criterionforum.org

MichaelB wrote:Talking of Amazon, here's a one-star review of Murnau's Nosferatu:

When I saw all the marketing blurb about this film, I thought it would be pretty good. Modern vampire films are entertaining and exciting, but they very rarely scare me, so when I saw the information claiming that this film "continues to haunt and terrify modern audiences," I thought Nosferatu would definitely be worth a watch.

I was disappointed. I'm not going to comment on the quality of filming, special effects or anything because the film is so old and the technology was nothing like today's, so it's not really relevant. However, I found this film pretty laughable. I thought the fact it was a silent film would add to the creepiness, but I found that the overacting in place to make up for lack of words just gave me the giggles.

The storyline of course, was good because it was based on Bram Stoker's novel, published 24 years earlier than this film. But there seriously was no fear factor for me (and I'm a wimp!). All of the vampire's skulking around, and appearing in doorways, staring out of windows etc, had me clutching my sides in mirth. Maybe that's just me, but I'm pretty sure that's not the reaction they were going for when they made this film.

Maybe I'm cynical, maybe I've seen too many other vampire movies and read too many vampire books, but there are certainly much scarier things out there than this. This is not a patch on Dracula the novel - simply because drawing your own imagery from your imagination can be so much more effective. Unless you're a total film buff, or know someone that is, I'd give this a miss.

For the record, the reviewer's five-star masterpieces include Never Forget : The New Musical based on the music of Take That, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and the Billie Piper version of Mansfield Park. True, the first of these is almost certainly scarier than anything in Nosferatu, so she may have a point.

Reviews like this are indeed frustrating to read, but it's also true that the reviewer isn't always the only one to blame. Old horror movies are indeed sometimes marketed as being scary, so it's not entirely impossible to understand that someone who has watched only modern movies might be disappointed by them just because 'they are not scary'. I myself have never been scared by any horror movie, old or new, so I'm not the best person to evaluate how scary a movie might be for an average person, but I honestly can't believe anyone could find watching NOSFERATU a truly scary experience. Finding a movie haunting is a different thing altogether though and something that old horror movies often succeed in - more often than newer movies even, which often substitute psychological drama with jump scares. But I guess that's what people want a horror movie to be - scary, not deep.

Actually one newer movie that I've heard many times being called overrated for not being scary is DON'T LOOK NOW. Here's a one star review from amazon:

[quote="waverace "waver""]After seeing this movie on Bravos top 100 scariest movie moment, and after reading some of the reviews on here, I was anticipating a scary movie. However, after watching this movie, I have to say I'm really dissapointed. For one, there are close to no scares in it. The acting by the two main charachters is good , no doubt, however, the acting by the other actors and actresses in this movie is a joke. They are so rediculously over the top with their expressions that it's hard to take them seriously. The story lacks any real horror to it. Through out the flick, the two main charachters brood over the loss of their child and have numerous visits with a a set of sisters, one being blind and psychic. The movie tries desperately to be mysterious and scary by making these sisters seem to be creepy. However, the scenes between them and the convulsions that the blind sister goes through, are just plain laughable. The thing many fans of this film seem to harbor on is the ending . To me the ending was a total let down. We are able to see the villian of the movie for about a whole 1 minute- not very scary at all. I would definetly not recommend this film to any serious horror fan. It just isn't scary, and it's an outright snooze fest. 1 star for this piece of trash.[/quote]

idiot wrote:They are so rediculously over the top...

I always thought the title of this thread was just being cute, but after reading a lot of the reviews posted in here I am amazed at the number of people who spell "ridiculous" incorrectly.

Commander Shears wrote:I found this little nugget on Netflix, for the film Rescue Dawn

I love war movies and I am a military historian. So I know what I am talking about.

The last couple of sentences really make it.

Nice find. I can't help thinking of:
"I should know. I am a medical doctor. I should know. I am a medical doctor."

Have I gone too far? Do I pick on him too much? I can't believe he writes this stuff and gets away with it.

Yunda Eddie Feng wrote:Eastern Promises is my first exposure to David Cronenberg. (I'm not counting the director's re-make of The Fly, which was clearly a populist effort rather than what Cronenberg's reputation promises.)

Where does he live? I'm going to set his house on fire. And this is just the first sentence.

Yunda Eddie Feng wrote:The best way to describe the ending is, "Love conquers all."

Feng makes me embarrassed of the way I defended DVDBeaver a couple months ago. Every time I see an icon for a stupid movie under the New Comparisons Banner, it's like "Oh let me guess who is responsible..." He's everything horrible about the new internet breed of film "fans" and about one small step up from Alex Jackson.

Here's a one-star review from a guy on Amazon who misses the entire point of the movie and thinks that Harris Savides doesn't know what he's doing:
[quote="www.MoviePulse.net "Join the Free Movie Club!""]Likeable characters are not the strong suit of Margot at the Wedding, yet attracting audiences to these incredibly selfish individuals doesn't seem to be Baumbach's initiative. Rather the director seems to be intent on showing the destructiveness of these characters, not only on themselves, but on their troubled offspring. Many of the violent outbursts the adults throw are staged right in front of child actors Zane Pais and Flora Cross, which is an obviously deliberate directorial choice, especially upon comparison to the themes present in Baumbach's previous effort.

Production values are equally unattractive. While the handheld camerawork is surprisingly apt, the decision to use natural lighting makes the film all the more difficult to watch. With muted browns dominating the majority of the picture's color palate and backlight which casts heavy shadows over the actor's faces, the production definitely needed a Hollywood producer to shout, "More fill light!" With the flat audio to boot, the actors' raw and naked performances are lost to ugly cinematography.[/quote]

Matt wrote:Here's a one-star review from a guy on Amazon who misses the entire point of the movie... :
[quote="www.MoviePulse.net "Join the Free Movie Club!""]Likeable characters are not the strong suit of Margot at the Wedding, yet attracting audiences to these incredibly selfish individuals doesn't seem to be Baumbach's initiative. Rather the director seems to be intent on showing the destructiveness of these characters, not only on themselves, but on their troubled offspring.

[/quote]
So you don't think that Baumbach was intending to show how destructive these characters are upon each other?

Andre Jurieu wrote:So you don't think that Baumbach was intending to show how destructive these characters are upon each other?

Of course he was. This guy basically faults Baumbach not for creating unlikeable characters, but for not making unlikeable characters somehow appealing in spite of themselves? Like he should be making a Jack Nicholson movie where you chuckle at his character and think, "Oh, that irascible bastard!"

Matt wrote:

Andre Jurieu wrote:So you don't think that Baumbach was intending to show how destructive these characters are upon each other?

Of course he was. This guy is basically saying, "These characters are unlikeable, therefore this movie fails," when the unlikeability of the character is the entire point of the movie.

Ok, that makes sense to me. Sorry, I just didn't get that he was saying the movie fails because of Baumbach's strategy. I thought he was just stating that it was Baumbach's strategy.

Andre Jurieu wrote:Ok, that makes sense to me. Sorry, I just didn't get that he was saying the movie fails because of Baumbach's strategy. I thought he was just stating that it was Baumbach's strategy.

My excerpting probably makes that less clear (though the reviewer is not exactly a paragon of clarity to begin with). Here's another potshot, though:

...the majority of the editing feels quite amateurish.

Would it change his mind to know that it was cut by the editor of E.T.? oh, by the way, he gave the Bratz movie 3 stars:

Reminiscent of many late eighties' films aimed at children, Bratz is epic in scale, spanning three years of the girls' high school careers, but underneath all the shopping, singing and dancing there are actually powerful messages.

[quote]The best way to describe the ending is, “Love conquers all.â€

[quote="Yunda Eddie Feng"]The best way to describe the ending is, “Love conquers all.â€

Many of the violent outbursts the adults throw are staged right in front of child actors Zane Pais and Flora Cross, which is an obviously deliberate directorial choice, especially upon comparison to the themes present in Baumbach's previous effort.

Fuck, this dude is king of the obvious - especially since Baumbach wrote the damn thing. I haven't read the script for Margot to compare it to the film, but this seems like saying "it was an obviously deliberate directorial choice for Spielberg to show the alien in E.T."

Matt wrote:[quote="www.MoviePulse.net "Join the Free Movie Club!""]the production definitely needed a Hollywood producer to shout, "More fill light!"

[/quote]
Wow, this guy must be a first-year film student. This reminds me of some shoots I've been on. "There's a shadow on her face, we need to get rid of that." Add another light. "There's a shadow on the wall behind her, we need to do something about that." Add another light. "Okay, action!" The actors begin. "Wait, cut! There's a shadow on that chair, we need more fill light." Somehow these people think flat=good and shadows=evil.

To quote Jack Horner, "There are shadows in life, baby!"

This Cloverfield review is my choice for rediculosity of the year. I can't even follow the writer's train of thought!

colinr0380 wrote:This Cloverfield review is my choice for rediculosity of the year. I can't even follow the writer's train of thought!

Did you consider the possibility that the review was a joke?

I don't think the review's a joke - it just seems to be written in a particular style for a particular target audience. And on that score it read convincingly enough to me.

But then it's like the movie heard you calling it a pussy so it puts on its dick-stomping boots and then surprises your dick with a punch from a fist wearing a cock-punch glove.

That popping sound you just heard was the English language folding in on itself.

MichaelB wrote:I don't think the review's a joke - it just seems to be written in a particular style for a particular target audience. And on that score it read convincingly enough to me.

Scary.

;~}

It's probably not a joke that this guy has seen the movie, but it's obviously written to be funny (and boy does it succeed). Just Google "Neill Cumpston" to see his other reviews.

From 300:

It's about these 300 Greek dudes who stomp the sugar-coated shit out of like a million other dudes. I have a feeling that a lot of high school sports coaches are going to show this film to their teams before they play. Also, gay dudes and divorced women are going to use screen captures for computer wallpaper.

From X2:

I know this movie has another title but that's what it should be called ‘cause this movie kicks balls/ass/both. THANK FUCK THE OSCARS ARE OVER! Bunch of films going, “Ewwh, please don't hit me I'm so delicate and I'm made out of flower petals and also give me a rewardâ€

I prefer a defter touch

Comedian Patton Oswalt is reputedly the pen behind the reviews of Neill Cumpston.

From the review of LOTR3: "This movie will make you forget that if you stick a knife in your belly you'll bleed to death so do not bring a knife to this movie.".

Matt wrote:Come on, folks! This is peerless satire.

Man, I'm seriously laughing out loud at this stuff. Especially the "chicken truck" bit.

I guess if it was meant to be satirical at least I don't have to read the reviews with a mixture of horror and pity. I'll just lump it with Borat as things meant to be horrible in a funny way that I just find horrible!

(Off now to change my Nostalghia wallpaper for one of Gerard Butler!)