criterionforum.org

Well at least he didn't end up making a Borat joke about "MY WIFE!"

I don't like to share stuff from Distractify, but here's an interesting piece about a disturbing pattern of a National Review writer continually bagging on otherwise well-received films starring black actors or directed by black filmmakers.

If that was AO Scott or Jonathan Romney, we might have a scandal on our hands. Some guy from the National Review, on the other hand ... I mean, he's just hitting key performance indicators, isn't he?

jbeall wrote:I don't like to share stuff from Distractify, but here's an interesting piece about a disturbing pattern of a National Review writer continually bagging on otherwise well-received films starring black actors or directed by black filmmakers.

This is not evidence of anything, other than the ease of witch hunting online. The article even points out how several movies don't fit the narrative of Smith as racist, yet thankfully there are loopholes to explain away any of his positive responses as further proof of his villainy

Not really the point, but why in this age of short attention spans do so many internet articles lead with so much unreadable fluff? By my count, it’s the fifth paragraph of that article before the author even begins to get to what the article is about. And I’m not picking on him in particular, because it’s a pretty common style all over the internet these days. Just seems ironic, is all.

70+ (and counting!) Reddit users have voted The LEGO Movie as one of the greatest films of all time. I know it's just a popularity contest, but seriously?

Infuriating excerpt from Blu-ray.com 'film critic' Brian Orndorf's review of You Were Never Really Here:

There was much hullaballoo about her sudden abandonment of the project, with some speculating that Ramsay would never be permitted to make another movie.
...
Ramsay hasn’t made a movie for a very long time, and her latest plays like a filmmaker trying to regain balance through the comfort of the familiar after suffering an unfortunate career disruption.

Would anyone talk about Malick this way? Kubrick? We Need to Talk About Kevin was in fucking 2011. Screams sexist horseshit to me.

Only time anyone will ever describe this movie with the words "comfort" or "familiar"

I think a better parallel is Tony Kaye... I don't think he's wrong to question whether a director who absconded from production without warning could secure funding-- I was surprised myself, to be honest, as I am now upon learning that Josh Trank has lined up a new film. Being a woman has nothing to do with it

Orndorf's point here is that this film is somehow impacted by Ramsay's not making a movie "for a very long time" and I don't think any male director of Ramsay's stature would be on the receiving end of that criticism regardless of the quality level of whatever film they made six years after their prior one. I agree with you to a point about her abandonment of her last project, but "permitted to make another movie" is a very odd way to put it indeed.

I would without hesitation use the same word choice for Trank or Kaye, and think it's apt here-- she commited a grievous sin by walking away like she did, period, and I wouldn't blame any financier for never trusting her again. She doesn't self-fund her feature films, so "permit" is not inaccurate

By the independent film police? Securing funding and having "permission" to do something are two different things.

Trank to my understanding was abusing drugs and was combative on set. The result is the abomination that was released after the film was taken away from him. Not quite the same as what Ramsey did at least.

I would think that semantic argument is irrelevant though so long as someone would be willing to apply permission at all, no?

From the Blu-ray.com review of Inception 4K:

Nolan's reserved touch; the movie wasn't made to be a visual dazzler, at least not from a purely photographic process perspective.

These Blu-ray.com The Zodiac Killer and The Violent Years reviews are very puzzling to me. The overall scores are both 2/5, which are pretty much based on Kauffman's opinions on the films themselves. These movies are marketed and widely known as trash, so why Blu-ray.com hires someone who doesn't like such exploitation fare seems counterintuitive. I don't think it's fair to lower the overall scores in cases like this.

Also, while I can't say anything about the quality of the supplements themselves, why are both of the "extras" scores 2.5/5? The Violent Years alone features an audio commentary, rare footage of an abandoned Ed Wood project, nearly 18 minutes of trailers, and an entire feature-length bonus film. Certainly, that's at least a 3?!

mfunk9786 wrote:Infuriating excerpt from Blu-ray.com 'film critic' Brian Orndorf's review of You Were Never Really Here:

There was much hullaballoo about her sudden abandonment of the project, with some speculating that Ramsay would never be permitted to make another movie.
...
Ramsay hasn’t made a movie for a very long time, and her latest plays like a filmmaker trying to regain balance through the comfort of the familiar after suffering an unfortunate career disruption.

Would anyone talk about Malick this way? Kubrick? We Need to Talk About Kevin was in fucking 2011. Screams sexist horseshit to me.

Quite aside from anything else, the gap between Kevin and YWNRH was shorter than the earlier gap between Morvern Callar and Kevin.

With his three post-Barry Lyndon films (a span of twenty years), you could always find an article or three stating that Kubrick was "late to the party" and had lost his innovative edge: The Shining came seven years too late to revolutionize the horror film; everyone else had done their "Vietnam" films a decade before Full Metal Jacket was released; and Eyes Wide Shut had been beaten to the punch by Red Shoe Diary.

Roger Ryan wrote:everyone else had done their "Vietnam" films a decade before Full Metal Jacket was released

What are you talking about? Full Metal Jacket came smack dab in the middle of the big Hollywood wave of Vietnam films.

zedz wrote:

Roger Ryan wrote:everyone else had done their "Vietnam" films a decade before Full Metal Jacket was released

What are you talking about? Full Metal Jacket came smack dab in the middle of the big Hollywood wave of Vietnam films.

Not sure if your tone is warranted.

It came after The Deer Hunter, Coming Home, The Boys in Company C, Apocalypse Now, Birdy and Platoon.

Platoon came out in '86 and was awarded Best Pic in '87, same year Kubrick's film came out. How much more primo Vietnam fever can you get?

Did anyone really believe that in 1986 or ’87 it was "too late" to make a Vietnam War film? I guess there shouldn't have been any World War II films after the early 1960s then. "The Shining came seven years too late to revolutionize the horror film"—the revolutionizing was all done by the time of The Exorcist? If critics actually said these things, it'd be interesting to name names.

Gregory wrote:If critics actually said these things, it'd be interesting to name names.

Roger Ebert, writing at the time of Full Metal Jacket's release: "After what has already been said about "Vietnam" in the movies, "Full Metal Jacket" is too little and too late."

Siskel got it - pegged it at #2 on his top ten list that year.

I know it's quite evident to all of you that Kubrick has really assumed a sort mythic role in film culture in the present day in no small part because of his Pop Culture influence. Back in the day all his stuff hadn't saturated world culture and to be frank I think it's far more interesting to look at people's analysis of Kubrick way back when than today. Pauline Kael's scathing review of A Clockwork Orange makes a lot more sense to me today than the near mindless adoration it receives today.