criterionforum.org

Hopscotch wrote:Imagine: "An inscrutable, predictably 'deconstructive' genre movie in which Godard lashes out at his ex-wife again while executing a curiously hollow retread of his previous films -- replete with brow-furrowingly extensive references to mid-60's French politics!"

Count Marco wrote:The 1950's brought us some powerful filmmaking from fresh new French directors who were often raised on American films, especially noir. Bresson's Pickpocket is not one of those great films. Contrary to the genre listings, it is decidedly NOT a "crime drama" and anyone expecting one will be disappointed. In fact, this pure "slice of life" experiment in naturalism doesn't pretend or attempt to be a "drama" at all. There is simply no plot and no attempt at plot. Yes, it looks and sounds like a kind of noir-inspired French crime movie, but it is not. No one smiles, no one has motivations, no plot evolves. There is beautiful artistry in the cinematography, and 1950's Paris has never looked better in black-and-white (including the subways), and the film offers a startlingly realistic look into the amazing skill of professional pickpockets. But that's it. Truth in advertising mandates calling this a great film for professional students of the development of French cinema. For the rest of us, it is painfully slow and numbingly dull. (The reviewers who praise this do so to maintain their artisitic "cred.")

Senses is an extremely dirty movie. It's hardcore erotica and explicit enough that if Jerry and George were passing it in the locker room on Seinfeld, they'd use a copy of Tropic of Cancer to cover it up. Yes, Henry Miller is the less salacious of the two evils.

Magic Hate Ball wrote:It's sort of funny in a way when someone completely misunderstands the concept behind a message or comment board and writes everything like a letter. I had an aunt who did this in MSN messenger:

MHB: So thanksgiving dinner's at 6?
Aunt: Dear MHB, Yes, that's right. Love, Aunt.
MHB: We should be up by 3.
Aunt: Dear MHB, Sounds good. Love, Aunt.

imdb wrote:Like Jean Renoir and Max Ophüls, Paul Thomas Anderson's films are characterized by a constantly moving camera. Like François Truffaut and Martin Scorsese, his films are the work of a true "cineaste", someone with an encyclopedic knowledge of film and film technique, who is able to make tried-and-true techniques as fresh and as vibrant as when D.W. Griffith first started to discover them. Like Robert Altman, Anderson thrives on working with large ensembles of actors. Like Steven Spielberg and Tim Burton, his films often depict suburban America as a place of alienation, and his characters are often alienated people who must in some way or another learn to assimilate themselves into some kind of family environment.

IMDB wrote:Like Paul Thomas Anderson, Paul Thomas Anderson directs the films of Paul Thomas Anderson.

Netflix Review of Vicky Cristina Barcelona wrote:Utter piece of garbage. It's no wonder so many have dysfunctional relationships. Everyone is slowly being brainwashed by hollywood trash like this film. Anyone with traditionnal values should avoid this. Those with no values and who are liars and cheats will love this film.

Netflix review of You Don't Mess With the Zohan wrote:I wouldn't rate this movie. It could of been cute if it didn't have the so called sex gestures. We stopped it after about 15 minutes into the movies, and that was a wasted 15 mnutes.

domino harvey wrote:

Netflix review of You Don't Mess With the Zohan wrote: It could of been cute if it didn't have the so called sex gestures

God knows who decided that Chaucer was a good author. Buy it and be prepared to be bored for 2 hours.
I've just tried to watch it again with my girlfriend to see if I have missed something...........No.......its terrible, and all I have to add is the awful wooden delivery by the American army bloke who is in it. He delivers his lines like a retarded 4 year-old and serves no favours to those who already believe that Americans are a bit "slow". Couldn't make it to the end on a second watch. You have been warned.

While we are on the topic, we should also drop those other 2 clowns - William Wordsworth and Thomas Hardy - from the education syllabus. Its extraordinary how people waste their time with this sort of thing. Someone has to take control.

This is a cretinously stupid review of a cinematic masterpiece.

jbeall wrote:"Neil Saunders" response excoriating Alex de Silva was pretty spot-on:

This is a cretinously stupid review of a cinematic masterpiece.

Tom Amolad wrote: It can be manipulative as hell in its unquestioning worship of the past, and then transition straight into a scene like the one between Colpeper and Alison in the grass that can acknowledge and respect the "earthquake" of changes the war was bringing and, more importantly, render its characters' love for the past important not as something normative but as something idiosyncratic and personal, in a way I find quite moving.

Netflix review of Mulholland Dr wrote:Surely, it was as bad as anything I have ever seen, including a few cars wrecks I have seen. It was nonsensical, abrupt, disjointed, and without any rhythm. Had not the beautiful Rita/Camilla not been in the movie it would have been without a single merit. If my sentence structure is such that you do not understand the premise of this review: I hated the movie.

Tommaso wrote:

Tom Amolad wrote: It can be manipulative as hell in its unquestioning worship of the past, and then transition straight into a scene like the one between Colpeper and Alison in the grass that can acknowledge and respect the "earthquake" of changes the war was bringing and, more importantly, render its characters' love for the past important not as something normative but as something idiosyncratic and personal, in a way I find quite moving.

My personal take on the film is that it almost constantly questions the worship of the past, without wanting to dismiss it, paradoxically; the lecture scene is the best example, of course, with Colpeper quite intentionally appearing as if he was one of the great manipulator figures from German silent cinema; the constant self-reflexity of the film, the way how it directs our attention to the 'fabrication' of its 'transcendent' images (remember all the discussions about film in the film?) makes it difficult for me to see the film as "unquestioning worship of the past"; Colpeper does it, but not the film itself, as you yourself say when you note its ambivalence. The question is rather whether an audience in 1944 would have regarded these self-reflexive moments to be as important as we do now; perhaps not; and as you say, the film wasn't a big success in its time.
In any case, the worship of the past or at least a clearer anti-modern stance, in a far less ambivalent way, can be seen in IKWIG.