criterionforum.org

Altair wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:31 am

Skrmng Skll Th Thd wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:37 am

Matt wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:29 pm Pauline Kael dragged Crowther every chance she got. Her review of Lolita includes the phrase, "Bosley Crowther, who can always be counted on to miss the point..."

Pauline Kael, who can always be counted on to never watch a movie twice, to never change her mind, and to value film as a vicarious "experience" rather than the artifact is is...

And who can usually be counted on to a wonderfully literate, stimulating, and provocative writer. I value film criticism as first and foremost, a piece of writing, and Crowther's fundamental problem (apart from his rampant sexism), is that he writes in a dreadful mid-century 'journalese' speak that has not aged well. Kael's essays and reviews however, are still a pleasure to read.

And don't come at me saying she didn't finish watching all the films she wrote about, or that she played favourites, or that she got Kubrick wrong, and so on, and so forth. Would watching a film twice have made her a better writer? Probably not. And writing about cinema as an experiential art form is perfectly legitimate, because before videos, most people did not encounter the materiality of film, only its expression in flickering projected light.

Altair wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:31 am

Skrmng Skll Th Thd wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:37 am

Matt wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:29 pm Pauline Kael dragged Crowther every chance she got. Her review of Lolita includes the phrase, "Bosley Crowther, who can always be counted on to miss the point..."

Pauline Kael, who can always be counted on to never watch a movie twice, to never change her mind, and to value film as a vicarious "experience" rather than the artifact is is...

And who can usually be counted on to a wonderfully literate, stimulating, and provocative writer. I value film criticism as first and foremost, a piece of writing, and Crowther's fundamental problem (apart from his rampant sexism), is that he writes in a dreadful mid-century 'journalese' speak that has not aged well. Kael's essays and reviews however, are still a pleasure to read.

And don't come at me saying she didn't finish watching all the films she wrote about, or that she played favourites, or that she got Kubrick wrong, and so on, and so forth. Would watching a film twice have made her a better writer? Probably not. And writing about cinema as an experiential art form is perfectly legitimate, because before videos, most people did not encounter the materiality of film, only its expression in flickering projected light.

A black hairstylist has sex with his female customers, and tries to keep the Mafia from taking over his business.

People will want to make their own minds up about the film, but for me there is something worryingly crass and naïve in it.

Brad Stevens wrote:One certainly finds no evidence of them in the oeuvres of such supposedly ‘important’ figures as Steven Soderbergh and Paul Thomas Anderson (the modern equivalents of Fred Zinnemann and Stanley Kramer),

Cremildo wrote:The context is a Sight & Sound piece on style, more specifically how rare "classical Hollywood mise en scene is in the work
of today’s supposed masters".

what the...????

Sorry to say this but I was totally wrong when I decided to see this film. Totally wrong. I went to it because the critics said the best about Vanessa Paradis performance. Maybe she is great. Maybe. And I am sure she is. But I did not stay long enough in the theatre to check. Not my stuff. Nude movies, blow jobs among homosexuals, men dressed as women...Not my taste, not my cup of tea. But I repeat, maybe that's a great picture. Maybe...

Big Ben wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 5:10 am The plot synopsis says it's about gay porn. Why would he watch something like this if he knew he'd be offended?

lol. trust griffith to make a boring, stupid and nearly incomprehensible mess that encourages american audiences of the time to bathe in their own imagined tolerance whilst simultaneously pandering to their basest prejudices. a grand technical achievement? an important historical document? i don't care.

I did not like this; not one of the better or more memorable TV offerings. The lead woman “actress” was not good-looking and was insufferably irritating. Her cohort Amy was perhaps the saddest-faced most boring character in TV history, and looks like she has a left glass eye. All the other “actors” were equally boring and forgettable. I had a hard time separating the two great houses that confiscate the two boy-children, but, with thought, I was able to do it. This is not what you want in a fricking TV show. The “battles” at Waterloo were bad and predictable. I hated the uniforms. The musical score was awful—modern, with singers like Kate Bush. Classical music would have been POWERFUL. There was only one worthwhile scene toward the end, where Dob and Amy finally have it out and Dob yells the Truth at her. Then back to bleahhh. Oh...the Evil Lord so-and-so (i forget his name) was a pretty good actor but over did his part. All in all, this offering was boring, confusing, and a waste of my time.

domino harvey wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:06 pm

modern, with singers like Kate Bush.

Dead or Deader wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:33 pm

Brad Stevens wrote:One certainly finds no evidence of them in the oeuvres of such supposedly ‘important’ figures as Steven Soderbergh and Paul Thomas Anderson (the modern equivalents of Fred Zinnemann and Stanley Kramer),

Someone posted artwork for Reform School Girls (not the one with Quigley) - the chicks on that poster represent the types of girls I think are ideal. Some of the most beautiful women I've ever laid eyes on were 80's chicks. Heather Thomas (Magnum PI), the girl Rob Morrow ultimately ends up with on Private Resort, Kari Michaelsen (Gimme A Break!) - wowza. The list goes on. The 90's began the era of the Wynona Ryder syndrome. Thin, pale and short. Jeez, what happened? lol And look at today's woman. Everyone wants to look like Janeane Garofalo

Very disappointing to me: what's going on? What are we waiting for? Some guy was snoring a few seats away. Just loved the song that run through the credits (may was just happy that it was over)

Amazon reviewer wrote:For a third world country movie it’s actually Interesting.
Alright so it’s decently good. It’s nothing compared to since of the lambs. But for a low budget movie it’s surprisingly interesting. It has its moments where it’s kind of lame but over all it’s worth a watch. Be aware that unless you know Chinese the movie will be in subtitles from the beginning till end.