'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Message

#626 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:17 pm

domino harvey wrote:"DADAistic" is exactly why this thread must never die

Though perhaps I can top that with the ever-reliable Alex Jackson's take on Tokyo Story
On a fundamental level, I think the adoration it has received in some quarters is tantamount to a hate of the cinema.

And that's maybe the fourth-worst part of the full "review"

Good lord, I couldn't even make it half way through. It's too depressing for even a snicker.

SoyCuba · #627 Post by **SoyCuba** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:55 am

Reading reviews for the Funny Games remake is really interesting, since the whole point of the movie is trying to get audience to react to what they are seeing. Here's one review from IMDb in which the person didn't get the movie:

Now, part of my feelings for this film could just be for the girl who I took to it, but I've been thinking about both (the movie and the girl) all night and I think the movie was great too.

First of all, for anyone who's wondering, there is no gore on camera- which was great, and made this an amazing date movie. Every guy knows, a scary movie is best because there's always the chance that your girl will get scared and need you to comfort her; but you don't want to end up in the bathroom washing her puke off. There are so many parts in this film that make you cringe just because you know what happened and what's coming; but there is hardly even any blood.

Next, the acting is really superb- Tim Roth and Naomi Watts have the crying and screaming part down. The only problem I have with the film, in fact, comes not from the actors at all, but instead the director. To save our lives (get it, a film about murder and torture? saving our lives... nevermind), my girl and I could not come up with a solid reason for or point that the director was trying to make with this film. I don't mean we didn't like it, we both thoroughly enjoyed it, we just couldn't make up our minds about what the film's maker was trying to say.

Like I said, part of what made this film so great comes from who I saw it with, so make sure you go with a loved one or a close friend- it really wouldn't be the same seeing it alone. The whole audience seemed to love it from what I heard of the spurts of laughter (which is something I really didn't expect) and I couldn't tell of one person I saw leaving and shaking their head. Everyone just sat and talked for a minute after the credits began.

In summary: Go see it, and take a date.

And here's another one in which the person (at least almost) understood the movie, but it clearly didn't have the effect that Haneke wanted:

I don't really know what to say. I heard that this movie was supposed to be about middle class America's blood lust, but I feel like that message was lost in translation. In fact, I wouldn't have gathered that if I hadn't heard Naomi Watts talking about it on Jay Leno. Without that information, this film is an incoherent, painfully dry, underdeveloped "indie" film. The characters seem to have little or no motivation. The motivation for the kids who are doing the killing is never explained, the parents seem suspiciously undisturbed when their son gets killed, and a number of pivotal explanations are missing (such as where the boys came from, why they did what they did, etc.) Also, there is that weird scene with the remote where Paul rewinds time. He rewinds time! Umm...what? Suddenly the films "Ransom" and "Click" collide in a painfully inexplicable turn of events. Also, Paul periodically speaks to the camera for no apparent reason.

I say "no apparent reason" because there is a reason, it just isn't made apparent. The reason is to remind the audience that they are participating in the gore by merely viewing it. But that is never made clear, and it comes of as just seeming weird and out of place.

Is this movie disturbing? Yep. Will it cause you to feel uncomfortable and squirm in your seat? Yeah, probably. But it's not good. In fact, it's so not good that I am currently at home watching "The Rock" with Nicholas Cage in an effort to forget what I just saw. Let me restate that: I am watching "The Rock"! When you have to watch a film like "The Rock" in order to purify yourself from what you've just seen, well...it probably wasn't very good.

starmanof51 · #628 Post by **starmanof51** » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:27 pm

domino harvey wrote:Though perhaps I can top that with the ever-reliable Alex Jackson's take on Tokyo Story

What an unpleasant person. The conclusions he's come to are disturbing enough, but even more so the apparently significant effort he took to form them. As my 5 year old would say, he is not invited to my birthday party.

Jean-Luc Garbo · #629 Post by **Jean-Luc Garbo** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:38 pm

Just the fact that he faults Ozu in comparison to a Sofia Coppola film is revolting enough.

tavernier · #630 Post by **tavernier** » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:27 pm

Jean-Luc Garbo wrote:Just the fact that he faults Ozu in comparison to a Sofia Coppola film is revolting enough.

That's where I stopped skimming.

life_boy · #631 Post by **life_boy** » Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:35 pm

"tudormon" reviews Stroszek on IMDb message boards in a thread entitled, "Wow, this was... nothing.":

And please don't give me the "message" thing... I did not perceive this as having negative comments about the American society (then again who knows, I'm European and maybe the Americans would see it differently). The "message" was as pretty straightforward, and let me put it in the simplest of ways: no pain, no gain. In other words, once an idiot, always an idiot. Even since the beginning, when this guy is told to stop drinking and he is making cretin jokes, you simply feel that this will go nowhere.

Let's not get complicated, let's not talk about deep stuff, the intricacies of life, etc. because this movie has nothing to do with them. That is, unless you really need to see those things - but then, you would see them anywhere. However, that would make one fall into the mistake of "when you have a hammer, all things look like nails". In this case I could point you such things in a porno flick.

On the bright side, the movie is somewhat realistic - I know a person similar to the main character - which saves it and qualifies it for a 2/10.

By the way, I don't think the chicken is dancing per se, I think it's an editing gimmick (i.e. the right music put on those moves).

I hope you enjoyed it... if you haven't enjoyed it yet, well, DON'T!! If you really want to look smart watching an European film, try some other.

There was nothing cut out. He started the thread/review with "And."

ianungstad · #632 Post by **ianungstad** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:17 am

I don't know if posting the "reviews" would be appropriate for this thread since it's a touchy issue for some...but looking through Amazon at the various sets of Attenborugh documentaries, there are a number of 1 star reviews from various creationists/right wing weirdos who rank Attenborough's work poorly because of Attenborough's views on evolution and wildlife conservation/global warming.

Somehow I think they kind of missed the point of the "Life" series.

I don't know why it is....but I can handle dumb reviews no problem. It's trashing Planet Earth/Life of Mammals etc. simply because it references evolution that really gets to me. I'm reminded of that company in Utah that edits Hollywood films to make them jesus approved.

Bleh. I've seen many films with religious content that I quite enjoy even though I may not agree with scripture, is that mutual respect so difficult? Is tolerance really that hard for some people? Sad.

nyasa · #633 Post by **nyasa** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:33 am

ianungstad wrote:I don't know if posting the "reviews" would be appropriate for this thread since it's a touchy issue for some...but looking through Amazon at the various sets of Attenborugh documentaries, there are a number of 1 star reviews from various creationists/right wing weirdos who rank Attenborough's work poorly because of Attenborough's views on evolution and wildlife conservation/global warming.

I took a look, and found a 1-star review for Planet Earth that really is 'rediculous'

[ British Version not American, June 6, 2007
By Nicholas A. Desiato - See all my reviews

This is the British Version. I can't find the American version, which is narated by Sigourney Weaver, not some British guy, on Amazon. Otherwise I think the content is the same, but Sigourney is better. The American version is available on the discovery channel website.

Kinsayder · #634 Post by **Kinsayder** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:45 am

Actually, she does quite a good job with the voiceover. But what do they do during Attenborough's walk-and-talks? Replace him with a CGI Sigourney?

Morbii · #635 Post by **Morbii** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:58 am

I have to respectfully disagree, Kinsayder. Without actually hearing it, I would have assumed that she would do a pretty good job myself. However, based on this small clip vs. the HD-DVD I have, I don't think Weaver even has the remotest chance against Attenborough.

Maybe it's just that the English accent sounds more official or something (or maybe I just saw that one first).

Gregory · #636 Post by **Gregory** » Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:57 pm

From the DVD Talk review of Twentynine Palms

As the end credits rolled, I jotted down in my notes, "Feels more like an experiment than a fully realized film." Then, as I watched the DVD interview with Dumont, one of the first things he says is that he thought of the film as an experimental horror movie. Guess I deserve a little pat on the back. (pat-pat-pat)

Somehow I doubt that Dumont meant he failed to make a fully realized film.

Cold Bishop · #637 Post by **Cold Bishop** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:48 am

Netflix review:

three stars wrote:I am a huge fan of The 400 Blows. It is my favorite foreign film of all time. And I'm a huge fan of The Criterion Collection. But compared to Fox Lorber( the original distributor of The 400 Blows DVD) Criterion's presentation leaves little to be desired. The special features are good and the print is the same as Fox Lorber. But the subtitles for the Criterion DVD are stiff. They do not capture the humor of the film the way Lorber did. Normally I would give this film five stars. But because of the poor subtitles I'm giving it three. I hope that Criterion reads this review and makes the necessary changes. View this film on Fox Lorber. The Criterion Blows.

#638 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:48 am

Cold Bishop wrote:Netflix review:
three stars wrote:I am a huge fan of The 400 Blows. It is my favorite foreign film of all time. And I'm a huge fan of The Criterion Collection. But compared to Fox Lorber( the original distributor of The 400 Blows DVD) Criterion's presentation leaves little to be desired. The special features are good and the print is the same as Fox Lorber. But the subtitles for the Criterion DVD are stiff. They do not capture the humor of the film the way Lorber did. Normally I would give this film five stars. But because of the poor subtitles I'm giving it three. I hope that Criterion reads this review and makes the necessary changes. View this film on Fox Lorber. The Criterion Blows.

He probably means the old criterion DVD rather than the reissue. Hardly matters, since this sounds more a case of him falling in love with, and then practically memorizing, a particular presentation of the film, from which any deviation is an irritant, regardless of the quality. I doubt he actually loves Fox Lorber the company as much as it seems.

#639 Post by **domino harvey** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:35 pm

I can't vouch for the Fox Lorber of 400 Blows, but I did have to suffer through excerpts from the Lorber Jules et Jim about a day after I'd just seen the Criterion and the difference between the subs was obscene.

Reuters, showing that they are capable of being just as ignorant as laymen on the internet, weigh in on the latest flick starring my avatar with this head-slapping treasure:

When the best thing about a movie is its cinematography and art direction, you know you're in trouble.

See,

Svevan · #640 Post by **Svevan** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:20 am

dx23 · #641 Post by **dx23** » Thu May 22, 2008 2:17 pm

Peter Howell of the Toronto Star on his expectation at the box office of El Che:

"it will do nada at the box office and end up as el stiffo grande."

miless · #642 Post by **miless** » Thu May 22, 2008 2:19 pm

it will make nothing and then become a giant erect penis?

#643 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu May 22, 2008 2:21 pm

dx23 wrote:Peter Howell of the Toronto Star on his expectation at the box office of El Che:

"it will do nada at the box office and end up as el stiffo grande."

Tell me a newspaper didn't actually publish that. How embarrassing.

Cronenfly · #644 Post by **Cronenfly** » Thu May 22, 2008 4:21 pm

domino harvey wrote:
dx23 wrote:Peter Howell of the Toronto Star on his expectation at the box office of El Che:

"it will do nada at the box office and end up as el stiffo grande."
Tell me a newspaper didn't actually publish that. How embarrassing.

Howell also recently published an interview with the Don Valley Parkway (said to be one of the major "characters" in Egoyan's Adoration) which was equally inane. As was mentioned here before, he also, in his review of the Kubrick SE boxset, bemoaned (seriously) the lack of Kubrick commentaries despite Kubrick's, you know, being dead.

ianungstad · #645 Post by **ianungstad** » Sat May 24, 2008 11:48 pm

This is a review of the novel "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck that I found on Amazon. She gave it one star.

Horrible!

By Sarah Carnes

I bought this book while continuing my search for the perfect grape recipe book. So I open it expecting delicious recipes for grape parfait, grape salsa, grape-glazed chicken, etc. and I'm dismayed to find out that it's about a farm and the depression. Horrible. I don't even know why the word "Grapes" is on the title. This is the most misleading book I've ever had the misfortune of browsing for about twenty seconds.

#646 Post by **domino harvey** » Sat May 24, 2008 11:57 pm

It's a "joke," click her other reviews. They're not so much funny as they are not funny at all whatsoever.

miless · #647 Post by **miless** » Sun May 25, 2008 1:30 am

her review of the Bible is amazing:

This book was boring; it needs werewolves and lesbians or something.

not to be outdone by this:

The Diary of Anne Frank is a riveting erotic masterpiece about a young Jewish girl exploring her budding sexuality in a cramped basement with her family nearby. You'll be on the edge of your seat as the voluptuous, dark-haired Anne ripens into a succulent peach, ready for the picking. You'll never be able to put this read down until you've finished!

#648 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Sun May 25, 2008 12:29 pm

As long as we're including reviews of literature, The Wasteland is to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock as Family Guy season 4 is to Family Guy season 3:

review wrote:The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is T.S. Eliot at his best. [...]

T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland is like the fourth season of Family Guy. It's more of the same from a source that has produced quality work in the past, but falls short this time. Family Guy and T.S. Eliot are each known for their strange connections; T.S. Eliot once compared a skyline to a patient etherized on a table, and Family Guy once compared Ronald Reagan to a toaster. However, in both the newest season of Family Guy and The Wasteland, the randomness gets confusing and just not worth it. Here is how to write a poem like The Wasteland. Copy and paste an introduction and a conclusion from an alternative religion book, come up with some outside the box metaphors, and fill the rest in with pirated foreign literature.

Whole thing here, although the above is most of it.

Cde. · #649 Post by **Cde.** » Mon May 26, 2008 5:20 am

amazon reviewer wrote:T.S. Eliot once compared a skyline to a patient etherized on a table, and Family Guy once compared Ronald Reagan to a toaster.

This is brilliant.

Either it's a joke, or The Wasteland and T.S. Eliot are some of the only high culture this person is familiar with.

Kinsayder · #650 Post by **Kinsayder** » Mon May 26, 2008 6:46 am

The consequence of a progressive teacher trying to force "difficult" poetry down a 14-year-old's throat. The kid will probably never read anything by Eliot again, just as generations of schoolchildren have grown up with an abiding hatred of Shakespeare after having it imposed on them in class.

'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

In Other Words, Once an Idiot, Always an Idiot