criterionforum.org

I mean, yes, as much as I enjoy Waititi's films, Anderson is plainly the superior filmmaker. But is it so surprising for someone to feel the opposite? One of the criticisms Anderson's films have always been open to is one of archness and artificiality. There are a lot of people who find his films downright fake and alienating. Waititi's films are conventionally pathos-laden, even sentimental, and exactly the kind of films general audiences would find touching and humane. This is not a ridiculous criticism so much as people's taste falling along conventional lines, just on the other side of the line that people tend to have if they post here.

Basically, I'm not outraged or confused when an outwardly finicky and particular filmmaker loses to someone a bit more populist and crowd-pleasing. Especially when the populist crowd-pleaser makes something as delightful as Hunt for the Wilderpeople

Here's a good one, this is from the IMDB user reviews for Ermanno Olmi's Genesi: La creazione e il diluvio:

This is a boring movie. I do not know why people are giving it 10 out of 10. This no Dracula. It is so boring. It so badly written. The story line. Awful the only dialogue is Noah has an old doing narration and describing what happens. This is no Dracula. And this no 10 out of 10

Ha!

Dracula the novel? Cause that book can be pretty boring.

I'm thinking they've got to be referring to Coppola's Dracula (which I think is pretty boring, but that's neither here nor there), but it would be hilarious if they're referring to the Argento.

Neil Lumbard wrote:A compelling exploration of homosexuality and morality, Death in Venice is an acclaimed drama from acclaimed filmmaker Luchino Visconti (Senso, The Leopard). Based on the beloved novel by Thomas Mann, the film adapted the beloved storyline for the big screen.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Death-in ... 97/#Review

What's wrong with that excerpt?

It's twice as acclaimed and beloved as it should be.

knives wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:27 pm What's wrong with that excerpt?

The needless repetition of adjectives?

Cremildo wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:42 pm

knives wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:27 pm What's wrong with that excerpt?

The needless repetition of words?

That doesn't really qualify it as ridiculous. I'm not familiar with the novel or film so I'm a bit confused why it's considered ridiculous.

The writing is awful and I‘d say it’s highly debatable whether Death in Venice is an "exploration of homosexuality and morality".

You can debate it if you'd like, but the film definitely uses homosexuality as a symbolic device and it is reasonable (i.e. has been done since its inception) to read that symbolic usage as related to a sort of moral death of Europe conception.

The terrible writing is terrible writing and the terrible writing is terrible

Glowingwabbit wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:45 pm That doesn't really qualify it as ridiculous. I'm not familiar with the novel or film so I'm a bit confused why it's considered ridiculous.

One thing our teacher always reminded us of in writing class, as kids, was to not pointlessly repeat words in the same sentence. I'd say it is ridiculous, especially in an official review for a major site.

The excerpt isn't well written whether one is familiar with the film or not.

I get flipped out on myself when I realize I repeated the same qualifier in the same paragraph here, so I’ll admit I may be a bit harder on this because I recognize this tendency within me (though not this bad). But using the same words like this in a sentence is something any editor should have caught... but haven’t we suspected that Blu-Ray.com doesn’t actually have an editor and the pieces pretty much go up as-is?

Cremildo wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 5:02 pm

Glowingwabbit wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:45 pm That doesn't really qualify it as ridiculous. I'm not familiar with the novel or film so I'm a bit confused why it's considered ridiculous.

One thing our teacher always reminded us of in writing class, as kids, was to not pointlessly repeat words in the same sentence. I'd say it is ridiculous, especially in an official review for a major site.

The excerpt isn't well written whether one is familiar with the film or not.

No. I get what terrible writing looks like. I went to school as well. I've just seen enough of it in reviews that I think it hardly worth drawing attention to it.

Whoa, that’s terrible from any critical angle.

domino harvey wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 5:12 pm I get flipped out on myself when I realize I repeated the same qualifier in the same paragraph here, so I’ll admit I may be a bit harder on this because I recognize this tendency within me (though not this bad). But using the same words like this in a sentence is something any editor should have caught... but haven’t we suspected that Blu-Ray.com doesn’t actually have an editor and the pieces pretty much go up as-is?

I do the same to myself here, but I also treat my writing here with greater care then I would at a place like BR (in fact I just replaced seriously with care here for this very reason). I don't take BR seriously for its writing (as you say it probably has no editor) so as a result I treat bad writing from them the same as I would an Amazon customer review: something to be ignored.

Um...if someone wants to call out bad writing in criticism, isn’t this the place to do it? This is our place to vent. I get why someone would call out bad prose—it is rediculous that it gets published, and pointing it out is cathartic.

Criticizing the poster above amounts to asking they put the same stake into things, or lack thereof, as you do, for no other reason than because it’s how you feel. Like, let him vent. We don’t all have to be bothered by the exact same follies.

Mr Sausage wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:03 pm Um...if someone wants to call out bad writing in criticism, isn’t this the place to do it?

Totally agree with Mr. Sausage. Where else can I go to complain when people fail to put a space after an ellipsis?

DarkImbecile wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:15 pm

Mr Sausage wrote: Sun Mar 22, 2020 8:03 pm Um...if someone wants to call out bad writing in criticism, isn’t this the place to do it?

Totally agree with Mr. Sausage. Where else can I go to complain when people fail to put a space after an ellipsis?

Chicago Manual of Style forever muthafuckas!

I've been missing this thread! Fortunately, we will always have The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/a ... l-be-blood

Even from the little of it I had seen, it was clear that There Will Be Blood seeks to impress on you how important it is – in being not only long but slooow, with capital-A acting and a dissonant score – more than it actually wants to engage you.

I have always felt an aversion to art that seems to hold itself above people. Not to dismiss the importance of auteur’s vision, or audiences willing to meet them on their terms, but when it has come to the choice between making a statement and delivering entertainment, I’ve wondered: why not both?

Check mate, Anderson! Bet you didn't think of that one, did you?

I would give There Will Be Blood a 6/10. But having finally seen it, I wonder what had led so many men to think I would like it. Then I realised that was the wrong question: they weren’t thinking about what I might like at all. The answer was obvious from the film.

Watching it, I’d been struck by the absence of women. The first we hear from a woman is when little Mary Sunday asks – I am not making this up – “What are the men doing over there?” The film shows more curiosity in the inner workings of pit mines.

I’m not saying that I only enjoy films about women, or that There Will Be Blood (or the men who tried to get me to watch it) is explicitly sexist. It is more that it’s uninterested, in a way that reminds me of bad dates where I’ve timed how long it takes for me to be asked a question.

Memo to the boyfriends of the world: be a bit more considerate and do not inflict boring boy films like There Will Be Blood on your gfs. [-(

Godard was no doubt aware of the "video revolution" and I think he decided to photograph First Name: Carmen in full frame rather than widescreen to reflect the "square image" that consumers were adapting to in the early years of Betamax and VHS. While First Name: Carmen was shot on film in Eastmancolor and not videotape, there's nonetheless an image/screen ratio dialectic that greatly interested Godard.

Too bad the reviewer is no doubt not aware that this is Godard’s SOP on both sides of this film... (The reviewer also wanted a 1.66 version included)

JLG, always thinking of consumers

domino harvey wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:55 am

Godard was no doubt aware of the "video revolution" and I think he decided to photograph First Name: Carmen in full frame rather than widescreen to reflect the "square image" that consumers were adapting to in the early years of Betamax and VHS. While First Name: Carmen was shot on film in Eastmancolor and not videotape, there's nonetheless an image/screen ratio dialectic that greatly interested Godard.

Too bad the reviewer is no doubt not aware that this is Godard’s SOP on both sides of this film... (The reviewer also wanted a 1.66 version included)

Not to mention that consumers regularly consumed the "square image" since the invention of Cinema and TV until almost 20 years after that Godard film.