously starting to wonder if people are submitting these articles as a joke (and/or whether I should send them one of these and see if they publish it):

https://screenrant.com/things-about-its ... ed-poorly/

7 Things About It’s A Wonderful Life That Have Aged Poorly

George Is Kind Of Mean

Another example is when he refuses to give Mary her clothes back. Sure this could be seen as harmless flirting, but Mary was left hiding in a bush without clothes while George just laughed it all away. At the end of the day George is a very kind and selfless man down on his luck, but those around him didn't deserve the way he treated them.

Mr. Potter Isn't Evil

Mr. Potter is certainly an unlikable, despicable man. The movie portrays him as a heartless, cold man. While this may be the case, he may not be inherently evil. Mr. Potter cares only for himself and his money, but at the end of the day, he is helping the town regardless of his ulterior motives. Bedford Falls may not want his help, but the fact is he is helping.

Of course, calling the cops on George just to get him out of the picture is an awful thing to do, but he did technically break the law. Mr. Potter is a bad man, and seeing him lose his grip on George was the happy kind of trope fans love to see, but in the end, he was just a businessman, nothing more.

George Is The Sole Breadwinner

Just because something is normal in the '40s, doesn't make it right now. George Bailey and his family were never extremely financially well-off, and yet George was the only one with a steady income. Mary did nothing to help support the family, she just stayed home and cooked, cleaned, and raised the kids.

[soundchaser]

The publish-or-perish model has its effects on fluff journalism, too. If they didn't pump one of these lists out every minute, the website would vanish in a puff of smoke. It's only natural that some contrarian high-school level takes would find their way in. (Particularly with the trend of everyone having a clickbait "movie theory.")

[Never Cursed]

Plus, these articles are mostly written by college or grad school students (or people just out of these programs) looking for media jobs relating to film (being paid peanuts if they're at all paid), so the incentives for these writers are completely different from a normal publication model. It's behind a paywall now, but Nick Pinkerton did a good article about this as it related to Film Comment.

[therewillbeblus]

I laughed harder at that last "Mary did nothing to support the family" point than I have in a long time (and I'm including my lunch hour when I laughed on and off for thirty straight minutes during the first episode of MacGruber)

[Mr Sausage]

Mr. Potter is a bad man, and seeing him lose his grip on George was the happy kind of trope fans love to see, but in the end, he was just a businessman, nothing more.

Sure, Mr. Potter isn't evil. He's just banal. And I can't think of any famous instance of those two things occurring together, so, check and mate, screenrant.

Bedford Falls may not want his help, but the fact is he is helping.

Hey, colonialist logic!

[domino harvey]

Plus, these articles are mostly written by college or grad school students (or people just out of these programs) looking for media jobs relating to film (being paid peanuts if they're at all paid), so the incentives for these writers are completely different from a normal publication model. It's behind a paywall now, but Nick Pinkerton did a good article about this as it related to Film Comment.

Yes, this is the reason the internet has gotten more and more unreadable in the last five to ten years. There are a lot of people out there undercutting experienced writers who keep getting work because they literally charge next to nothing for an article, and the websites don’t care how bad their hot takes are at the costs they ask (if, as Never Cursed points out, they even ask for money at all)

[Never Cursed]

Well that's certainly true, but I wouldn't put the onus on the writers so much as the desperate drive for ad dollars that compels the owners of these sites to push out as many articles as possible

[domino harvey]

Sure, that’s the market, but I suspect all these writers know monetarily they’re getting a bad deal. I do think the reason many of these writers are settling for actual crumbs is either A) They want resume/CV material, and/or B) They have a deep ideological stake in whatever they’re writing and find it a duty to share

[jazzo]

Though he was mostly handcuffed to a review ( https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Pian ... 90/#Review ) of the technical specs of Criterion's new edition of THE PIANO, the good Doctor S still managed this little gem in the overall score section:

"I find the visual appearance and some of the ambience of The Piano a lot more attractive than its story, which is probably the main reason why I don't have a very good relationship with it. To be entirely honest, it is just one of those acclaimed films that I find awfully difficult to revisit."

But I heard from someone who knew someone who overheard Jane Campion tell Svet that it wasn't him, it was her.

[knives]

I’m not sure what’s ridiculous about the quoted portion.

[jazzo]

Okay, okay. I really just wanted to make a joke.

[Cinephile1]

Sporadic gems from some random Letterboxd genius:

“Makes dumb people think they are smart, by inventing fake interpretations to this empty blah blah of images.” — On «Зе́ркало» (Андре́й Тарко́вский, 1974), to whch he gave 1½ stars;
“(I)t lacks crispiness, consistency and even decent acting [...] [A]ny movie that dedicates a scene talking about elitism vs. the crowds, is for me an automatic strike (and loss of half a star)[.]” — On «Un cœur en hiver» (Claude Sautet, 1992), to whch he gave 3 stars;
“Had it been done now, it would have been seen as a 3rd rate b-movie. The Pathos, the consistent close ups of someone who in all honestly seems like the village idiot throughout the movie doesn’t justify it’s [sic!] canonical place in film history.” — On »Jeanne d’Arcs lidelse og død« (Carl-Theodor Dreyer, 1928), to whch he gave 2 stars;
“(I)t lacks suspense, and that’s a big no no.” — On «Roma città aperta» (Roberto Rossellini, 1945), to whch he gave 3½ stars;
“Story, characters, etc. — 1/10 [...] [W]ritten terribly [...] I guess that’s okay for an art display, but [sic!] not for a movie [...] (B)ad [...] [R]idiculous[.]” — On »Die bitteren Tränen der Petra von Kant« (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1972), to whch he gave 1½ stars;
“I couldn’t help but imagine that if you added a pair of boobs to many scenes in this movie, you would have gotten a prequel to the “Police Academy” series.” — On «La Règle du jeu» (Jean Renoir, 1939), to whch he gave 2½ stars;
“I don’t know. Maybe “Seinfeld” ruined every absurd theater movie ever for me. Despite the very Wess Andersony composition, this is a pretty terrible movie.” — On «PlayTime» (Jacques Tati, 1967), to whch he gave 1½ stars;
“(D)on’t really compensate for their [sic!] being no tension or really “bad” people. I mean, I don’t even know why the French even wanted to escape what seems like the grown up version of summer camp.” — On «La Grande Illusion» (Jean Renoir, 1937), to whch he gave 3½ stars;
“It’s not that I didn’t get it, I honestly don’t think there was much to get. Classic snob movie.” — On «طعم گيلاس...» (عباس کیارستمی، ۱۳۷۶), to whch he gave 2½ stars;
“As it’s the ultimate movie for fiddling with your phone during it, it should have come out at [sic!] 2020.” — On «Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles» (Chantal Anne Akerman, 1975), to whch he gave 2 stars;
“Done so much better, so many times[.]” — On »Jungfrukällan« (Ingmar Bergman, 1960), to whch he gave 2 stars;
“It’s really hard for me, when I watch what is perceived to be an “art” movie, and all I can think about is whether “American Pie” did it better or not[.] Also, that death scene (won’t go into detailed spoilers) is ridiculous.” — On »Ostře sledované vlaky« (Jiří Menzel, 1966), to whch he gave 2½ stars;
“(T)here’s no virtuosity in this surprisingly scrappy movie – you can actually see how the screenwriters struggled to create coherency in the plot, from the Gomer Pyle beginning and [sic!] to it’s [sic!] sad conclusion.” — On 『霸王別姬』 (陈凯歌, 1993), to whch he gave 3½ stars;
“More than half the captions simply say: DRAMATIC MUSIC CONTINUES[.] Pretentious crap[.]” — On »A torinói ló« (Hranitzky Ágnes/Tarr Béla, 2011), to whch he gave 1½ stars;
“I am pretty sure the actors had to daily practice their saddest face, at least a month before shooting.” — On “Secrets and Lies” (Mike Leigh, 1996), to whch he gave 2½ stars;
“[R]eally predictable[.]” — On «Τοπίο στην ομίχλη» (Θεόδωρος Αγγελόπουλος, 1988), to whch he gave 2½ stars;
“It took me decades, but [sic!] I finally found a movie that’s both as bad and as despicable as Salo [sic!].” — On 『六月の蛇』 (塚本 晋也, 2002), to whch he gave ½-a-star;
“Too matter of factly for too emotional a story[.]” — On “She Said” (Maria Schrader, 2022), to whch he gave 3½ stars;
“(T)he story really makes no sense at all.” — On »Der amerikanische Freund« (Wim Wenders, 1977), to whch he gave 4 stars;
“I don’t believe the duality of this love story[.]” — On »Angst essen Seele auf« (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1973), to whch he gave 4 stars.

This person also gave «Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma» (Pier Paolo Pasolini, 1975) and «Au hasard Balthazar» (Robert Bresson, 1966) ½-a-star, »Persona« (Ingmar Bergman, 1966) and ג׳ו + בל״ (רוני קידר, 2011) ״ 1½ stars, »Höstsonaten« (Ingmar Bergman, 1978), «La montaña sagrada» (Alejandro Jodorowsky, 1973), and «Mouchette» (Robert Bresson, 1967) 2 stars, »Tulitikkutehtaan tyttö» (Aki Kaurismäki, 1990) 2½ stars, and «La Belle Noiseuse» (Jacques Rivette, 1991) 1-star!

[domino harvey]

Donnie Darko is in their top four, that tells me everything I need to know

[Cinephile1]

Donnie Darko is in their top four, that tells me everything I need to know

Glad that I am not the only one to see that pattern! Dudebro seems to think that he is so smart because he is semi-competent at moneymaking and has collected some sports- and gadgets/gaming-related trivia, you know the type.

[dekadetia]

Same reviewer on Tati's Playtime:

"I don't know. Maybe Seinfeld ruined every absurd theater movie ever for me. Despite the Wess Andersony composition, this is a pretty terrible movie."

[senseabove]

I know it's not Anderson's fault, but my antipathy for him grows just a little bit every time I see an I-Am-Very-Smart liken any use of overt composition and color to him.

[Cinephile1]

Same reviewer on Tati's Playtime:

"I don't know. Maybe Seinfeld ruined every absurd theater movie ever for me. Despite the Wess Andersony composition, this is a pretty terrible movie."

I know it's not Anderson's fault, but my antipathy for him grows just a little bit every time I see an I-Am-Very-Smart liken any use of overt composition and color to him.

Plenty more ignorant statements by him in the same vein therein. The general Leitmotiv seems to be that he and a great many others like him judge art films for essentially not being Hollywood movies.

[furbicide]

Here's a new challenge: try to find the most "IMDb" or "Letterboxd" review for a film.

No, I didn't like flick at all. Producer steadily avoid reality of men's life. In reality men don't kill females because they love them as they happy not to jerk off all the time--this point completely missing. Yes, main chick looks pretty good though we see nothing but producer's sex knowledge is about zero.

Haha ahaha. I liked the scene where she was by the ocean.

SpoilerShow

Reviews for Marco Ferreri's La carne

[MV88]

Plenty more ignorant statements by him in the same vein therein. The general Leitmotiv seems to be that he and a great many others like him judge art films for essentially not being Hollywood movies.

That’s definitely a very real problem. My friend’s husband fits that description and will always (or at least would always…I haven’t talked to him in quite a while) circle back around to his go-to criticisms of, “It’s fine if you liked it, but you can’t tell me it’s as well done on a professional level as (insert Hollywood movie he’s using as a superficial comparison).” Or he’ll even criticize art films for not being as accessible as Hollywood movies and frame it in such a way as to suggest he’s simply being “objective.” The whole mentality that a movie’s quality is dependent upon its accessibility and level of production value (read: budget) is startlingly common these days. Of course, they’ll never directly state that’s what they’re doing, but it’s pretty clear they have little to no interest in discussing films as art and only want to give off the impression that they have an informed opinion about movies.

[Never Cursed]

No-prisoners-taken review of The 355 from Letterboxd:

Spoiled for lengthShow

[knives]

I’d like to live in a world where the directors of Josie and the Pussycats were getting any work.

[colinr0380]

The only thing missing from that review is that two of the cast members would have contractually appeared on stage at that year's MTV awards as nominees for "Best Kiss of the Year" scene in order to re-enact it live... and then fail to win the award.

[domino harvey]

Because of the very deep pockets of Netflix, “The Power of the Dog” was thrust upon us relentlessly–even the very formidable number who have properly dismissed it as a turgid bore.

We can still hope that master director Spielberg triumphs, accepting what was hands down in his “re-envisioned” “West Side Story,” the best picture of the year, and which–unlike any other far lesser work of cinema released this past year–is already destined for future “One Hundred Greatest Motion Pictures” lists, like so many other Spielberg classics already in the firmament of celluloid masterpieces.

After awards season has passed and the art house darlings lapse into the black hole of the forgotten (as have indeed most AMPAS “Best Picture” winners in this twenty-first century), and our greatest director (his competition this year is particularly anemic, and even if the “fix” is in, all others look like wannabe film students in the presence of impeccable Spielberg), let us hope that this most sublime of filmmakers deliver us from the future trite of pushed-upon tedium.

The Steven Spielberg Motion Picture Academy cannot come fast enough. Thence, no more celluloid detritus–film is alive again, no longer drawn into the vortex of ersatz (“The Power of the Dog” was not even filmed in Montana) rancher skies or listlessly dull arid “Dune”s, or any Indie fluff–and the American Film Institute has a choice crop to choose among, as it did in a more magical former era.

[soundchaser]

Wait until this guy hears about Monument Valley.

[MichaelB]

I feel slightly guilty about posting this here, as he was clearly thrown right in the deep end when it comes to Miklós Jancsó (Agnus Dei would probably be the last of Jancsó's Hungarian films from 1966-74 that I'd recommend for beginners), but it's quite an interesting insight into how someone who's clearly never encountered anything like it before decides that the best way to approach it is to shut down all critical faculties and simply dismiss it as "a dud":

'Agnus Dei' (1971)(*) simply is a dud, far removed from the excellence of the other two films. Set in 1920 in a rural landscape groups of people vie for the upper hand in the local community: 'red' army soldiers, representatives of the church, 'white' army soldiers and finally some devil-like figure. The action is meant to be highly symbolic but it all seems rather random: people circle on horses, people get killed in an off-hand way, the priest (the most clear-cut of characters) falls down corpse-like regularly and then gets up again. And to what does this all lead? No idea. Well, the violin playing devil leads some naked people down a pit at the end. Tony Rayns who wrote the essay notes: 'But the seemingly random flow of incidents, confusing as they often are, is not the main point of the film: Agnus Dei is, like Salo an analysis of the workings of fascism'. So even the scholar gets confused - where does that leave us? Not sporting any great cinematography and marred by rather faceless characters thrown around like pawns and gratuitous nudity (the film opens, pointlessly, with a naked woman leading a horse out of a lake) I found this film nearly unwatchable.

Incidentally, I don't think that the naked woman at the start is the least bit gratuitous, but it needs context: I think this is the first naked woman in a Jancsó film (at least since My Way Home, before his mature style was developed) who's decided to remove all her clothes entirely voluntarily - in earlier films like The Round-Up, The Red and the White and Silence and Cry, it's very much a coercive process. And the other reason for her being naked at the start is that Jancsó can spring a surprise on us when she then dons a military uniform - although, again, familiarity with his other work is probably needed for full appreciation of how unusual this is. And I suspect his definition of "great cinematography" is purely pictorial, because János Kende's camerawork is properly virtuosic - but by this stage in his career Jancsó prized extreme mobility and ultra-long takes over surface beauty.