'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[MichaelB]

Granted, Patrick Keiller is an acquired taste, and Robinson in Ruins probably isn't the best place to start to acquire it, but even after bending over backwards to make allowances, this comment from Carmen Gray's Total Film review...

Vanessa Redgrave’s droning narration over endless shots of flowers makes it feel like a combo of recent radio news and a nature-themed screensaver.

...counts as the stupidest I've seen in, oh, days.

The whole point of the film is that even the most apparently 'natural' rural landscape is crammed with tiny but telling details about its surrounding human culture and history - so dismissing Keiller's complex and nuanced images as "a nature-themed screensaver" is the critical equivalent of confessing abject failure to engage with the film's ideas on even the most elementary level.

[knives]

Argument's an oldy, but a goodie.

I, for some reason, am unable to fully appreciate cinema pre-1965.

Now, before I receive a barrage of insults, let me make a few things perfectly clear:

1. I do not think classic cinema is bad.

Let me repeat that: I DO NOT THINK CLASSIC CINEMA IS BAD. There is a big difference between personal opinion and objective criticism.

2. Like every generalization, there are exceptions to this rule. There are a few movies from this era I enjoy (to name a few: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Singin' in the Rain, Some Like it Hot, It Happened One Night, Rio Bravo, etc.).

3. I acknowledge that were it not for the amazing strides and efforts put into this era, we would have nothing of cinematic quality today.

Now that that's out of the way...

I often find myself bored to tears from older films. The style of acting, the audio quality, the somewhat basic camera movements and cinematography, the writing obviously dated for its time period, the feeling that a film is being dragged on longer than necessary (I understand this can be used today as well, but it seems more prevalent among classics)...all of these together give me film experiences I don't particularly like. And if a film isn't boring me, it's downright offending me with its racism. I was in LOVE with Duck Soup (which, for the most part, is an example of timeless humor) till I heard that "and that's why darkies were born" line, which just sent cold chills through me. I doubt the Marx Bros. were legitimately racist because that was a song that was around at the time, but it still unsettles me to hear things like that.

So, yeah, does anyone agree with me?

[matrixschmatrix]

2001 is my favorite pre-1965 movie, too

[Michael Kerpan]

Sounds like something from Film General on IMDB (mind you, such postings there tend to get lots of flack).

[Mr Sausage]

...the somewhat basic camera movements and cinematography...

Agreed. I can never watch a Max Ophuls film without thinking how much less basic it would be if he'd have only managed to get himself born in 1970.

[Roger Ryan]

...the feeling that a film is being dragged on longer than necessary (I understand this can be used today as well, but it seems more prevalent among classics)...

Given how prevalent double bills were pre-1965, there were significantly more films with running times under 90 minutes than you'll find these days. The beloved two-hour-fifteen-minute Judd Apatow comedy would have run a brisk 75 minutes back in the 30s/40s.

...I doubt the Marx Bros. were legitimately racist...

The "rediculous" poster would probably be heartened to learn of Groucho's activism in support of the Scottsboro Boys in '31, something that started an FBI file on the comedian that was maintained for decades.

[MichaelB]

...the feeling that a film is being dragged on longer than necessary (I understand this can be used today as well, but it seems more prevalent among classics)...

Given how prevalent double bills were pre-1965, there were significantly more films with running times under 90 minutes than you'll find these days. The beloved two-hour-fifteen-minute Judd Apatow comedy would have run a brisk 75 minutes back in the 30s/40s.

Absolutely. In fact, I once dug out a 1946 cinema programme that announced special screening times for Citizen Kane "due to the unusual length of this film". It's not even two hours long!

I don't think there's any question that the average mainstream film now is considerably longer than its equivalent prior to 1965.

[matrixschmatrix]

In a Hollywood context, anyway- the late silent-era German movies seem to run consistently closer to three hours than to 90 minutes.

[Mr Sausage]

...the feeling that a film is being dragged on longer than necessary (I understand this can be used today as well, but it seems more prevalent among classics)...

Given how prevalent double bills were pre-1965, there were significantly more films with running times under 90 minutes than you'll find these days. The beloved two-hour-fifteen-minute Judd Apatow comedy would have run a brisk 75 minutes back in the 30s/40s.

Absolutely. In fact, I once dug out a 1946 cinema programme that announced special screening times for Citizen Kane "due to the unusual length of this film". It's not even two hours long!

I don't think there's any question that the average mainstream film now is considerably longer than its equivalent prior to 1965.

Isn't there a tradeoff, tho', in that the movies were usually preceded by cartoons and newsreels that extended the length of the whole experience?

[mfunk9786]

Not too shabby
Move: I absolutely love this movie. Definitely in the top 3 if you exclude the Star Wars fanchise.

Video: The film wasn't shot in a way that fully takes advantage of all that blu-ray can offer. But for how it was shot, it's a 5 out of 5. No excessive DNR. Not too grainy either. Well shot for how little additional lighting was used. Just wish it would have been a bit more vibrant with the colors and more sharp. But that's a stylistic choice on my part, not an issue with the mastering or encoding.

Audio: I love the music, but I do think the score was underutilized during the non-dialogue moments. I just lacked the punch it could have had.

Extras: All that's missing is a feature audio commentary.

Overall: Don't regret the purchase at all.

[Murdoch]

"The film wasn't shot in a way that fully takes advantage of all that blu-ray can offer."

And on top of that the AR doesn't match my TV!

[Brian C]

I dunno. Seems like the guy means well to me. At least he grasps that not every movie is supposed to look like it was made by Pixar.

[mfunk9786]

The first portion was what inspired me to post it, anyways.

[Brian C]

Yeah, but even there, calling Star Wars a "fanchise" shows, er, uncommon insight.

[Roger Ryan]

Given this Blu-ray's supposed lack of vibrant colors and sharpness (something others have mentioned as well), I'm surprised the reviewer gives it 5 out of 5.

[Alphonse Doinel]

Don't get me started on those forums. All you need to do is read one of these threads to know just how insane most of the posters on there are.

[knives]

On Black Swan

Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain and The Wrestler are all great movies in my opinion. That being said, Black Swan is not. Before anybody tries to say "you didn't get it", trust me, I got it. My big problem was that Nina going mad was more comedic and corny than it was frightening. The deeper you got into the movie, the more absurd the delusions were.

[MichaelB]

I dug this up when writing the booklet for Second Run's upcoming A Blonde in Love (aka Loves of a Blonde in America):

Not sure why this one has received any acclaim over the years. Directed by Milos Forman (who would certainly go on to better things), the film concerns a bored woman (the blonde of the title) who starts a relationship with a handsome musician. There's not much more to it than that. A plot? Forget about it. Presumably, the film's supposed to be a quirky and revealing slice of life - but since the central character is never developed beyond the superficial, it's impossible to care about her. And worse yet, the film opens with a half hour sequence involving some soldiers at a dance that has absolutely nothing to do with what follows.

Neatly, the first sentence is more or less answered by the last, which effectively translates as "I completely missed the entire point of this movie - please ignore me."

[CSM126]

regarding that LiT review...the "video" portion sounds like pretty much every Blu-ray.com review written by their staffers. They don't actually critique the transfer, they critique the style of the photography. If the movie was shot on 16mm and it's grainy, they give the disc something like a two or a three and never once discuss the quality of the encode. It's just "the movie wasn't filmed like a Hollywood big budget. The image isn't flashy. Fail". That's not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not the transfer adds uniquely digital flaws resulting from poor authoring. If the transfer is immaculate and presents the film as it was meant to look, say so and give the disc high marks. If the transfer is pixelated, or it has compression artifacts, call out the company that authored the disc and give it low marks. Don't critique the director's stylistic choices and call that a "review of the blu-ray".

God. Has anyone else ever noticed this?

[Oedipax]

regarding that LiT review...the "video" portion sounds like pretty much every Blu-ray.com review written by their staffers. They don't actually critique the transfer, they critique the style of the photography. If the movie was shot on 16mm and it's grainy, they give the disc something like a two or a three and never once discuss the quality of the encode. It's just "the movie wasn't filmed like a Hollywood big budget. The image isn't flashy. Fail". That's not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not the transfer adds uniquely digital flaws resulting from poor authoring. If the transfer is immaculate and presents the film as it was meant to look, say so and give the disc high marks. If the transfer is pixelated, or it has compression artifacts, call out the company that authored the disc and give it low marks. Don't critique the director's stylistic choices and call that a "review of the blu-ray".

God. Has anyone else ever noticed this?

Yes. It's extremely annoying to read, although I still do it if there isn't another source. I'm routinely flabbergasted by the level of ignorance displayed even by people writing for a blu-ray review site, the total failure to grasp at any level general film aesthetics and why things like underexposure and grain might be desired. It's fairly disheartening.

[mfunk9786]

This movie showcases the true talent Christopher Nolan posses. He wrote AND directed this movie which I find just amazing. The script was good and the story is mind bottling That being said, the movie is confusing and full of minor goofs. If you don't believe me, look at what IMDB has to say: [[...]] The movie was enjoyable and for once in a long time I feel I need to see it again. Highly recommended.

[domino harvey]

minor goofs

[Brian C]

See, now that's rediculousness that I can get behind. Hope his mind bottle gets uncorked someday.

Although I think my favorite part is, "He wrote AND directed this movie which I find just amazing." For his sake, I hope he never scans the credits of a Robert Rodriguez movie.

[matrixschmatrix]

From an Amazon customer review:

Well, I thought I had finally found Alien in the 185:1 aspect ration, in which this DVD is advertised. However that only applies to the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The other two movies are in aspect ration 235:1. I know it shouldn't but those black lines bother me, when I have a 16X9 high def flat screen TV. Seems to me wide screen should be wide screen without those irritating black lines, when you have a wide screen TV. But that's just my pet peeve.

[swo17]

185 to 1 hardly sounds like aspect rationing to me.