'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[knives]

Nope, just a generic feminist abstract cartoonist. I assumed it was in reference to the score which uses some world music type beats in a small passage.

[Mr Sausage]

I assumed C21 = 21st century and that the review was tongue in cheek.

[TechnicolorAcid]

I thought it was more like the clothing store but that makes sense too.

[domino harvey]

Comment from Blu-ray.com. As ever, guess the movie

Just look up the opening and final scene. Other than that this, like most American westerns, is OK to skip.

SpoilerShow

The Searchers ffs

[Never Cursed]

Guess what film this academic could be talking about as quoted in this excerpt from Wikipedia:

[Mr Sausage]

I didn't even know the movie he's talking about existed.

[Never Cursed]

I also like that apparently the other people in contention for the role (a college student) that went to Zoey Deutch were Bryce Dallas Howard, Jordana Brewster and Mélanie Laurent. Sure!

[domino harvey]

Today I learned I’m younger than Bryce Dallas Howard

[domino harvey]

Obnoxiously glorifies some misogynistic stoner bullies who harass, haze, and hedonistically party their way through high school. These are the kids that make school hell. Anti-intellectual ogres devoid of sympathy or thought beyond their pathetic, budding virility. This isn’t funny. It isn’t charming. In layman’s terms, it’s simply sickening. That Dazed and Confused is beloved doesn’t represent artistic ingenuity, but its unthinking audience of slothful douchebags. Worse, Richard Linklater entertains such degeneracy without a veneer of derogatory insight. Want indirect commentary on suburban social systems? How about how 60s counterculture devolved into apolitical hallucinogens? Out of luck. Those fondling this film, you're the problem. Enjoy your cardboard archetypes and pot, formal defenses be damned.

[Never Cursed]

Letterboxd, Twitter, or Amazon review? Google reverse search doesn't help

[domino harvey]

Letterboxd

[hearthesilence]

Obnoxiously glorifies some misogynistic stoner bullies who harass, haze, and hedonistically party their way through high school. These are the kids that make school hell. Anti-intellectual ogres devoid of sympathy or thought beyond their pathetic, budding virility. This isn’t funny. It isn’t charming. In layman’s terms, it’s simply sickening. That Dazed and Confused is beloved doesn’t represent artistic ingenuity, but its unthinking audience of slothful douchebags. Worse, Richard Linklater entertains such degeneracy without a veneer of derogatory insight. Want indirect commentary on suburban social systems? How about how 60s counterculture devolved into apolitical hallucinogens? Out of luck. Those fondling this film, you're the problem. Enjoy your cardboard archetypes and pot, formal defenses be damned.

I actually know someone who writes obnoxious shit exactly like this, also cherry-picking and warping details to completely misinterpret whatever it is they’re writing about. Wonder if it’s the same person?

[MichaelB]

This is the kind of writing that made my heart sink through the floor in my copy-editing days, because I could always guarantee that (a) they really, really fancied themselves as a Nabokov-rivalling wordsmith, and (b) that they'd shriek blue murder at the merest tweak to a misplaced comma.

Still, we rarely commissioned them a second time.

[PfR73]

Noticed this while pulling some info from Amazon to log my Blu-ray of Albert Brooks' The Muse in my personal database.

SpoilerShow

Gene Wilder does not appear in this film.

[Never Cursed]

A Letterboxd user has solved the problem of the best rating system with his own "objective" scheme (reproduced below with biography):

Spoiled for lengthShow

Engineer by education. In construction and project management by profession. Husband and father. Watching movies is one of a handful of hobbies, alongside reading books, distance running, skiing, and dabbling in writing novels (written one, a second one has been sketched out).

I guess some context and background around my scoring methodology. First, the background: I have been tracking and "scoring" movies I watched for over 10 years now, maintained in an Excel database (that also has some cool graphs, scatterplots, etc.).
Now, some notes/context:
#1 - Scoring conversion to Letterboxd "star" system.
5 stars = 95.0+ overall film score
4.5 stars = 90-95 overall film score
4 stars = 85-90 overall film score
3.5 stars = 80-85 overall film score
3 stars = 75-80 overall film score
2.5 stars = 70-75 overall film score
2 stars = 65-70 overall film score
1.5 stars = 60-65 overall film score
1 star = 55-60 overall film score
0.5 stars = film score below 55

#2 - I don't necessarily believe I'm an "easy grader". The overall average of the 2,000+ films I've seen is an 82.9 (3.5 stars). You would think "shouldn't average be 2.5 stars / 75?" I don't disagree with that. However, I only watch 100-200 films per year, and my queue of films I have on my radar is in the thousands. If I were a professional critic who had to watch every single movie that got pumped out, there is no doubt my average would not be 82.9, it might not even be 70. But, because I have the benefit of self-selecting the movies I choose to watch, it stands to reason that the movies I watch have a much higher likelihood of me liking and of being of higher than average quality.

#3 - PERSONAL SCORE is a reflection of how much I enjoyed the movie. A rule of thumb I use is:
90-100 "loved it, want to watch again"
80-90 "liked it, would watch it again"
70-80 "it was okay, I would watch it again if it was on the TV or a friend or family wanted to watch it"
60-70 "I did not enjoy the movie, would rather not watch it again, and only would under mild duress"
less than 60 "I hated the movie, with the intensity of my dislike growing the further you get from 60"

#4 - OBJECTIVE SCORE is more a reflection of my respect and admiration for the film overall. Basically, my opinion of the film as a piece of art, not strictly as a piece of entertainment. The rule of thumb for this:
90-100 "Greatly admire the film. Consider it an artistic achievement"
80-90 "A quality film that is solid"
70-80 " A serviceable film that did nothing noteworthy or memorable, good or bad"
60-70 "A mediocre film that there is very little or nothing to commend it for"
below 60 "An objectively bad film"

#5 - I must confess to not being a fan of idiosyncratic dialogue. So this puts much beloved filmmakers like Wes Anderson, Quintin Tarantino, Aaron Sorkin, Joss Whedon, among others, at arm's length at best, and genuinely irritates me at worst. So, if you see tepid or worse scores for "those types" of movies, feel free to judge my taste, but I just wanted to put it out there that I have a sore spot for dialogue that is too quippy, over-polished, and/or idiosyncratic.

#6 - I must also confess to being by and large uninterested in comic book/super hero type movies. I don't want to come off like a film snob, because there are plenty of middle or low brow movies I enjoy just fine. For me personally, I didn't read comics or watch comic cartoons as a kid, I have zero relationship to any of the comic book characters, and truth be told, their takeover of the film industry at least in the US the past decade has only made me that much more disinterested.

This glorious system has enabled him to write reviews like the following:

And againShow

Viewing Source: Criterion Channel
Personal Score: 82/100
Objective Score: 85/100
Plot Score (Premise and Execution): 86/100
Technical Score (Cinematography, Score, Visual Effects): 88/100
Script Score: 86/100
Acting Score: 88/100
Quality of Ending Bonus Points: 0
# of Scenes that made me cry: 0 scenes
Tear Factor Bonus (1.25 Points for every scene that made me cry, capped at 4 scenes, partial credit given): 0
Bonus Points for Iconic/Memorable Scenes: 0 Scenes/Points
Overall Score: 84.9/100

I'm a sucker for a film shot in black and white, so first and foremost I'd call attention to how nice the film looks visually. I was living in NYC when this film was made and when it was set, although as an engineer working in the major industrial construction industry, I can't say I related to any of the characters in this film, as I was not in the creative/liberal arts clique, so neither myself or any of my friends and peers were anything like the people in this film... but it's nice to see how the other half lived I suppose! At the heart of this film is (character), whom I'd describe as an aspirational but talentless Lucy from I Love Lucy...despite her lack of talent and flakiness, her character is likeable and a sort of benevolent being...

The lowest-ranked film he's seen appears to be Atomic Dog (1998), at a mere 3.8/100.

[domino harvey]

SpoilerShow

Frances Ha?

[Never Cursed]

Ding ding ding