'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[Michael Kerpan]

knives -- except for the (arbitrary) low score -- I'm not sure that there is anything inherently ridiculous about this opinion comparing PoG and AQotWF.

[aox]

Well, I would hardly categorize PoG as a "battlefield film". That's a pretty ridiculous assertion.

[triodelover]

Well, I would hardly categorize PoG as a "battlefield film". That's a pretty ridiculous assertion.

I don't know that I would characterize either as "battlefield" films except in the sense that there are battles in both. With the exception of the ending, I would say that the most important scenes in AQotWF take place away from the battlefield. As far as intensity goes, watching three men arbitrarily stood up in front of a firing squad as expiation for incompetent and corrupt leadership seems pretty intense to me. I know the first time I saw the film as a young teen in the early '60s I kept thinking surely the executions will be stopped. it's Hollywood, isn't it?

Finally, I'm not sure the comparisons are apt. Other than being able to broadly classify both as anti-war films, they are very different films. A better comparison for AQotWF might be Poirier's Verdun, souvenirs d'histoire or Bernard's Les croix de bois.

[Gregory]

knives -- except for the (arbitrary) low score -- I'm not sure that there is anything inherently ridiculous about this opinion comparing PoG and AQotWF.

It's pretty rediculous to say something is far superior "despite" being made 27 years earlier, but I realize that's a thing commonly said for whatever reason. (A "March of Progress" worldview perhaps?) I've often heard statements like this about movies and music, but never about painting, architecture, etc. -- possibly just because the internet is flooded with opinions about music and movies more than the other things.

[knives]

Well, I would hardly categorize PoG as a "battlefield film". That's a pretty ridiculous assertion.

I don't know that I would characterize either as "battlefield" films except in the sense that there are battles in both. With the exception of the ending, I would say that the most important scenes in AQotWF take place away from the battlefield. As far as intensity goes, watching three men arbitrarily stood up in front of a firing squad as expiation for incompetent and corrupt leadership seems pretty intense to me. I know the first time I saw the film as a young teen in the early '60s I kept thinking surely the executions will be stopped. it's Hollywood, isn't it?

Finally, I'm not sure the comparisons are apt. Other than being able to broadly classify both as anti-war films, they are very different films. A better comparison for AQotWF might be Poirier's Verdun, souvenirs d'histoire or Bernard's Les croix de bois.

This was what I was getting at. Not only is the person dismissing the film out of hand with no real backing of their opinion, but the one real statement in the comment doesn't make sense except in the broadest terms. I wouldn't even classify Paths of Glory as a anti-war film so that means they have only setting in common which means nothing important. The comment sounds pre-judgmental to what the person expects out of a war film versus what the person got.

[aox]

As far as intensity goes, watching three men arbitrarily stood up in front of a firing squad as expiation for incompetent and corrupt leadership seems pretty intense to me.

But, this doesn't happen on the battlefield.

I honestly can't tell with your post if you are arguing or agreeing with me that it is silly to categorize PoG as a 'battlefield film'. Sure, you can also make arguments as to how AQotWF is also not a 'battlefield film', but compared to PoG, it is much more worthy of that classification. You seem to admit next that you do agree with me:

Finally, I'm not sure the comparisons are apt. Other than being able to broadly classify both as anti-war films, they are very different films.

To me, besides the WWI setting, Paths of Glory has more in common with A Few Good Men as far as a military judicial procedural.

A better comparison for AQotWF might be Poirier's Verdun, souvenirs d'histoire or Bernard's Les croix de bois.

I almost made an addendum to my post with this verbatim and I am glad you did. Wooden Crosses next to AQotWF is a very apt comparison. Too good almost. It was apparent when I saw them within two months of each other years back for the first time. I, however, think Wooden Crosses is a much more powerful, poignant, and all around better film IMO.

Anyway, besides the silly 5/10, I was just stating that it was ridiculous to categorize PoG as a 'battlefield film'.

This was what I was getting at. Not only is the person dismissing the film out of hand with no real backing of their opinion, but the one real statement in the comment doesn't make sense except in the broadest terms. I wouldn't even classify Paths of Glory as a anti-war film so that means they have only setting in common which means nothing important. The comment sounds pre-judgmental to what the person expects out of a war film versus what the person got.

Right! Like seeing Saving Private Ryan, and hearing Apocalypse Now is the best war film and being disappointed by the lack of action since that is how one might define 'war film'.

[swo17]

Wooden Crosses next to AQotWF is a very apt comparison. Too good almost.

The Eclipse liner notes (and Criterion's website) also make this comparison, calling Wooden Crosses "France's answer to AQotWF." Though personally, as far as anti-war French films punctuated with visual poetry go, I give the edge to J'accuse (despite it having been made 13 years earlier).

[Michael Kerpan]

I guess I just was not giving "battlefield film" as specific a meaning. I agree the comparison is definitely _insipid_ in any event. ;~}

[aox]

calling Wooden Crosses "France's answer to AQotWF."

It doesn't surprise me, though, unless Bernard made the claim, I am somewhat surprised CC did. As I said, it's an easy comparison, almost lazy. I admittedly made it myself at the time. But I am always apprehensive about forming that sentence in any context. Isn't "Tarkovsky's Solaris supposed to be Russia's answer to 2001: ASO"? I think I repeated that nonsense line a lot when I was a 16 year old neophyte. I mean, unless a director comes straight out and admits that he is either remaking a film from the past few years or completely aping one, I don't know if it is a healthy academic discussion.

[triodelover]

I honestly can't tell with your post if you are arguing or agreeing with me that it is silly to categorize PoG as a 'battlefield film'.

I'm agreeing with you and taking it one step further. I realize that calling PoG anti-war is something of a stretch which is why I used "broadly", although the kind of senseless brutality and criminal inanity doesn't seem to occur in other contexts. So as much as the film decries that, it also decries war as the primary landscape for such happenings.

Wooden Crosses next to AQotWF is a very apt comparison. Too good almost.

The Eclipse liner notes (and Criterion's website) also make this comparison, calling Wooden Crosses "France's answer to AQotWF." Though personally, as far as anti-war French films punctuated with visual poetry go, I give the edge to J'accuse (despite it having been made 13 years earlier).

I see what you did there.

[matrixschmatrix]

It doesn't surprise me, though, unless Bernard made the claim, I am somewhat surprised CC did. As I said, it's an easy comparison, almost lazy. I admittedly made it myself at the time. But I am always apprehensive about forming that sentence in any context. Isn't "Tarkovsky's Solaris supposed to be Russia's answer to 2001: ASO"? I think I repeated that nonsense line a lot when I was a 16 year old neophyte. I mean, unless a director comes straight out and admits that he is either remaking a film from the past few years or completely aping one, I don't know if it is a healthy academic discussion.

Is that really what 'response' means, though? I thought the idea of Solaris as movie which is the opposite of Kubrick's in many ways, a deliberate answer to its sterility and lifelessness, was actually a fairly interesting way to look at it (though obviously reductive if you pretend that's all that's going on.)

[aox]

(though obviously reductive if you pretend that's all that's going on.)

Yeah, that's pretty much all I mean.

[colinr0380]

I guess I just was not giving "battlefield film" as specific a meaning. I agree the comparison is definitely _insipid_ in any event. ;~}

Agreed, and in any event isn't this argument moot when The Big Parade is out there?

[matrixschmatrix]

A two star review for Image's Early Avant Garde Film box:

I had the opportunity (such as it was) to watch Disk 1: THE MECHANIZED EYE at a friend's house. He was all worked up about this "fantastic" collection of Avant Garde Films that he had acquired, and wanted to share them with his friends. Great.

The first few clips were interesting enough; I often enjoy original material and some of them were indeed original. I liked "Scene from Elevator Ascending Eiffel Tower" (1900) and tried to imagine the impact that it had on its original audience. It must have been a tremendous experience for them.

"Captain Nissen Going through Whirlpool Rapids, Niagara Falls" (1901) was great. This time my thoughts were with Captain Nissen inside his strange craft. I wondered what he was feeling.

Things went pretty well until we came to "Pie in the Sky" (1934-35)-Nykino: Elia Kazan, Ralph Steiner & Irving Lerner.

Then came the ambush.

"Pie in the Sky" is a trash piece of mockery of Christianity in general and Jesus Christ specifically. In filming this self indulgent piece of garbage Elia Kazan revealed nothing of his great talent that he would bring to the screen in the years to come, but he and his cronies revealed much of their arrogance, distain for the rights of their fellow man and just plain ignorance of the subject matter that they attacked.

I'm not surprised that the compilers of this collection of films would include such a useless piece of dog dropping in an otherwise laudable collection. The same ambush tactic has been used to spread Hollywood's propaganda program of hatred of God for a number of years now. Rather I'm simply disgusted with a time in our history where apparently most people don't even see a problem with it.

They didn't see a problem with it during Hitler's rise to power in Germany either. The only difference is that then it was the Jews under attack, today it's the Christians. The hate, and the propaganda program used to express it, are the same. The film makers are good at it. And this in a country that was started by people who came seeking an end of religious persecution.

Movies and games come labeled with warnings about violence, mature subject matter, etc. but there is no warning at all when they contain anti-Christian, anti-God material. It's no wonder so many of my friends and acquaintances don't even go to the theater any more. They're fed up with being "ambushed" by Hollywood's anti-Christian attacks in the middle of a film that they paid a fistful of their hard earned dollars to see.

There's nothing Avant Garde about religious bigotry; it's been around for a long time.

I'll pass on this one.

[Jeff]

This sad little tweet could also go in the "film school=waste of time" thread.

[cdnchris]

I bet you Hitchcock is so pissed he wasn't able to travel in to the future so he could know about Disturbia. I can only imagine how embarrassed he would be if he knew he ripped that movie off. You'd think he'd notice that.

[MichaelB]

Never mind Rear Window - just think of the number of films that Psycho retroactively ripped off.

[Brian C]

I bet you Hitchcock is so pissed he wasn't able to travel in to the future so he could know about Disturbia. I can only imagine how embarrassed he would be if he knew he ripped that movie off. You'd think he'd notice that.

This would make a good plot for a Charlie Kaufman script.

[oldsheperd]

I like the tweet response by one reader that "This can't be real. It can't be."
I can just imagine Ricky Jay reading that aloud with the music form Magnolia over the background.

[Roger Ryan]

I like the tweet response by one reader that "This can't be real. It can't be."
I can just imagine Ricky Jay reading that aloud with the music form Magnolia over the background.

"These (inane, witless utterances) happen all the time!"

[Murdoch]

This reminds me of a intro film class I took where someone argued that Transformers was more "purely cinematic" than Rear Window because it had a lot of explosions, no joke

[oldsheperd]

Someone told me that in one of their film classes a student wrote her final paper on why Jaws is really an allegory about man's fear of the vagina. Shark=Vagina.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Someone told me that in one of their film classes a student wrote her final paper on why Jaws is really an allegory about man's fear of the vagina. Shark=Vagina.

As my urologist once said to me "The Vagina can be a pretty hostile place".

[tavernier]

This reminds me of a intro film class I took where someone argued that Transformers was more "purely cinematic" than Rear Window because it had a lot of explosions, no joke

Must have been Armond

[zedz]

Someone told me that in one of their film classes a student wrote her final paper on why Jaws is really an allegory about man's fear of the vagina. Shark=Vagina.

Quite off topic, and it was a literary theory class rather than a film one (which class gave rise to a lot of wacky behaviour, including one student volunteering to do an interpretive dance in lieu of delivering his required seminar and the lecturer actually taking him up on it, at which point he demurred, the weasel), but this is the best excuse I've yet had to tell this story.

Covering Freud, a number of the class were taking old Siggy to task for his treatment / understanding of women, and so the lecturer was frantically backpedalling / rationalising. He stumbled when he got to: "Um, I don't think Freud ever considered the vagina as a, as a. . ."

At which point, a vast, theatrical mature student, a woman who must have been in her seventies, with colossal glasses, kaftan and beads, who hadn't said a word up to this point, contributed in a rumbling, fruity baritone from the back of the room: ". . . a playground."