criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:A twelve-year-old girl somehow has a Netflix account and has this to say about the Wicker Man

One word HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!!! This movie is HORRIBLE! The people are crazy and the ending is RETARDED!! The whole thing is ewwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!! There are naked girls and naked scenes...I HATE THIS MOVIE!! DO NOT WATCH!! IS THE BEST ADVISE I HAVE EVER GIVEN!!!!!!!!!! DO NOT WATCH!!!!

There were a lot of cleaver laughs and Isla Fisher was as hot and stupid as ever.

domino harvey wrote:I love you, Netflix Comments

There were a lot of cleaver laughs and Isla Fisher was as hot and stupid as ever.

The main reason this movie got two stars was because of how incredibly long it was. In addition, it was in black and white with white subtitles. I did like how when the people were stabbed with an arrow, they died. Not like in today's films, where someone has a bleeding neck and they still are windmill kicking you in the face. The plot was extremely realistic in theory. I liked that. There were a few lines in the movie that I thought were really wise and special to hear. But still 3 hours, black and white with white subtitles - I fell asleep. It took me 3 watches just to make it to the Intermission. SNORE.

knives wrote:

- - The plot was extremely realistic in theory. - -

Seven Samurai by the way.

On [b]the Barefoot Contessa[/b] wrote:The movie suffers from the fatal flaw of telling the story via narration. For a film, I would rather see the story told via acting as opposed to speaking. A flat, depressing, and dark film that comes together at the end with a number of adult themes. The film is labored and tedious, and certainly does not flow, although the individual performers put in some good performances.

On [b]Virtual Flames[/b] wrote:This DVD is 3 different fire place scenes. That's it. You choose the one you want, and it plays for 30 minutes, and then loops continuously. No music. The sound is the crackling of the fire. Basically, you are looking at a close-up of a fire for 30 minutes. I prefer the real thing.

On [b]the Inauguration of Barack Obama[/b] wrote:After observing this man's assault on achievement, I don't even have to rent the DVD to know that this DVD is a 1 out of 5. What a disaster. This guy has no clue about America and what makes it special.

On [b]Seven Days in May[/b] wrote:Sigh, here we go again. Another film trashing those who wear the uniform, and praising those who stand-down from conflict. Does anyone out there study history? Like Dr. Strangelove and also Fail Safe here is another film, another 1960's film, dramatizing the fact that nuclear weapons do exist in the world. We already know that they are dramatic, and no, they are not going to go away. Does anyone really believe that a piece of paper keeps evil people from doing evil things? Have you ever heard of Neville Chamberlain? This film takes itself very seriously, almost to the point of being comedic. I suppose the premise of a military coup occurring in the United States, in the face of the Constitution is interesting. In so many other ways, the Constitution has been trashed, so why not the possibility of a military coup as well?

On [b]the Wild Reporter[/b] wrote:A weak plot along with weak acting performances add up to a poor film! Gave up on this one after about fifteen minutes or so of watching.

On [b]His Girl Friday[/b] wrote:What a horrible film. As is predictable, the dialogue is described as "crackling." I don't think so. This movie makes at least three fatal errors. The first is that, in my opinion, a film-maker can not effectively maintain a high level of conflict essentially throughout an entire film without sustaining audience fatigue. When everything is conflict all the time with no relief, after awhile, the audience just doesn't care anymore. The second fatal flaw which is extremely annoying is that this film repeatedly has two, three, or more characters speaking simultaneously. Anyone in radio, theater, film who has any degree of competence knows that to do this consistently is a huge problem. Finally, the intensity in speed of speech constantly pushed by Russell's character wears very thin, very fast. Constantly berating the audience with ever present push of speech reduces her character to hysterics. The film tries very hard to be funny, but that's just it, the film is trying too hard, too overwhelmingly to be funny. It's not funny. The film is effective at sustaining a rapidly changing point of view, but this does not need to be screamed at the audience. One major positive in the film is that it does illustrate the sleazy, crappy, and these days extremely common, necrotic side of journalism, and especially rotten journalists. If you enjoy watching people in conflict, constantly yelling at each other, arguing, and trying to talk over each other for ninety minutes, you will love this film.

On [b]the Crying Game[/b] (Entire review) wrote:This is a story of hatred and broken lives. The assassins were not particularly professional nor efficient.

Some people might find Hour of the Wolf a bit slow-moving, dull, and portentous. I have to admit to falling asleep a number of times while trying to get through it. I also have to admit to being more confused and irritated than scared at Bergman's images. On the other hand, there are people who, after seeing it, have been unable to sleep, and who have had the worst nightmares of their lives.

Please don't watch this film. It's bad. It's really bad. I would hate to think that people are out there renting this and thinking, "I'm going to have a nice night tonight. Just gonna curl up and watch a movie." This film will spoil your night, my friend. It's going to be bad. It's not even one of those movies you can laugh at or make fun of. Oh, please get a backup movie if you're going to get this one. Please. It's just two people talking for two hours. And the whole message is pretentious. Don't do it, man. Please don't.

People who tell you this is a great movie should do so with qualifications. (1) You have to like artsy fartsy films without stories. (2) You have to want to like movies that the average person doesn't like. (3) You have to want to gain experience watching films by directors whose names you can later drop casually into conversation with people who you think might be smarter than you. (4) You have to be interested in film as an art form and be able to talk about it over coffee with a friend or significant other. (5) You're tired of watching Fellini, Godard, and Truffaut films and want to go into unknown foreign classic territory. If all those things are true, then maybe you'll like this film. But you probably won't.

knives wrote:Netflix really is a wealth of knowledge like this My Dinner with Andre review

domino harvey wrote:

On [b]Virtual Flames[/b] wrote:This DVD is 3 different fire place scenes. That's it. You choose the one you want, and it plays for 30 minutes, and then loops continuously. No music. The sound is the crackling of the fire. Basically, you are looking at a close-up of a fire for 30 minutes. I prefer the real thing.

I could never recommend this movie to anyone. The story went from nowhere to nowhere. There were very offensive scenes included. After the second child exploitation/molestation, I turned it off. I was appauled that I even had it in my house.

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful:-
An Amazing Director and Poignant film., 12 September 2008
Author: cpnotebook from Canada

I just watched these 3 short films last night.

I must say, It's quite eerie to have images of the film stick to your mind even though it was shot in black and white. I felt something at the end of the trilogy or the last scene which I've never seen before in any cinematic movie. The directors commentary stated that it was short in one take. It was beautiful yet intimidating and well eye opening.

You should definitely find this in your library there.

2.0 Stars
Okay for all you who want to know if you'll enjoy this 3 hour marathon, you have to ignore the other reviews that revel in the fact that this film won a Cannes Jury prize. Ask yourself if you would like to sit through a 3 hour movie where not much ever happens, exspecially anything scary. If not, you won't enjoy this. If you're curious because it's an artfully crafted film that tells somewhat simple, languid "ghost stories", you may like it. My bet is that most will have a hard time making it through this very long film.

The men just basically talk to each other along the way. In this way, the movie just becomes interminable and surprisingly, the payoff is a major disappointment.

The film has an interesting concept. There is no character development, no one to root for, nor are there any surprising visuals. All there is here is talk. In short, this film would probably serve a purpose to be shown repeatedly to unruly high school students in detention.