'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[Kirkinson]

Investigating whether anyone had ever released The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat on DVD, I came across these joke reviews on IMDb:

A Fantastic thrill ride!, 4 October 2000
Author: Johnny Briggs from Enfield, London
This is a fantastic film, and I'm pleased to see that other people here enjoy it too! Admittedly, it is a little far-out for some to understand, but it is very watchable too. Some of the action scenes are brilliant, and I'm surprised such a low budget film could afford to have so many car chases. The bit where "The Man" morphs into his Nemesis is a simple effect well executed. The ending was perhaps too soon in coming, but the bizarre kaleidascope sequence on the outro was mind-bogglingly fab. A film that any hardcore film fan will relish, I take my "hat" off to the crew.

Hooja Mooja!, 17 March 2000
Author: from Cambridge
The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat is a tour de force of cinema, a masterpiece in its own right. The performance by Emile Belcourt is brilliant, and he superbly portrays the emotional struggle of a man who has a hat for a wife. The gratuitous nudity by Lorraine Mills (hussy!) is perhaps a bit O.T.T, but at least the hat was good. If the film had a fault, its that is a little confusing at first, but pay attention and it soon becomes clear (like L.A Confidential). This film was underrated and criminally ignored at the box office. Here's hoping for a re-release!

Confusing, but thought provoking indeed!, 14 March 2000
Author: Barry Bloye from Cambridge
I've watched this film over and over again, and I'm still finding new things that I didn't notice before. I have to admit, the first time I watched this film, I thought it was awful. It appeared to have little plot, bad acting, and only the superb performance of Lorraine Mills convinced me to watch it again. On watching it a second time, the message of the film suddenly hit me, and at that moment made a lot more sense. I noticed subtle hints towards upcoming events comparable to Shakespeare (esp. Macbeth), and twists in the main character's mental well being created an interesting insight in to the things that can cause a woman to go insane. I'd go in to more detail, but I'll spoil the brilliant (if confusing) plot, although the film really has to be seen to be understood. See it, but remember it is VERY hard to understand fist time round.

The man who...., 17 March 2000
Author: Tony Lloyd (oswaldmosley) from Herts
Why is it that everyone is so fascinated with how attractive Lorraine Mills is. Personally I think she's a bit of a trog. This film was crushingly disappointing at the box office, possibly because everyone was too busy administering the production of boxes. (!) The man in the film, mistakes his darling wifey, for a hat. This film is uplifting in a curious sort of way, until the gun-toting, hat-throwing finale, which I thought was a bit far fetched. Even I know there weren't pterydactils in 1940s Chicago.

Presumably the three reviews from March were all written by the same person. The comments by "Barry Bloye" could almost read as legitimate if it wasn't for the inclusion of "Lorraine Mills," which is not the name of an actor who appears in this or any other film.

[Cold Bishop]

Landscapes in the Mist

To understand this movie, you have to understand that it's about trees. Weird trees. But the trees aren't as weird as the movie is. Very weird trees, extremely weird movie. Understanding that it's about trees, everything becomes clear. The adventures happen so slowly to the children, because the children are really trees, and things happen slowly to trees. Most of the actors and actresses spend most of their time standing around not doing much, because that's how trees are. Why does Germany have a border with Greece? That's an easy question. It's because trees don't know geography. Any other questions? Why is the weather usually damp? Because that's how trees like it. Why does their father never visit them? Because he doesn't want to uproot himself just for a visit. Even from the beginning of the movie, you can tell it's about trees. The children try to get on the train day after day, but trees can keep trying for years and never actually get on a train. And why didn't the children know they would need tickets? Since when does a tree need a ticket? If you're sentimental about family reunions, you will love the scene at the end, when the children are finally reunited with their father, the tree. This movie isn't likely to win any prizes. But, if you like movies about weird trees, why would you care about prizes? I gave it two stars instead of one, because it's nowhere near winning any prize for worst movie of all time. It's not going to win any prize at all, period. Unless there's a prize for the most mediocre movie about weird trees.

[colinr0380]

The Dogville review is amazing! Didn't the writer realise that Grace, as a gangster's daughter trying to escape her predestined life with a naive view of the 'kindness' of the ordinary people, is just as much of a flawed character as anyone else in the film? That the ending just sees her veer from one extreme to another rather than really learning anything? Such as if you approach the world looking for outside validation of yourself as an individual or accept certain positions assigned to you by society as the only sign of your overall worth then you in a sense give other people the implicit right to do with you what they will? That only you can create your inner sense of self, and self respect, rather than looking to others to impose it on you?

In a sense the films are putting across very non-conformist ideas because they show in an extreme way the dangers of groupthink, of feeling your actions are somehow made more legitimate because "everyone else does it" (whether that's exploiting Grace's cheap labour, the men of the town taking turns to rape her, or Grace finally taking up her father's role), and even of trying to create your version of an ideal or fair society without considering (or caring) whether anyone else subscribes to your point of view or not.

Great call on all those "Indy" films getting strong reviews. People need to feel smart so they convince themselves that they like boring, pointless art films which we all know pretty much all suck.

On his blog Glenn Kenny linked to this video of soul crushing comments by an Oscar 'reporter'. I'm convinced that the media is trying some neferious collaborative campaign to make Richard Roeper seem appealing and insightful in retrospect.

Okay, all of you aspiring filmmakers who post here, don't forget the formula: Intro. Beginning. Character development. Plot. Plot Twist. Climax. Wrap-up. Ending.. Credits.

So, M. Night Shyamalan writes over at HTF now?

Isn't Shyamalan:

Character Development, Ending, Climax, Beginning, Wrap-up, Plot Twist, Intro, Credits?

That's the way I seem to remember Unbreakable being structured!

(Note that I neglected to use Plot anywhere in that timeline!)

[bamwc2]

A series of poorly chosen clicks led me to this gem at a right wing website called "Big Hollywood":

Here are my five every-which-way-awesome films that get nowhere near the love they deserve. Those who haven’t seen them should. Those who have and didn’t like them were doing something wrong.

1. Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo (1999) - Pure masterpiece. Ask anyone. Okay, ask me. The best comedy of the last ten years. A genius concept, perfectly executed with more quotable dialogue than any film since “Blazing Saddles.” But it’s The Mighty Rob Schneider who carries it off creating both a sympathetic character and major laughs as he reacts to the madness around him. Two other comedic greats in the reaction department, Bob Hope and Jack Benny, would’ve been proud. Don’t miss the sequel, either. Not only is there more Deuce, but Schneider throws in a little pro-America to boot.

2. Saving Silverman (2001) – The scene where Jack Black and Steve Zahn kidnap Amanda Peet is one of the finest set-pieces of comedy ever put on film. The editing, performances, choreography – brilliant. Straight out of the best of Blake Edwards’ “Pink Panther” series. Even if the rest of the film didn’t rawk, and rawk it does, that sequence alone should earn it a forever place in film lore. Plus, there’s R. Lee Ermey and Neil Diamond.

3. Deep Rising (1998) – “Mummy” director Stephen Sommers cut his chops on this ridiculously entertaining monster flick that stands to this day as the best thing he’s done. Treat Williams is a mercenary boat captain who doesn’t ask his customers questions, but should have. Tone has so much to do with the making or breaking a film, and “Deep Rising” perfectly mixes good scares and self-aware humor. A real gem on a late Saturday night.

4. Maximum Risk (1996) - The film that should’ve launched Jean-Claude Van Damme out of B pictures and into a real career. Ringo Lam directs an intelligent, exciting, sexy (thanks to Natasha Henstridge) globe-trotting thriller that’s head and shoulders above any of the dour, epileptic, shaky-cammed “Bourne” flicks. Plus, Van Damme plays twins, and you know what that means: Double the Van Dammage.

5. Death Wish V: The Face of Death (1994) – Charles Bronson kills people.

And, so far as I can tell, this guy is their "serious" movie reviewer.

[domino harvey]

I've unfortunately seen two of those films. All I remember about Saving Silverman is a raccoon attacking Steve Zahn and that Natasha Henstridge had brown hair in Maximum Risk. You can tell what lasting impressions these new classics left.

[anvilscepe]

A movie with a raccoon attacking anyone has to be funny, at least a little bit.

[colinr0380]

3. Deep Rising (1998) – “Mummy” director Stephen Sommers cut his chops on this ridiculously entertaining monster flick that stands to this day as the best thing he’s done.

I do find it hard to disagree on that point!

It's not a bad film, not great either I'll hasten to add, but not as terrible as a Poseidon/Aliens rip-off with bad CG could have been, even if Treat Williams is forced to utter at various points the limp catchphrase, "Now what?!"

EDIT: I should also admit that my interest was held by Famke Janssen as a sexy thief and Una Damon as the beautiful (if doomed) engineer! And Kevin J. O'Connor does an early version of the goofy supporting character he'd later play in the Mummy film.

[domino harvey]

A movie with a raccoon attacking anyone has to be funny, at least a little bit.

Famous last words

[Mr Sausage]

Oddly, all five of those films constantly show up on television at 2:00 in the morning; and even as an inveterate insomniac, I still haven't any of them straight through.

[cdnchris]

I've unfortunately seen two of those films. All I remember about Saving Silverman is a raccoon attacking Steve Zahn and that Natasha Henstridge had brown hair in Maximum Risk. You can tell what lasting impressions these new classics left.

I'm pretty sure I saw Maximum Risk in the theater with a couple of friends but I remember little about it.

Spoiler

I remember his twin getting killed at the beginning and that Henstridge didn't get naked enough.

Come to think of it, I saw a lot of Van Damme's movies in the theater during high school. And the same guy always picked them. Damn, I saw The Quest, Knock Off, Sudden Death, and I think Street Fighter in the theater. I remember nothing about them, except he gets into a fight with a Penguin mascot in one of them.

I also remember him picking some movie with that guy from the Hercules TV show. It was some Conan the Barbarian-like thing or something.

[colinr0380]

That's Sudden Death - it is a woman in the penguin mascot suit that he fights in a kitchen. I think he fries her hand in some boiling fat and then hooks up the suit on a conveyor belt that drags her through a steam washer before she is strangled. Or something like that...

Sudden Death is kind of a guilty pleasure of mine ( ), and Powers Booth makes a great villain, holding an entire hockey stadium to ransom! Let's just say if Criterion had released a two disc special edition of this rather than Armageddon, I wouldn't have complained so much.

There aren't that many films that poke fun in their title at the fact that, oh no!, it all comes down to who scores the first goal in a playoff to decide whether the hero will have enough time to save the day! (The way Booth gives a little "typical!" tut and roll of the eyes when this 'surprise' occurs is fantastic!) I also love the way that the end of the game coincides with a henchman falling from the roof onto a scoreboard which explodes in a shower of sparks, sending the spectators into a blind panic as the hockey players still on the ice look on bemused, maybe wondering if this is part of the victory celebrations!

Wasn't Double Impact the first twin Van Damme film? I don't think there were any expensive 'twinning effects' in that one either, but at the same time there wasn't such a blatant cop out of the promise of showing 'two Van Dammes in action' as there was in Maximum Risk!

I'm a little worried that I remember so much about these films! 8-[

EDIT: Oh! And I also remembered from near the beginning of Sudden Death where Booth's henchman have infiltrated the stadium posing as employees, including the woman in the penguin suit, and there's a brilliant moment where there's one of those generic 'thriller' scenes where Van Damme is suspicious of someone he's not seen before who then turns towards him with a suspicious 'bad guy look' as he walks off. Only of course it is the penguin suit lady looking over the crowd at him while the tense music plays!

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

Just stumbled upon this absolutely amazing review for Pineapple Express. I haven't even seen the damn thing, but no context is necessary to enjoy passages like this:

This film presents a lifestyle so egocentrically destructive that it managed to shift my opinion from a vague pitying of stoners to an openly hostile desire to shout constantly at them until they agree to stop inhaling chemicals which are slowly but surely turning them into the type of idiots who will giggle constantly at inane stoner films such as this.

The last paragraph is the clincher.

[MichaelB]

I'm sure these have been aired in this thread already, but since David Attenborough's Charles Darwin programme is premiering tomorrow (at least in Britain), here are a few one-star Amazon reviews of his previous work:

The HD video quality is top notch.....but its a little on the boring side watching animals do boring animal things. My advice is for you to rent this or just skip it all together because its very boring unless you are really into animals. Personally I would rather watch an action movie in HD than disgusting animals slober all over themselves in 1080p.

We were all very disappointed with these DVDs. They were FULL of evolution. Too bad that the beautiful photography wasn't just shown with descriptions of the the little critters. The evolution was throughout...couldn't just skip a few spots. Just wanted to notify other Creationists.

These programs have absolutely incredible cinematography. Unfortunately, I can scarcely show some of them to my budding 4-year-old naturalist, because every other scene involves mating. Not some tastefully ambiguous relationship, but the most frighteningly explicit stuff you could imagine. We're talking the kama sutra of nature videos, a willful indulgence in the sheer variety and implausibility of mating patterns. This seems to be a characteristic of all the BBC videos I've purchased... whether they be about insects or dinosaurs. Enough already!

I really didn't enjoy this series because I wanted to enjoy watching it with my little one, which I couldn't because I was horrified with all of the death and killing of the prey--especially the babies. I understand that is how nature is, but I also needed to see a happy ending now and then.

I purchased the Living Seas collection which was very nice. so I thought this series would be equally well done. what an unpleasant surprise!!! I am appalled at the blatant evolutionism that is being crammed down your throat during the entire program. I don't share the evolution view and don't appreciate Mr Attenborough, or anyone for that matter, trying to indoctrinate my children with this view which is expressed during the entire program (all 4 CD's) I expected a well narrated and documented account of the animal world. Instead I got what seemed like a hastily put together series -which I gues was built upon the success of the previous series- wherein Mr. Attenborough hopps to differrent parts of the world trying to explain how natural evolution really is despite the fact that quite the contrary is true; The big bang theory isn't true, we did not happen by accident, we didn't evolve from monkeys over millions of years, etc. I am sorely dissapointed by the NARRATOR now taking the center of the stage and appearing on screen in the middle of each section, he is no longer the NARRATOR, he is now the "star". Had I wanted that I would have looked for the movie: "David Attenborough, a lesson in indoctrination".
I would NOT recommend this series, If you watch the animal channel you've probably already see all what this series has to offer, except if you're looking for a lesson (read lie) in evolution.

I would've bought it. The comments inside the review are worthtaking. Unfortunately, today's controversy about global warming (if ever exists), made change my mind. I was hoping to have a back-up to show my kids about the wonders of this planet, an overview, without hearing the same pathetic comments about the "endangered species". Dinasours are extinct because of natural selection, so are the actual life beings. Illegal hunting for instance, that is important to mention, a real fact. Global warming isn't been demonstrated.

Oh, and apparently Attenborough regularly gets hate mail...

[Steven H]

Oh, and apparently Attenborough regularly gets hate mail...

Hands down the most depressing post I've read in a while on this forum.

[Mr Sausage]

Oh, and apparently Attenborough regularly gets hate mail...

Hands down the most depressing post I've read in a while on this forum.

Surely you found this comeback as awesome as I did:

Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

[knives]

There is no better, but just because he needs to bring forth such awesomeness is some what pathetic to those giving the hate.

[Gregory]

From the DVD Verdict review of the new Funny Face DVD:

Although I enjoyed watching Funny Face, I am less impressed with its musical aspects. None of the songs really stood out to me as particularly hummable (although the conceit of "S'Marvelous" does tend to stick around). The dancing was also a little excessive to me.

It's too bad some of the Gershwins' better songs couldn't have been included, instead of stuff like "How Long Has This Been Going On," "Clap Yo' Hands," "Bonjour Paris," etc. etc. And if there's anything I hate in Stanley Donen musicals, it's excessive dancing, especially when Fred Astaire is starring!

[FerdinandGriffon]

A review I found on Amazon for Rohmer's Summer:

The for to weeping of the empty fullness, February 1, 2008
By Joseph Michael "Joe" (Paris, France) - See all my reviews
When we see this of such a film in the always never to forgetting styles of the greats Rohmers, we are reminded of all of it. The overarching symbol of the forgetting; the trendentiousness of the cineastic plosiveness. Even Truffaut or Truffles as we used to call him would have thought the very long thinking thoughts, sort of. It was like, "Who am I?"
Wholesome Holistic holiness is a pejorative of the malodorousness of the geenfill hill. And lastly, we leaving you with this very thought, if it is a thought: "Wagner is the Puccini of music."

I'm just astonished at his ability to say so little and yet so much at the same time. The Ubu Roi of Amazon reviews.
I wonder how Gringo Tex would react if I started throwing around "Truffles" on the Last Metro thread.

[skuhn8]

By Joseph Michael "Jabberwocky" (Paris, France)

Truffles it is here on out. And Godard? JeanGod?

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Did Godard and Jodorowsky get together to write that review?

[Dylan]

Wholesome Holistic holiness is a pejorative of the malodorousness of the geenfill hill.

Wow! As if Armond White descended into absurdist poetry. Best line in the entire thread (so far).

[MichaelB]

The gap between the impression he thinks he's creating and the impression he's actually creating makes the Pacific look like a puddle.

It reminds me of part of this splendid rant:

This is an actual e-mail I received:

You astound me, Steve Dutch. The reasons for this are varied, and while I do not plan to explore them in full detail, I shall outline them briefly for the benefit of your utterly massive ego. It started with an accidental visit to your site, this mundane scatter of HTML encased with long, long paragraphs. The opinions stated in an irrefutable manner, the disclaimers proudly displayed in the heading of each page, and that peculiar manner in which you choose to write, a manner which often leaves readers unaware of your true feelings. Yet these reasons are what compelled me to sacrifice an entire evening analyzing every detail of your personal monument (for would merit would my words have if they were based on a single article?). I'm given the distinct impression that you represent a mythical hybrid, some odd amalgamation of Basil Fawlty and Santa Claus. However, these perceived follies present the justification for my presence; to actually discover, on the Internet, logical ideas presented in a manner devoid of superfluous graphics and fanfare is commendable. I sincerely hope your students recognize your seemingly endless source of wisdom, as well as your analytical abilities. Also, after reading your praise for the film "Enemy at the Gates," I'm interested in your opinion concerning "A Bridge Too Far."

A forewarning: disregarding the film, or curtailing its perceived historical inaccuracies will result in a lengthy, Ignatius Reilly-esque tirade in which I prove you wrong. Commending it, though, will justify further praise upon your spacious mind.

Does anybody have a clue what this guy is saying? The words and syntax bear a superficial resemblance to English, but there's no content that I can discern. I gather that he resents some of my pages, but he doesn't say precisely what his problem is, so there's not much to respond to. And no, my name is not a pseudonym and I am a single person, not a committee.

As for not revealing my true feelings, that's deliberate. When I discuss certain topics, I do so as impersonally as possible, precisely because writers like this one want to "know where I'm coming from" so they can know whether or not they can feel free to disregard what I'm saying. When I leave my feelings out of it, they have to deal with the logical and factual content, something that is apparently painful or confusing to a lot of people.

People who write stuff like this tend to live in their own weird worlds, but on the off chance that you do think this is how to write, or know somebody who does, let me assure you it isn't so. Editorial pages are chock-full of stuff like this, where the writers indulge in convoluted wording and oblique allusions. I guess they think it makes them sound erudite or profound. Actually, all it does is make them sound like they can't say what they mean in plain English.

Technical works are full of complex prose because the subject matter is complex and calls for it. Legal prose is complex because it has to define terms as precisely as possible without leaving any possible ambiguity. Shakespeare and the King James Bible have complex prose because that's how people talked 400 years ago, and people of the time considered it perfectly plain English. Stuff like the e-mail above is complex because the writer apparently wants to impress people. If you're an English teacher who has let stuff like this pass, shame on you.

Ditch the pretentious language. People who write like this come across as posers. It's like some CPA who lets his stubble grow for a month so he can ride his moped to the Sturgis bike rally and "blend in."

[zedz]

A review I found on Amazon for Rohmer's Summer:

The for to weeping of the empty fullness, February 1, 2008
By Joseph Michael "Joe" (Paris, France) - See all my reviews
When we see this of such a film in the always never to forgetting styles of the greats Rohmers, we are reminded of all of it. The overarching symbol of the forgetting; the trendentiousness of the cineastic plosiveness. Even Truffaut or Truffles as we used to call him would have thought the very long thinking thoughts, sort of. It was like, "Who am I?"
Wholesome Holistic holiness is a pejorative of the malodorousness of the geenfill hill. And lastly, we leaving you with this very thought, if it is a thought: "Wagner is the Puccini of music."

You are Stanley Unwin and I claim my five pounds!

[Mr Sausage]

Shakespeare and the King James Bible have complex prose because that's how people talked 400 years ago, and people of the time considered it perfectly plain English.

I would like to hold this up as an shining example of simply pulling facts out of one's ass. This is the equivalent of someone 400 years from now reading a Nabokov or an Updike novel and then telling their friends: "everyone used to talk like that back then. It was plain speaking to them because, you know, it was the olden times!" By the way, this would include every illiterate and generally uneducated person in the modern period. Rediculous.

[HerrSchreck]

Shakespeare and the King James Bible have complex prose because that's how people talked 400 years ago, and people of the time considered it perfectly plain English.

I would like to hold this up as an shining example of simply pulling facts out of one's ass. This is the equivalent of someone 400 years from now reading a Nabokov or an Updike novel and then telling their friends: "everyone used to talk like that back then. It was plain speaking to them because, you know, it was the olden times!" By the way, this would include every illiterate and generally uneducated person in the modern period. Rediculous.

What, they didn't convo in iambic pentameter and move throughout their day according to the five point structure? Dang, so much for believing in the good old arty days..

Next you'll want me to believe there was no redtube, either, back then.