'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[domino harvey]

3.0 out of 5 stars Sucks to be you..., June 19, 2014
This review is from: White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki [HD] (Amazon Instant Video)
This was an explosive movie! A must see if feel Japan was a bunch of sneaky murdering son of a bitches who got exactly what they deserved.

[bamwc2]

3.0 out of 5 stars Sucks to be you..., June 19, 2014
This review is from: White Light/Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki [HD] (Amazon Instant Video)
This was an explosive movie! A must see if feel Japan was a bunch of sneaky murdering son of a bitches who got exactly what they deserved.

Yes, all of the innocent non-combatants like children and the elderly who perpetrated the bombing of Pearl Harbor got exactly what they deserved. [-X

[Movie-Brat]

Another jingoistic and racist dude. Why do these people even exist?

[Lemmy Caution]

Just to make you an elitist ...

[kidc85]

Does this person actually mean that if you think the Japanese "was a bunch of sneaky murdering son of a bitches who got exactly what they deserved" you should watch this movie, because it's really sobering and will change your mind? I hope for humanity's sake I'm right. But then, if it's not one it's just somebody else...

IF THIS WAS MADE TODAY THEY'D BE A MAN IN A WHEELCHAIR AN SOME BLACK PEOPLE TO MAKE IT PC AND CRAP. AS THIS WAS THE 50S, ENTERTAINMENT COMES FIRST, SO ITS NOT BAD.

Quite.

[Gregory]

I think the title of the review, "Sucks to be you..."* is referring to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

*For any youngsters who may not be familiar with this phrase, it was a lame putdown that was popular in the 1990s, which meant something like "Hey, that's your problem, not mine!" or "Haha, you deserve it!" [raises hand to forehead in the shape of an "L" for "loser"]

[jindianajonz]

That reviewer can go suck an egg

[domino harvey]

If you have not yet encountered this particular exercise in misogyny and essentialist cisgender male/female relationships, I will summarize. A female apple tree is friends with a boy. At first they both benefit. As he gets older, he gets more and more demanding- in the end, requiring her very body so he can have a luxury boat- and she does it all. At the end he is old and sits on her stump, and she's happy.

Prescriptive much?

OK, so how about we do some gender-bending here. What if the kid was a girl and the apple tree a male? Would that scenario even be plausible to any but the most rabid, fact-free Men's Rights Activists (who are convinced this is going on all the time, but only because the LAW requires their sacrifices! Woez!)?

Or- even better- how about if the tree and the kid were both female, or both male? Would this look anything LIKE a healthy, wholesome relationship? -This is probably the most telling, because it gets sex-roles, gender-roles and essentialism totally out of the picture, leaving only individuals in a perversely co-dependent (Wikipedia says S/M, but I disagree) relationship.

But! The crappy messages are hidden because of the sex-essentialist writing of the original. This means that boys- it's a kids' book, after all- are being encouraged to be pushy, even when they know it will be devastating to the female ("Hey, she could always say NO!"), and girls are encouraged to sacrifice literally ALL to a male who clearly does not have her best interests at heart- or even under random consideration.

It is a formula to make Good Girls who acquiesce to every damn thing Teh Menz or Teh Boyz or Teh Authoritiez "ask" of them, and gives utterly NO grounds to say "Hell, no!" Because Good Females don't DO that.

I never even let my daughter take this one out of the library when she was a kid. Although, if I were doing it now I might... but I'd genderbend it and have a discussion.

[matrixschmatrix]

That sounds like one of the dumb 4Chan-based attempts to mock social justice blogging more than the real deal, to me.

[domino harvey]

I was suspect as well, but read the 500+ other reviews, the author appears serious (they mention many of these concerns in less strident tones in other reviews)-- sometimes SJ bloggers are as crazy as the oppositional imitation

[Feego]

Not a review, but this is from the product description on Amazon, DVD Planet, and other sites apparently provided by the DVD company Industrial Entertainment for their release of The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith:

The highly explosive and equally funny story of Jimmie Blacksmith...

I guess I missed something on my last viewing?

[sir_luke]

Netflix's summary of Annie Hall strikes me as very awkwardly written:

"A nebbish with killer jokes meets a gal who wears ties like nobody's biz. A little neurosis never hurt a love story."

[domino harvey]

THIS IS NOT CHILDREN FRIENDLY ok. My son uses the internet to find music and then i find this!!! What the heck is this, is this what we have come to i mean come on. I have blocked my son from this page because the music is just terrible and the album picture would get dress coded if she went to school like that. i am very disappointed in whoever made this album.

From the user reviews for the new Die Antwoord album. Now admittedly I wouldn't want a little kid listening to Die Antwoord either, but I have to have a good laugh at blocking Amazon in an effort to discourage her son from finding one of the most easily visible thanks to the internet bands imaginable

And criticizing the cover as being "school unfriendly" is also a pretty funny point of reference-- all musical artists should really factor how their clearly stylized dress would function within a primary school eviron. My CD's in the mail but I think it is sold in a "plain brown wrapper" slipcover in a few territories anyways!

[Gregory]

Blu-ray.com review of Clueless written in the voice of Cher.
My reply would be, "Can I please give you some advice?"

[domino harvey]

Blu-ray.com review of Clueless written in the voice of Cher.

[sir_luke]

My library's website has begun allowing members to post comments on any item, which is turning out to be a really bad idea as it only ends up demonstrating how few library patrons actually know how to read or think. As an example, I will use these engaging reviews of The Departed.

BabyHeath: "This Is One My Favorite Movies.......Its Really For Mature Audiences..... To Even Understand Why You Love It......"

greenhornet7689: "biil would like to see jack nickolson"

COURIER3: "MARTIN S. FILMS HAVE TO MUCH VIOLENCE. HE IS A SHOCK DIRECTOR. I ONLY WATCHED IT BECAUSE IT WAS TAKEN FROM
REAL LIFE OF A CRIMINAL,. WHITEY BOLGER WHO ALONG WITH GIRL FRIEND FINALLY CAPTURED.. A KILLING SPREE.
CORRUPT COPS.."

[Gregory]

The worst thing about it is that libraries apparently must allow crap like that to have a relationship with "Bibliocommons" or whatever interface with the online community, and thus the same (non-)reviews get posted to library listings nationwide. So even worse than Amazon, where at least people can reply to "reviews," that say things like "biil would like to see jack nickolson" (that's the entire "review/comment," here they get posted on all kinds of library sites with no way to even respond to tell the "reviewer" that they're writing incomprehensible garbage (not that such comments necessarily have any effect). It's unfortunate when library websites, which in my view should be dedicated to cataloguing actual information about the item listed (which in my experience can sometime be in short supply) instead encourage the worst qualities of the internet, for no apparent purpose except to encourage random users to "interact" even when their contribution is something like: "To Even Understand Why You Love It" followed by a series of periods.
I'm not out to censor anyone, but perhaps the whole emphasis on privileging unedited "user" reviews has gone too far.

[Numero Trois]

For what its worth, at least some of those library reviews might be made by children. The ones quoted above kind of read that way.

[Feego]

For what its worth, at least some of those library reviews might be made by children. The ones quoted above kind of read that way.

Unfortunately, I can testify that it is not just children who write like that. At my job, I receive e-mails everyday from professional adults in their 30s, 40s, and 50s that are written in a similar manner. Horrible spelling, no sense of grammar, and ... insane uses of periods........

[Gregory]

I missed this milestone back in June, but Harriet Klausner, the hardest-working fraudulent reviewer in show business, posted her 30,000th review. The comment thread under the review is good for a few laffs. Klausner claims to be a speed-reader but what she really does is rephrase publisher descriptions of books and inserts other slap-dash nonsense (often incoherently or inaccurately), posting about 48 reviews per week, and then resells the unread review copies on Half.com—books that she received for the purpose of reading and writing an actual review of them. Her reviews are voted "helpful" by Amazon customers 3 times out of 4. Here's a link to some of the detective work.
EDIT: removed Klausner-esque ungrammatical final sentence.

[domino harvey]

I feel like this thread is slowly just becoming a Blu-ray.com awful review thread

Some enterprising filmmaker might want to revisit The Children's Hour, though it would probably work best if it were set back in the 1930s when accusations of lesbianism still carried a bit of shock value. While that shock value was still around in 1961, this film's steadfast refusal to deal with its subject matter head on means that audiences get to do a lot of reading between the lines, which tends to sap the film of dramatic momentum.

Yeah, Wyler could totally have just thrown his arms up and said "Look at these dykes," huh There are plenty of valid criticisms of this film (And I look forward to revisiting it later this week once the Blu-ray arrives, if anyone would like to talk about the film in ways other than the above), but this argument is ignorant beyond belief of the codes, mores, and systems at work in Hollywood upon its release

Also, don't search for the Children's Hour on this forum unless you've seen the film (there's no dedicated thread if you're looking for one), as one of our esteemed members spoils the ending without warning in a tangentially-related thread-- which I still bitterly recall to this day, having stumbled upon it before watching the film

[knives]

Hope it wasn't me that did the spoiling. But yeah, for as problematic as the film is (though I am curious to see the straight version Wyler did before) it serves as its own refutation of that borderline incoherent criticism. If the material wasn't shocking in the '60s why would everything need to be codified? That's just a frustratingly dumb line of criticism.

[MichaelB]

Also, don't search for the Children's Hour on this forum unless you've seen the film (there's no dedicated thread if you're looking for one), as one of our esteemed members spoils the ending without warning in a tangentially-related thread-- which I still bitterly recall to this day, having stumbled upon it before watching the film

I don't understand why the spoiler is still there - presumably you asked the author to re-edit the post to remove or hide it? And surely if he's that esteemed, he'd have done so, presumably horrified about the outcome of a genuine mistake?

[domino harvey]

Another mod edited the post in question to spoiler tag the appropriate portion, but unfortunately it still shows up un-spoilered when performing a board search. So it won't be an issue if you stumble upon the thread for other reasons, but searching for "the Children's Hour" is still perilous

[MichaelB]

Gotcha.