criterionforum.org

Posted: **Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:58 am**

So he's that guy at the checkout counter

Posted: **Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:13 am**

Steven H wrote:It stemmed from a competition with a friend to think of the worst Christmas movie.

In that case, you'll want to check this out.

When I was about ten, I loved Santa Clause: The Movie, which was on HBO all the time. I haven't seen it in over 20 years, and it does indeed look terrible now. I really want to check out Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny and The Magic Christmas Tree now.

Posted: **Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:46 am**

amazon.com reviewer wrote: the kid has the weirdest name in history (counting socrates)

I'm guessing the source for this was Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, and not a longstanding interest in ethics and epistemology...

Posted: **Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:59 am**

fiddlesticks wrote:Not really a review as such, here is how Amazon.co.uk describes the Bill Douglas Trilogy:
Amazon.co.uk wrote:Synopsis
In MY CHILDHOOD and MY AIN FOLK director Bill Douglas reflects on his own childhood growing up in a poverty-stricken Scottish mining village in the 1940s. MY WAY HOME tells the story of a young teenager who is captured by Soviet soldiers in the final throes of World War II.
Caveat emptor.

They're confusing the Bill Douglas film with Jancso's MY WAY HOME, obviously. One of the Amazon staffers looked up the wrong IMDb plot description.

Hmmm... makes me wonder if some poor soul ever mixed up the plot description for WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY with WILLY WANKER AND THE ORGY FACTORY.

Posted: **Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:41 pm**

pookwierzba wrote:please touch the axe s'il vous plaît, 11 June 2008
9/10
Author: pookwierzba from Canada

So I went back into a book I was reading a few weeks ago, The Dreams of Interpretation: A Century Down the Royal Road, finding this perfect quote from the editors describing the illumination of the space between Pascal (19th Century) and Freud (20th) which the movie by Jacques Rivette that I saw tonight so monumentally demonstrated (and which is so fundamental to what I am experiencing myslef): "If, in the century in which Freud's own life began, it was still necessary to secure a stronghold as Pascal's Wager thus had to be transformed, honed into the sharpest superegoic injunction imaginable - "believe" - as the only apparent means to this end; if thus it was still apparently necessary to submit to the Father at every instant, to remain standing awake all night to assure one's salvation - if this is the way the post-Copernican theologians would have it, Freud, nonetheless, and lucky for us, offers a new turn, something quite different, in the necessity of thought and practice." Yup. As powerful a film as I've seen in ages. Those who hate it loathe the cinema. Luckily for them it is dying.

Posted: **Wed Dec 24, 2008 4:09 am**

Schkura wrote:I love speding a few minutes every Sunday perusing the CAP Alerts. Here's a blast from the past-- their assessment of Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes.

I didn't know about this page, but I am enjoying their "review" of Quills.

Quills (R) -- no comment.

I left after 42 minutes of the 135-minute show when the group sex with nudity appeared. I will tell you nothing more about the content details or storyline of *Quills* in this Summary/Commentary, but will let the Findings/Scoring section reveal the truth about the first 42 minutes of it. Nor will I quote any Scripture applicable to the issues I saw and heard. I would have to quote almost every Scripture there is which admonishes and warns us of sexual immorality, perverse speech and vile imagery. In the vernacular of the movie, I did suffer most heinously immoral atrocities and wounds afflicted in and by much personal armed and aggressive battle with the demon decision whether to spend precious slivers of my life to engineer the architecture of this report package of the cinematic abbreviation by and in which I was morally and ethically offended.

Posted: **Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:08 am**

So let me get this straight... he voluntarily goes to a film about the Marquis de Sade and complains that he was "morally and ethically offended"? And thinks that this is a valid negative criticism?

The CAP guy never reviewed Salò, did he?

Posted: **Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:40 pm**

The only thing offensive about Quills is Joaquin Phoenix's abysmal performance.

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:21 pm**

Of all of the "rediculous" premises of the CAP Alert, my favorite is that they sound the alarm for parents to protect their children from some films that chidren will very obviously not be interested in at all. Nothing like seeing immoral flicks on the church's dime.

"For those of you who thought Quills was the poignant tale of a precocious animated porcupine, after 42 minutes I can tell you with a reasonable degree of certitude that it is not."

Posted: **Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:45 am**

I have been coming across some strange reviews on Netflix. I signed up with this board to post this from a review of "Andre Rieu: Radio City Music Hall":

I just love this conductor...especially the fact that tho he is serious about his music, he is so wonderfully happy while on stage and not the usual over serious type we often see who think they are recreating civilization; his humor is wonderful. And, by the way; again, I tell you that your response of you already have this movie or you already saw this movie, now what? sounds extremely rude to me....it is why I stopped reviewing anything. We all make mistakes and forget and we all get older...wait and see.

from the same person reviewing "Four-Star Playhouse":

I want to make sure you send me the next one in the right order and sometimes that does not happen...you sound so rude.

Posted: **Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:03 pm**

He's got a real campaign against rudeness going there. I love it when people use rating and reviewing systems to criticize the service/retailer itself. This happens all the time on Amazon. People give one star and a nasty review to a product because it arrived after their niece's birthday.

Posted: **Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:36 pm**

Matt wrote:He's got a real campaign against rudeness going there. I love it when people use rating and reviewing systems to criticize the service/retailer itself. This happens all the time on Amazon. People give one star and a nasty review to a product because it arrived after their niece's birthday.

Or when they ordered the wrong film altogether, as quoted by me many many pages ago.

Sadly, Amazon removed the evidence - I rather liked the fact that the film had one five-star rave (from someone who actually watched it) and a one-star slating (from some idiot who ordered it under the impression that it was something completely different).

Posted: **Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:53 pm**

I also like when people labor under the impression that one star is better than five stars. This happened to me on a set of teaching evaluation forms when I was a teaching assistant in grad school. A couple of my dimmer students gave me glowingly positive comments but "ones" across the board on the Scantron section of the form, apparently not realizing that they were, essentially, giving me an F for every aspect of my teaching. This brought my average score down substantially below all the other TA's, and I got pulled into my professor's office and given a dressing-down. He didn't seem to realize the obvious mistake.

Posted: **Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:21 pm**

Andrew Sarris* seems like he was half-asleep, at best, when watching and reviewing Waltz with Bashir. He starts off calling it "one of the most profoundly explosive animated documentaries I have ever seen." As though this is a common genre which he's used to viewing.

Then he just leaps into outright errors.
Sarris spends the entire second paragraph confused about which of the two characters relates the opening dream sequence. Somewhat inexcusable, since this sets up the premise of the film, leading the filmmaker to realize that he has suppressed his memories, and to search them out from others. The theme of repressed and recovered memories is what guides the whole film.

Next, the title confounds him:
"The title of the film is derived from the subject of one of these stories, of an Israeli daredevil dodging and dancing his way through a barrage of sniper bullets with reckless bravado in a village called Bashir, or is that the name of the Israeli? I forget."

Well, it's explained quite clearly. Bashir is Bashir Jumayel, the Lebanese Christian leader, who's murder triggered the massacre that the film is leading up to. We see hundreds of posters of Bashir, and his significance is remarked upon. The title of the film just might have some importance.

Lastly he shows off his ignorance of ME history by casually referring to the massacre as "this almost forgotten episode in the cauldron of seemingly eternal hostilities in the Middle East." I assume he's unaware that this event caused the resignation of Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, a significant libel case against Time magazine, along with attempted war crimes charges against Sharon in Belgium. So it only resonated on the three continents.
Besides which, this is an Israeli film, and I am almost certain the camp massacres are not almost forgotten either there or in Lebanon.
================================================
* I've heard of Andrew Sarris, but rarely read reviews and am not familiar with many critics. Is this guy just a total hack, or was he just distracted by text messages or whatever when watching the film? A real (george) bush league effort.

Posted: **Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:28 pm**

Lemmy Caution wrote:Lastly he shows off his ignorance of ME history by casually referring to the massacre as "this almost forgotten episode in the cauldron of seemingly eternal hostilities in the Middle East." I assume he's unaware that this event caused the resignation of Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, a significant libel case against Time magazine, along with attempted war crimes charges against Sharon in Belgium. So it only resonated on the three continents.
Besides which, this is an Israeli film, and I am almost certain the camp massacres are not almost forgotten either there or in Lebanon.

Unfortunately this is entirely typical not only of print journalism, but also Middle Eastern (and foreign policy) scholarship. There is no distinction between forgotten in the United States and forgotten.

Posted: **Thu Jan 01, 2009 5:30 pm**

That was actually one of the major criticisms of Claude Lanzmann's 1994 documentary about the Israeli Defence Force, Tsahal - that it somehow managed to omit mentioning the issue of Sabra and Shatila at all during its five and a half hour running time despite lengthy interviews with Ariel Sharon. Following Shoah it was kind of disturbing to see a documentary try to write out the condoning of atrocities from the historical record.

I suppose however Waltz With Bashir has treated its subject, it is at least a move forward that the events have been acknowledged. I don't know how the events were reported in the US (and even major events can be vaguely reported so as to ensure that they have no impact. Events are reported, and weighted, differently everywhere) so it may be possible that Sarris had never been aware of them before. Though more likely he was saying 'almost forgotten' in the context of the main character in the film slowly regaining his repressed memories.

Posted: **Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:32 pm**

I've heard of Andrew Sarris, but rarely read reviews and am not familiar with many critics. Is this guy just a total hack, or was he just distracted by text messages or whatever when watching the film? A real (george) bush league effort.

He's actually one of the major American film critics, and gave the auteur theory one of its major and most famous pushes. He's also eighty, if you're looking for more reasons why he may have nodded during this movie.

Posted: **Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:48 pm**

Still, this is a ludicrous first sentence on many levels:

Waltz With Bashir, written, directed and produced by Ari Folman, with animation by Bridgit Folman Film Gang, with David Polonsky as art director and illustrator, and Yoni Goodman as animation director, plays out as one of the most profoundly explosive animated documentaries I have ever seen, and is clearly one of the best pictures of the year.

Sarris needs an editor and fact-checker by all appearances.
Maybe also someone to nudge him when he starts to doze.

Posted: **Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:39 pm**

Usually his wife Molly Haskell is there to keep him awake, but maybe she nodded off too.

Posted: **Fri Jan 02, 2009 3:22 pm**

Some subversive genius has posted the Australian state censor's "review" of Michael Winterbottom's 9 Songs on the IDMB, and it's a beaut. Since it describes much of the film in graphic (and sexually explicit) detail, I've treated the whole thing as a huge spoiler, so approach with caution.

Spoiler

At 34 seconds the scene depicts the couple in what could be a simulated sex scene. The lighting is subdued, the audience hears heavy breathing. Matt speaks: "I remember her smell, her taste". At approximately 2 minutes 18 seconds the film depicts a scene of apparent cunnilingus. At 2 minutes 43 seconds Matt squeezes Lisa's breast and nipple. At 2 minutes 57 seconds and 3 minutes 10 seconds scenes of what appears to be simulated sex are shown. At 3 minutes 36 seconds Lisa is astride Matt and they appear to be having sex. At 9 minutes 28 seconds is a scene of apparent cunnilingus. At 9 minutes 44 seconds Matt's head is shown between Lisa's legs. At 9 minutes 58 seconds Matt's tongue is shown in Lisa's pubic area. This appears to be a scene of actual sex. At 10 minutes 16 seconds is a scene of implicit sexual intercourse. At 13 minutes 49 seconds an implicit sex scene is shown. There is some moaning and little other detail. At 14 minutes an implicit sex scene is shown and the couple do not use a condom. At approximately 21 minutes the film depicts Matt's erect penis in the bath water. Lisa begins to manipulate his penis with her feet which she does for approximately one minute. Matt's penis lengthens and becomes more erect during this activity. This is a scene of actual sex. At 26 minutes 44 seconds Matt kisses Lisa's breasts. His hands clasp her head more tightly than necessary. There is some discomfort in watching this action, which is not quite menace. At 27 minutes 30 seconds Lisa reads a sexually-charged passage from a book. At approximately 28 minutes 23 seconds Matt blindfolds Lisa. He ties her hands to the bed posts. At 29 minutes 12 seconds is a visual of Lisa's pubic area shown at a low angle and between her legs as she lies on the bed. There is some genital detail. At 29 minutes 46 seconds Matt's head is shown between Lisa's legs in the area of her genitals. There are further visuals of Lisa's blindfolded face with her mouth open and of her breasts. At 30 minutes 28 seconds Matt's tongue is shown and he apparently licks Lisa's pubic area. At 31 minutes Matt's head is off to one side but still depicted between Lisa's legs. Lisa says, as if still reading, "she grabs his balls and puts his cock in her mouth. Fudg me man. Fudg me, come up here." At 32 minutes 37 seconds Matt has his erect penis in his hand. At 33 minutes Matt is stride Lisa, she is still bound, she tries to alter the position of her hands but is unable to free them. She says "Fudg me". This continuous scene is shown for approximately 5 minutes. In the background during the scene is piano music that is soft and slow. The other sounds heard are the couple's breathing. The scene ends at 34 minutes 30 seconds. At 37 minutes 53 seconds Lisa is shown blind folded (but not bound). Matt holds her head. Lisa says "do it harder". Matt holds her neck and massages it firmly. There is a low-level sense of menace. At 38 minutes 29 seconds Lisa takes Matt's hand and puts it in her vaginal area. At 40 minutes 15 seconds Lisa is shown apparently using a dildo to stimulate herself. At 41 minutes Lisa is shown breathing rapidly, she makes some moaning sounds. At 42 minutes 39 seconds Lisa is shown in bed with a top on and without knickers. She is implicitly using a vibrator. Matt is watching her from a distance. Lisa is shown prone on the bed, moving very little. She apparently reaches climax. Matt walks away. At 47 minutes 58 seconds Lisa ties Matt to the bed, she slaps his face with her open hand and puts her stiletto heel into his chest and puts her weight on her foot. She then puts her booted foot onto Matt's legs. She undresses. At 49 minutes 45 seconds Lisa asks Matt "do my nipples feel sore to you? They are." At 50 minutes a two-minute scene of actual sex commences. Lisa kisses Matt's penis and pulls at his testicles. She holds his penis in her mouth (actual sex), she manipulates his penis with her hand (actual sex), her hand is shown repeatedly manipulating Matt's penis (actual sex). Matt explicitly ejaculates (actual sex). His semen is explicitly shown spurting out of the end of his penis onto his chest and stomach (actual sex). Lisa continues to fondle Matt after he climaxes. The scene is prolonged and contains significant detail. At approximately 60 minutes an actual sex scene of two minutes duration is shown. At 60 minutes Lisa removes her knickers and the couple start to fondle each other. At 60 minutes 28 seconds, explicit vaginal penetration is shown. The camera angle is at the end of the bed as the shaft of Matt's penis explicitly enters Lisa's vagina. Her vagina is visible and some detail is shown including pubic hair, open labia and moist clitoral region. Matt's penis is erect and wet. The camera angle is from the end of the bed toward the couple. Matt is on his knees facing away from the camera and is seen in mid shot. His buttocks and testicles are shown. The shaft of his penis is shown explicitly entering Lisa's vagina and partly withdrawing and moving up and down, re-entering her vagina in a rhythmic manner. The scene is prolonged and detailed and ends at approximately 62 minutes and 21 seconds. The film ends at 69 minutes 23 seconds.

John Waters said that a similar "review" of Pink Flamingos, commissioned by a district attorney seeking to prosecute it for obscenity, was one of the funniest things he'd ever read.

Posted: **Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:01 pm**

Here's a beautiful and moving review of New Yorker's latest compilation of Herzog shorts from a distinguished Netflix reviewer.

eji 1788776 wrote:Werner Herzog, the director, is a complete jerk that has no skills, no talent and no judgment. He is a fake, a phony and to those who buy into his crap, you are no better. The guy sticks a microphone into the faces of participants and does little more. He records anything to fill up his films and edits out virtually nothing. The topics he chose are interesting and had potential, however, it is basically a triple feature, (1) mountaineering, (2) Nicaragua sorry stories of war and (3) utter garbage lasting 10 minutes about horse race trainers. The mountaineering episode is boring and it gets more boring as it goes along. The horse racing commentary is idiotic, I did not find anything humorous and it is all in subtitles unless you understand German. And, finally, the Nicaragua child fighters was decent but the director just kept filming the kids to no end to fill up the documentary as they rambled or were at a loss for words. Pass on this crap, it is the same old garbage from Herzog, stick a microphone in the faces and put it on film, same old script.

By the way, the quote marks around the word rediculous in the title of this thread completely ruin the joke.

Posted: **Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:50 pm**

People who think Netflix is a real person, Exhibit A (for the movie In & Out):

Posted: **Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:52 pm**

Ishmael wrote:By the way, the quote marks around the word rediculous in the title of this thread completely ruin the joke.

We had to put those there because people kept posting "You misspelled 'ridiculous' in the thread title." The only thing worse than ruining a joke is having to explain it.

Posted: **Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:49 pm**

Matt wrote:We had to put those there because people kept posting "You misspelled 'ridiculous' in the thread title." The only thing worse than ruining a joke is having to explain it.

Now that you say that, I remember it happening, but I never understood why you felt obligated to explain the joke.

Posted: **Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:10 am**

Wait, that's not how you spell it?

criterionforum.org

'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

For the "perplexingly pretentious" category

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews