'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

[Cash Flagg]

I really liked it except for the parts I didn't like. It would have been better if it was a different movie.

[Monterey Jack]

"I don't like stuff that sucks."

[The Curious Sofa]

I really liked it except for the parts I didn't like. It would have been better if it was a different movie.

3 people found this helpful

From the same reviewer:

As a tech on a psych unit, I am often forced to run groups with the psychos. It's me against them and they got me outnumbered. After reading this book, I went into my sesion with guns blazing. The nuts didn't know what hit 'em. read the book and be well armed.

[Lemmy Caution]

I really liked it except for the parts I didn't like. It would have been better if it was a different movie.

I was in a small film discussion group for almost two decades. And after a while one poster's reviews started to sound childishly simple like the above quote. Another poster got hold of the guy's son to check on him and found out that that poster had dementia. So you never know if it's an actual child, an Alzheimer's patient, someone post-stroke, or even someone goofing around. Bottom line for me, I accept such comments as someone's genuine effort, and if it's weirdly amusing, even better.

[Monterey Jack]

From a Blu-Ray.com thread for Rear Window...

I just watched this film last night, it is the first Hitchcock film I have ever watched. I blind bought the classics collection 1, and am going to watch the films in release order.

Unfortunately I was extremely bored by this film. Not much interesting happens in it and I found the dialogue to be largely uninteresting, and didn't care much for any of the characters either. For me there was zero suspense to be found. I understand that the lead actors carry some of the film on their fame alone, but I am completely unfamiliar with both James Stewart and Grace Kelly (though I was well aware of Grace's status as film legend).
I like old films, and like to think that I am not bothered that they can have a slow start compared to modern films, but this film was too much for me. It was an absolute slog to get through, from start to finish.

It is technically very well made, and I don't doubt it was a good film at release. But for modern audiences watching this film for the first time I think many would scratch their head over its masterpiece status, or that it is supposedly a suspense thriller.

[Mr Sausage]

I got to see Rear Window at a local multiplex of all places last month. What I enjoyed just as much as experiencing this old friend on the big screen for the first time was getting to hear all these audible reactions from first-time viewers. The big gasp from several people when Thorwald looks up from the ring and sees Stewart was as pleasurable as anything in the movie itself. Hitchcock still playing people like a fiddle 70 years later.

[The Curious Sofa]

Orson Welles thought that Rear Window was one of the worst films he'd ever seen.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 63989.html

[domino harvey]

We’ll allow Orson Welles to be wrong, but anyone who didn’t direct Citizen Kane who thinks this should just pack it up and find a new hobby, because movies ain’t it for you