'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.)

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4109 Post by knives » Fri Jul 17, 2020 9:42 am

didn't see it. don't need to see it to know it's awful. why would you make a movie about a Black hero and create a fictional ahistorical white savior?
trash.
There is no white savior character in the movie which is Harriet for the curious.

User avatar
ex-cowboy
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:27 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4110 Post by ex-cowboy » Fri Jul 17, 2020 10:41 am

furbicide wrote:
Sun May 10, 2020 5:01 am
I love the book too – and very much for, not despite, its occasionally left-field takes – but I feel like the author took one look at the country of origin and got on the phone to the House Un-American Activities Committee.

(Also, perhaps I just don't get it, but what does "poetry of the Dovzhenko Ukrainian school" even mean, and how on earth does it relate to Solaris? And WTF do Tarkovsky's distinctly Russian Orthodox sensibilities have to do with Marxist dialectics!?)
If anything the dialectics are more Hegelian than Marxist. This does seem to be a bizarre (sub-)strain of criticism where 2001 and Solaris seem to be sited together as an extension / cultural manifestation of the cold war, when really Tarkovsky's criticisms of Kubrick's film are far more from his personal (non-Marxist) philosophical point of view. It does seem that Solaris seems to be used (now and again) as a straw man for an attack on Eastern Block culture of that time when really the film (and Tarkovsky's work as a whole) can only really be tangentially (at best) seen as representative of Soviet state philosophy.

I should add on that last point that I'm not that aware of how the film was marketed internationally - ie. whether the Soviet state placed any particular political weight on the film (other than being a 'product' of the state).

User avatar
Swift
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4111 Post by Swift » Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:15 am

In an otherwise positive review of Black Girl by a user on Letterboxd.
I did not love that most of the audio seemed to be voiceover.. but it was 1966 what’re you gonna do.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4112 Post by Never Cursed » Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:22 am

If by that the reviewer means "dubbed," then they're probably not really wrong

User avatar
Swift
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4113 Post by Swift » Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:38 am

No, the lead character's thoughts are expressed in VO. Every one else speaks in person, and not dubbed in post either.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4114 Post by bottled spider » Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:30 am

Garden State + Inception + the “deep” tweenage thoughts you’re still embarrassed about from time to time
accompanied by a half star out of five rating. I like this hateful Letterboxd zinger almost as much as I admire the film itself.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4115 Post by domino harvey » Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:52 pm

I can't find that via Google, what is it?

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4116 Post by bottled spider » Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:04 pm

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. I thought "Garden State + Inception" was a perfect zing, as far as these X + Y comments go.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4117 Post by domino harvey » Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:40 pm

So it's too much like two movies that came out after it? Sounds exactly like a typical Letterboxd zinger then

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4118 Post by bottled spider » Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:05 pm

I don't think the commenter was accusing ESotSM of being derivative of either of those films, which would indeed be very dumb. I think it's just a description. And if you had to describe the movie in only three words, could you do better than 'Inception meets Garden State'? I just find that amusingly apt and succinct, as much as I disagree with the sentiment behind it.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4119 Post by DarkImbecile » Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:35 pm

bottled spider wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:05 pm
And if you had to describe the movie in only three words, could you do better than 'Inception meets Garden State'?
Image

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4120 Post by bottled spider » Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:48 pm

I hate you.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4121 Post by DarkImbecile » Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:52 pm

bottled spider wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:48 pm
I hate you.
Now that’s three words!

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4122 Post by knives » Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:55 pm

Somebody on Kanopy is an expert at spelling out the point while missing it.
There's nothing "venerable" about this xenophobe. He is a disgrace to the robes he wears.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4123 Post by Never Cursed » Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:06 am

Went on IMDB recently to check out user reactions to a certain sci-fi movie and found quite a few reviews all honing in on the same hot-button issue:
It may be a "visual masterpiece," as per the reviews, but that is a reference to the sweet skinny body of the man's maid/girlfriend. Nothing more. Just fast forward to the scenes with her legs and hair in it.
Could someone explain? This is a post apocalyptic world. It is a hellhole. It is a dystopia. Then one can eat food in abundance on the street and a beautiful blonde hooker approaches you (actually several pretty girls), there is miniskirted fantasy awaiting at home and cooking for you and obviously there is more than enough space for everybody. What the heck??
Beautiful! I am referring to the thin eye candies. The girlfriend and hooker were positively femininely beautiful and worth the price, but this is not a good movie. Outside the slender and flaunting body of the eye candies it quickly descends to boredom. I just kept rewinding to check out the actresses. Otherwise, zzzz
What was the point of this film? It was not entertaining, it was slow and it was sleep-inducing so there must be a plot or morality instead, right? Wrong. They are retiring peaceful and oppressed replicants while at the same time making even more. Confused yet?

Yup

Let me give you the reason why they needed this film. Hollywood needs sequels like Donald Trump needs porn stars with STD. Period. It is a disease and addiction for the weak.

PS: I asked my wife if she is into a menage a trois for us and said said no, but I know she was watching with interest so at least this film gave us an opening.
Another unneeded inferior sequel, but at least this wasn't anti-woman and anti-female and the women were hot and thin. They could have easily done a modern film where all the women are in baggy jump suits and obese and expect us to love it but at least they didn't hate on slender and attractive women. That's something these days.

Of course it was a sequel and it was stupid and made little sense. I also have to say it is time for Ford to retire.
There Were Only Three Things In This Film I Was interested In: The dog, The girlfriend's body, Having a hooker that is so thin and pretty. Otherwise, this.film.is.boring. Hello hollywood, what is with these silly sequels?
Good: hot girlfriend who has no ink, has a sweet body (image!) and is kind. The tech is cool and the dystopian city is impressive.

Bad: slow film and ultimately nothing happens. They want to sell a sequel.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4124 Post by aox » Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:05 pm

I assume that is the Blade Runner sequel?

User avatar
Dr Amicus
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:20 am
Location: Guernsey

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4125 Post by Dr Amicus » Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:00 am

I really wanted it to be Cocoon 2...

Post Reply