Page 127 of 188
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:48 am
by domino harvey
Trigger warning: If you or someone you love is a fuckboy, do yourself a favor and steer clear of Run the Jewels 2.
Opening line to the Pitchfork review. Someone got paid to write that. Someone else was paid to read it first and approve it for online posting. Why is music reviewing a dying art again?
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 am
by Zot!
domino harvey wrote:Trigger warning: If you or someone you love is a fuckboy, do yourself a favor and steer clear of Run the Jewels 2.
Opening line to the Pitchfork review. Someone got paid to write that. Someone else was paid to read it first and approve it for online posting. Why is music reviewing a dying art again?
Can you tell me what any of that means? Run The Jewels sounds like the name of a puzzle game for the Atari Lynx. Love - Dad
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:50 am
by warren oates
I'm just kind of disappointed that Trigger Warning isn't the band name or album title.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:00 pm
by domino harvey
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:39 am
by Movie-Brat
Oh sure, nobody's ever heard of The Cabinet of Dr. Calagari.
That twit.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 4:57 am
by Zot!
Perhaps they meant "horror movies you've probably never heard."
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:25 pm
by Gregory
The list includes Jarmusch's
Only Lovers Left Alive, which made its debut on DVD/Blu
two months ago. Way to really dig into the history of horror film there.
Her write-up of
Funny Games has an inaccuracy in the single sentence summarizing its plot (a vacationing family tormented by "their psychotic neighbors") and asserts that Haneke's timing elevates the film "beyond mere horror," perhaps showing a fundamental contempt for the genre itself.
I thought it was the film's critique of some of the prevailing features of the horror/thrillers—the vicarious and voyeuristic enjoyment of violence within calculated and safely reassuring constraints—that set
Funny Games apart from conventional horror fare, not the "timing" of it.
Maybe this is what happens when someone cranks out something like 17 blog entries in a single week, most of them skimming along the trends of pop culture.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:28 pm
by DeprongMori
They seem to have given the HuffPo article a better title. It's now "11 Art-House Horror Movies To Watch This Halloween Instead Of The Typical Slashers"
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:36 pm
by swo17
And
Under the Skin was on a "you've probably never heard of these" list too? Isn't it one of the biggest films of the year (or is that just on this forum)? There's also
this sister list which rattles through
Eyes Without a Face (again),
Suspiria (again),
Cannibal Holocaust,
Audition, and
The Haunting before finally confessing with
Nosferatu that "Okay, you might have heard of this one."
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:19 pm
by Gregory
DeprongMori wrote:They seem to have given the HuffPo article a better title. It's now "11 Art-House Horror Movies To Watch This Halloween Instead Of The Typical Slashers"
Typical "clickbait-and-switch": the links often have one title, but when you go to the article there's a different title. The enticement is that there may be great horror films out there that we haven't even heard of. What we get is a list of capsule reviews of "art-house horror movies."
Years ago, I copyedited one of these Halloween-season fluff lists by someone who wasn't much of a film fan but threw something together based on hasty internet research. The author ended up recommending Feuillade's
Les Vampires as one of the earliest examples of vampires in cinema, or words to that effect!
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2014 3:28 am
by sir_luke
Indiewire wrote:From its silent-era underwater French documentaries to campy Andy Warhol horror films to Beastie Boys music videos and art-punk pictures like "Border Radio," the Criterion Collection provides thousands of hours of entertainment and provocation.
Definitely an interesting selection of representative titles...
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 3:33 am
by bottled spider
Comment regarding the 2014 Godzilla, posted at (where else?) Mubi:
My friend and I had a good laugh after this movie about Godard having made this film as a meta-satirical joke at Hollywood and calling it Godardzilla.
It's a pun, you see. Me and my intellectual chums had many a jolly meta-chortle about that one.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:41 am
by matrixschmatrix
For real what does 'meta-satirical' mean, like a satire about satires?
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:42 am
by domino harvey
He meant "mecha-satirical," the newest kaiju
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:25 am
by domino harvey
I was lent this by a friend, but couldn't watch more than half an hour or so. It's ridiculous - stupid school-girl antics and lots of French speaking.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:37 pm
by Michael Kerpan
domino harvey wrote:I was lent this by a friend, but couldn't watch more than half an hour or so. It's ridiculous - stupid school-girl antics and lots of French speaking.
Some slightly more useful observations (from a one-star review of the same film):
Lots of ligering shots of marshland and geography that was definately not Scotland. I knew that this was a Swiss production shot on the continent, but it actually wouldn't hurt if somehow some stock footage of Scotland could have been used.
;~}
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 3:35 pm
by sir_luke
Variety on Freddy Got Fingered:
"Green's one-of-a-kind vanity project achieves a kind of Buñuelian brilliance when he delivers a baby on screen and then chews through its umbilical cord."
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:06 pm
by Gregory
That reminds me of part of Ebert's review:
Many years ago, when surrealism was new, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali made "Un Chien Andalou," a film so shocking that Bunuel filled his pockets with stones to throw at the audience if it attacked him. Green, whose film is in the surrealist tradition, may want to consider the same tactic. The day may come when "Freddy Got Fingered" is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:14 am
by MichaelB
I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it, but a review of Michael Winner's Scream for Help quoted the director as saying "It's not your Luis Buñuel, but...", whereupon the reviewer went on to argue that its sheer illogicality meant that from a certain angle it actually had a great deal in common with Buñuel.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:38 am
by colinr0380
sir_luke wrote:Variety on Freddy Got Fingered:
"Green's one-of-a-kind vanity project achieves a kind of Buñuelian brilliance when he delivers a baby on screen and then chews through its umbilical cord."
You know, Freddy Got Fingered is as excrutiating to watch as everyone says, perhaps the bluntest and most misanthrophic 'daddy issues/spoilt son' film there has ever been, but I think it reaches a brief peak of sublime Lynchian insanity in the sequence where we finally get to see Freddy's animated film that he has been working towards (the moment that in a worse film would normally be a lazy justification for the character's previous actions as he turns out to have made a masterpiece) and it involves the character being horrifically torn apart whilst scream-pleading his love for his father over and over and begging not to be hurt!
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 8:35 pm
by domino harvey
Top YouTube comment on an
All About Eve trailer
no one has to apologize for old movies being boring. Like this is supposed to hold up against pulp fiction, and rushmore, and Bladerunner, and Heat, etc etc etc. Stop apologizing for old films. The 60's had a handful of films that were decent. Try and compare them to Godfather or The Shining. It's night and day. Even Citizen Kane can't compete with 80's-present cinema. Let it go. This movie is boring.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2014 9:00 pm
by mfunk9786
Heat and Blade Runner are so much more boring than All About Eve
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:33 am
by zedz
domino harvey wrote:Top YouTube comment on an
All About Eve trailer
no one has to apologize for old movies being boring. Like this is supposed to hold up against pulp fiction, and rushmore, and Bladerunner, and Heat, etc etc etc. Stop apologizing for old films. The 60's had a handful of films that were decent. Try and compare them to Godfather or The Shining. It's night and day. Even Citizen Kane can't compete with 80's-present cinema. Let it go. This movie is boring.
Speaking of boring, why are the favourite films of these guys always
exactly the same ones, drawn from a 1998
Empire magazine's 'Way Coolest Films EVER!" puff piece? It can only imagine his culture shock at encountering a film with female protagonists, the poor wee lamb.
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:44 am
by domino harvey
I was pretty mortified but then I clicked around and found an effusive video by a young boy of probably fifteen who had just seen All About Eve for the first time. He spent seven minutes raving about the film and how amazing it was and it restored my faith in humanity again
(No prizes for guessing what film I'm teaching tomorrow!)
Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 9:57 pm
by swo17
From a movie review blog primarily dedicated to "guy movies," where most of the reviews appear to have a WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? section:
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? It depends on if they a film buff. Everyone who claims to be a movie lover should see "Battleship Potemkin". It is a true classic. It is not particularly macho and since it is not in smell-o-vision, females should be able to get into the story. Certainly the staircase scene tugs at female emotions as many of the victims are women.
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? It depends on whether they enjoy Westerns. "The Searchers" is well-balanced. The plot includes some female roles and some gentle humor. Two men fight over the same woman. Women love that. The action is not graphic. The themes should be interesting for women.
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? The movie does have a lot of talking and is not graphic in its violence. It is also very educational which might be appealing to some females.
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Although there is not a single female that has a speaking role in it, I would think most women would enjoy it but wonder what all the fuss is about.
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? There are strong female characters, even though they are terrorists. It's an interesting movie for both sexes.
WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? More than a male war movie lover. There are two main female characters and one of them kicks ass. The other manipulates two suitors. Something for every female viewer.