'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
Grand Wazoo
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:23 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4101 Post by Grand Wazoo » Thu May 28, 2020 11:43 am

Glenn Kenny on Under the Silver Lake:
When a filmmaker spends whatever amount he spent making a film that protests "I'm not this guy" for two and a half hours, not only is he absolutely that guy, he's probably worse. And the regurgitated Pynchon hash doesn't help.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4102 Post by Never Cursed » Thu May 28, 2020 11:50 am

I don't think that's too far from the sentiment that many here have expressed about the film (though personally I don't agree)

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4103 Post by furbicide » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:49 am

I’m sure a few here will have already had the good fortune of reading this month-old triumph of film criticism:

https://screenrant.com/the-shining-dome ... oorly/amp/
Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 psychological horror film The Shining has not aged well for a contemporary audience. Adapted from Stephen King’s 1977 novel of the same name, the film follows the Torrance family at the haunted Overlook Hotel. Starring Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall, it features an array of problematic and triggering instances of domestic violence and child abuse. While movies have the power to highlight and examine important issues such as these, Kubrick’s film and characters brush them off as unimportant and permissible.
You may be wondering if this is a troll job, and the thought crossed my mind, too – until I reached the final paragraph and realised that the article must have instead been written by some kind of dysfunctional AI:
Ultimately, the misogynistic depiction of Wendy alongside the film’s issues of not addressing the problems of domestic violence and child abuse results in a film that does not age well in the slightest. Furthermore, Stanley Kubrick’s own abusive methods towards Shelley Duvall and egregious misinterpretation of the Wendy Torrance character place an additional layer of problems that the film has.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4104 Post by bottled spider » Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:10 pm

RE: Backdraft
So... this is a serious film that calls fire “the animal”, and that continuously implies that it is a living being, uh?

I studied way too much science at school to eat this shit, I’m sorry.
Another letterboxdeder similarly complained of the unrealism of firefighting professionals speaking of fire as a living thing, instead of what it is, an element.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4105 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:02 am

That is a particularly silly element of the film (especially when you have the foley work trying its best to literalise it with the fire making tiger-like roaring sounds), and I don't think it would be possible to make a film in the style of something as naïve in the name of entertainment as Backdraft now in a post 9/11 world. Though I do like to bracket that explanatory monologue trying to anthropomorphise fire in with the electricity repair man's great paranoid monologue in the underrated 1988 horror about killer electricity, Pulse!

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4106 Post by bottled spider » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:57 pm

I saw this donkeys ago with roommates, and felt abashed at having liked it when they mocked the hell out of the corny dialog afterwards. I must be growing cynical in my old age, because revisiting it last night I laughed out loud at the scene at the beginning of the young boy witnessing his father's death. Still, once I get absorbed in a movie, I have a pretty high tolerance for stuff like "Look at him, that's my brother goddammit!"

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4107 Post by bottled spider » Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:20 pm

OK, one more from Letterboxded, in honor of the upcoming sci-fi list, then I'm done. Re: High Life:
This is the spaceship where they collected all the cum to put in the androids in Alien.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4108 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Mon Jul 06, 2020 4:02 pm

furbicide wrote:
Sat May 09, 2020 9:46 pm
Oh, here’s a good one (courtesy of the Time Out Film Guide!)
Apparently conceived as a socialist response to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Tarkovsky’s film offers only the flabbiest kind of sentimental humanism by way of a riposte to Kubrick. It starts out promising both poetry (of the Dovzhenko Ukrainian school) and dialectics (of the Marxist school?), and proceeds to squander both on kindergarten psychology and inane melodrama. Its hero journeys into space only as a metaphor for a journey inward; after 2 hours, he’s got no further than the lap of his father, which he rejected ten years earlier. Watching Tarkovsky render the sci-fi mechanics of his own movie redundant as he goes along is a genuinely brain-freezing experience.
In case anyone's interested in seeing the author of this review elaborate on these claims, I was digging through UC Berkeley's Cinefiles database and came across a review by Tony Rayns from the June 1973 Monthly Film Bulletin that leaves no room for doubt that he also wrote the Time Out capsule: https://cinefiles.bampfa.berkeley.edu/catalog/678 (The Time Out website used to credit the authors of these reviews by their initials, but for some reason they abandoned that practice sometime within the last few years; in any case the review currently on their site is a much more favorable one.)

Post Reply