criterionforum.org

I guess I'm a little disingenuous in my outrage. I know that the numbers are flawed and don't mean anything. In some sense, the Flixster application sums up Facebook perfectly: so much promise, so little utility.

patrick wrote:"It blew my mind" is possibly the most overused phrase people use to review films these days, it seriously makes my skin crawl. Save it for 2001 or Jodorowsky's films, please.

Or Scanners, of course!

patrick wrote:Another phrase that drives me batty is "mindfuck," I seriously have at least one person come in to the videostore per week and ask for a movie that's a "mindfuck" - and when I ask them what they mean they always say "like Memento or Donnie Darko."

Needless to say, I always recommend them Oldboy or a Miike film, and they often look pissed when they return it.

I would have recommended Eraserhead or Videodrome... truly "mind-fucking" films if there are any.

patrick wrote:"It blew my mind" is possibly the most overused phrase people use to review films these days, it seriously makes my skin crawl. Save it for 2001 or Jodorowsky's films, please. Another phrase that drives me batty is "mindfuck," I seriously have at least one person come in to the videostore per week and ask for a movie that's a "mindfuck" - and when I ask them what they mean they always say "like Memento or Donnie Darko."

Are these terms often said people who have no visible evidence of pupils, or have taken a shower recently?

patrick wrote:"Another phrase that drives me batty is "mindfuck," I seriously have at least one person come in to the videostore per week and ask for a movie that's a "mindfuck" - and when I ask them what they mean they always say "like Memento or Donnie Darko."

Yeah, I've been asked the "mindfuck" question. I didn't know how to react. I didn't know what a mindfuck was until he brought up Donnie Darko. NEVER SUGGEST VIDEODROME. I've had nothing but bad exerinces with people saying it was stupid, or too disgusting.

Just don't recommend movies, the reaction I usually get when I recommend a film is "What else do you have?", and we tend to send an hour looking around the store (This is after suggesting some great films like Le Samourai, Mishima, Harold and Maude, Zelig, and State and Main). The only realy reaction I got out of someone for suggesting a film was State and Main when someone said "It looks to Hollywood."

SncDthMnky wrote:Add me on Facebook so I can stalk you all please.

I did.

Back, to the topic. I use this "Flixter", but I normally don't write anything. Just give it the stars. But, even that I don't take seriously. I really use it to find funny reviews.

Here's something I found on the Oldboy reviews.

There's a character called Old Kid in Invader Zim... I have a feeling this has nothing to do with him, though.

They listed themselves as "Not Interested." Yes...because they don't think this film has to do with a character in a show they like, they don't want to watch it at all. Crazy.

Also, any film praising Donnie Darko in any aspect is instantly ridiculous.

Every now ant then one of those surreal art flicks falls through the cracks and is accepted by the mainstream. Donnie Darko happens to beone of the lucky few.

"Surreal art"? Give me a break. Also, people seem to love this film on the basis that they can't understand it.

I understand it and I still like it. What I don't understand is is that I'm probably the only person here who does like it.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I understand it and I still like it. What I don't understand is is that I'm probably the only person here who does like it.

Yeah, its fine that you like it. But, not being able to comprehend a movie, is NOT a reason to like it. There are a lot of dumb people who like that movie for dumb reasons. You are a poster on a Criterion forum, on the other hand. You should have some grasp of why you personally like movies, and you find things you like about this one. It's not a taste issue mainly because taste is subjective and yadda yadda. But most of the people that like that movie are just idiots. Same goes for Fight Club.

I get some of your point. I too think liking a movie for such reasons is pretty dumb as well. I like Donnie Darko, but it's not one of my favorites. However, Fight Club is one of my favorites and I totally got it from the second viewing on. I'm not really going to defend my liking those films, because the way you put it, I don't really have to be defensive.

Another really good example is Pink Floyd The Wall, which I can feel good about giving a somewhat negative review since Roger Waters himself didn't care much for it. But there are visual, and certain dramatic elements I freely confess to admiring. I'm just too much of a film buff now to see it as the long, strange trip so many fans of PF's music do take when seeing it.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:However, Fight Club is one of my favorites and I totally got it from the second viewing on.

What is there not to get about Fight Club. I thought the movie spells itself out very well.

Cold Bishop wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:However, Fight Club is one of my favorites and I totally got it from the second viewing on.

What is there not to get about Fight Club. I thought the movie spells itself out very well.

I could be wrong about that, actually. It's been about 6 years since I first saw it. After watching it for the first time, I immediately watched it again. I think watching it the second time made it more satisfying to watch.

BTW, for anyone who does like it like I do, does anyone find it just funny as hell during certain scenes?

Cold Bishop wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:However, Fight Club is one of my favorites and I totally got it from the second viewing on.

What is there not to get about Fight Club. I thought the movie spells itself out very well.

Too well, if anything - I'd got everything there was to get by the halfway mark, and spent the rest of the film twiddling my thumbs waiting for something new to happen.

teddyleevin wrote:But, not being able to comprehend a movie, is NOT a reason to like it.

Well, there's always Bunuel throwing a monkey-wrench into that equation. Of course, there's a lot more to Bunuel's genius than his purposeful ambiguity/obscurity, but not always understanding what's going on is definitely part of the charm of his films.

So I see what you mean, but perhaps we should make some sort of allowance for the appeal of ambiguity, even if some people can't articulate it.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Another really good example is Pink Floyd The Wall, which I can feel good about giving a somewhat negative review since Roger Waters himself didn't care much for it. But there are visual, and certain dramatic elements I freely confess to admiring. I'm just too much of a film buff now to see it as the long, strange trip so many fans of PF's music do take when seeing it.

I, myself, am a fan of the Wall film. I'd prefer to watch the movie over listening to the album anyday, as it's one of my least favorite Floyd albums to begin with. It's just such a cool movie to watch. And, Roger's commentary track is hilarious.

tryavna wrote:Well, there's always Bunuel throwing a monkey-wrench into that equation. Of course, there's a lot more to Bunuel's genius than his purposeful ambiguity/obscurity, but not always understanding what's going on is definitely part of the charm of his films.

I've never seen any Bunuel (except Un Chien Andalou, which may not even be similar to his other work) but, based on your description, I can can kind of get a glimpse of how his films would be, and its perfectly fine.

teddyleevin wrote:I, myself, am a fan of the Wall film. I'd prefer to watch the movie over listening to the album anyday, as it's one of my least favorite Floyd albums to begin with. It's just such a cool movie to watch. And, Roger's commentary track is hilarious.

I can't recommend the DVD highly enough, because the picture quality still holds up and the sound is fantastic. Even if you didn't like the movie but are a Floyd fan, it's essential viewing. I'm really hoping the band releases the concert footage that was shot for the original concept of the film adaptation.

teddyleevin wrote:I've never seen any Bunuel (except Un Chien Andalou, which may not even be similar to his other work)

That's something you'll want to remedy ASAP.

And no, Chien isn't really like the rest of his output. Three obvious differences are: (1) it's his shortest film; (2) he made only one other silent (though L'Age d'Or is actually one of those part-silent, part-talkie experiments); and (3) it's as much Dali's work as it is Bunuel's. It's a fun movie and deserves its reputation, but there are plenty of other Bunuels that are better.

The dreaded Mike Restaino strikes again.

Apparently Ivan's Childhood is "more Terry Gilliam than Sergei Eisenstein" and "reeks of all style and no substance".

Well I never.

MichaelB wrote:The dreaded Mike Restaino strikes again.

Restaino wrote:Ivan's childhood is shat upon when German soldiers massacre his parents...

Well, that's one way to put it.

Though he did not like the film himself, a Netflix user has this to say for Do the Right Thing:

This movie is recomended for african americans

but watching Solaris just made me think that the guy was a hell of a philosopher but a mishmash of a filmmaker.

What the fuck?

from imdb.com, regarding Mr. Show with Bob and David:

coolidgefan01 wrote:A wonderful show to watch but never have I seen something to degrading to women. The title alone gives away the pseudo machoism before you even start watching, 'Mr.' How degrading can you be? In the skit 'Change for a dollar' you can also notice that at every level of business a man is in charge, from store clerk to president. What I can't believe about the whole thing is that no one else notices such an over sight. Nobody looks at the gender bias issue on television anymore. Maybe I am just a little more enlightened then the rest.

Coolidgefan01 should have stuck around for Season four's episode titled "Show me Your Weenis" where they have a sketch called Mr. Show's Boys Clubs which admits their fiendish bias.

coolidgefan1 is obviously trying to be funny

domino harvey wrote:coolidgefan1 is obviously trying to be funny

That's what I thought, but their other review for Hulk is serious as cancer. I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

People trying to write ironic "funny" reviews are just as terrible as serious ones, so either way. However, I did enjoy his use of the term "pseudo machoism"