criterionforum.org

I don't get it. I had heard on the radio that this movie was some big-time critic's favorite film, but I found it unwatchable. Not engaging. No entry point into the movie for me. Why would someone be interested in this man riding this crude hot-air balloon in the Russian countryside, in 1880, or whenever it is? I don't see the context for the story, and I don't even see the story.

Slow and dull, neither dramatic nor authentic. You'd think they'd hire writers who have been therapists or been in therapy. I have some experience, having been in psychotherapy for 13 years, with a total of six or seven therapists, and having trained as a therapist myself.

crazynetflixguy wrote:I have some experience, having been in psychotherapy for 13 years, with a total of six or seven therapists

Amazon.com review of Bergman's [i]The Magician[/i] wrote:Ever wondered why the films of Ingmar Bergman are often considered "arty" and don't achieve much mainstream success? watch this and you'll know. But do yourself a favour and read a couple of reviews as well - the ones in which it is hailed as a "gothic horror masterpiece" or, "hilarious".

I saw one in which it was called (with no irony) "semi-comic". That means, to me, "not very funny." And it isn't. The jokes are very poor indeed and revolve around busty serving wenches and conjuring tricks gone wrong: imagine Tommy Cooper in a bad Carry On film.

The supposed "horror" is lamer than anything I have ever seen: just not even slightly horrific. One review I read called it "genuinely gruesome". Well, unless Amazon are posting out heavily-edited versions, then I can only conclude that the reviewer should get out more. Or maybe a rubber hand being animated by an assistant out-of-frame really IS gruesome, and I'm the twisted one...

God, it's rubbish. Bad dialogue, hammy acting, clunky editing, dated music, stupid implausible plot. It looks nice, I'll give you that: the B&W is well-lit and atmospheric. And one of the serving wenches is pretty.

Markson wrote:His 3-star Bad Timing review is incredible:

"I don’t like Art Garfunkel as an actor. He’s stiff and shows no emotion ever in this movie. At the most emotional moments, his face is like a plastic mask. But I love Theresa Russell. What a bombshell. She does wonderful acting here, with great emotion and enigmatic depth. (SPOILER ALERT.) The character she plays in this movie is the kind of woman I am usually attracted to, a total nightmare—too beautiful to resist, too crazy to love. This portrait is accurate, I think. What a piece of work is this woman, to paraphrase Shakespeare. I almost turned this movie off at first, because several things didn’t make any sense to me. Why is Art Garfunkel smiling as he is taking his lady love to the hospital with a drug overdose? It doesn’t seem like a happy occasion. And the last sequence—Harvey Keitel as the cop and Garfunkel as the shrink in the woman’s room, and the cop is trying to get the shrink to confess to ravishing her. None of that works for me, especially the cop getting all weird. But the vast middle of the film, the majority, worked quite well for me. I was fascinated by the chaos this woman could bring to these men, who love her because of her beauty and because she entices them and seduces them and gives them what shrinks call intermittent reinforcement. What a madhouse she makes of their lives. In their place, I would probably do the same kinds of things. Indeed I have, sorry to say. The title could have been 'In Love With A Madwoman.'"

domino harvey wrote:This old guy has some great Netflix reviews

I didn't like it because there was nobody to root for. Even in movies like The Godfather or even Cabin Fever, there's always at least ONE character that you want him/her to succeed. Here, I got nothing. Zuckerberg betrayed his best friend, Saverin was portrayed as being inneficient while the Facebook bussiness was booming, Sean Parker was a shallow guy who kept having sex and doing drugs and getting drunk, the Twins just wanted money and power, and both girlfriends were psycho bitches. And you know what really made me sick?: The fact that these are real people being portrayed here, people who still live to this day. It's not fair to slander a person like that. If I was a relative or a friend of any of the people being portrayed here, I'd be offended. That's what really makes me nervous: David Fincher has no right to do this to those people.

The Godfather, Part 1 (1972) – Meh
The Godfather, Part 2 (1974) – Meh, Part 2

Rear Window (1954) – As I said, Hitchcock was abit of a wanker, but I do love James Stewart in pretty much anything.

Jules et Jim (1962) – I’m not kidding; if I ever have to watch another French film noir I’m going to go on a violent rampage with a burnt baguette

matrixschmatrix wrote:Is there any conceivable definition of 'film noir' that would include Jules and Jim?

Alphonse Doinel wrote:Can someone tell me what an ass bandit is?

Mr Sausage wrote:Ass bandit is a homophobic slur. But don't just take my word for it. Here are Frye and Laurie to clear things up.

Mr Sausage wrote:Ass bandit is a homophobic slur. But don't just take my word for it. Here are Frye and Laurie to clear things up.