'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[Michael Kerpan]

A very good question. Austen's heroines were hardly feminist by any modern standard - they waited in those drawing rooms until a man came calling; and having fully realized women characters is quite different from having feminist characters.
Nevertheless, Keira Knightley did seem a tad more modern than even Jennifer Ehle who did a nice job in the 1995 version. I suspect that the real answer here is length. The movie has to wrap it up in two hours so the pacing makes everything seem more contemporary, while a miniseries can let us linger on those long looks so fraught with meaning, and somewhat closer to Austen's vision of her characters and the slower pace at which they lived.

I consider the 95 P&P and the 95 Persuasion my Jane Austen benchmark films. I find it hard to imagine anyone bettering either of these. Michell's film managed to retain the right pacing -- despite its limited running time.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Agreed with Michael. Also, Persuasion was one of the first British films I ever saw so it was great to see how to make a good film and how the Brits make a good film. Also, a little OT here, but there's a lot of reputable literature on Austen as a feminist. She was an admirer of Mary Wollstonecraft - which filters into her characters to some extent. On the other hand, a lot of critics also see her as an incurable conservative, but at least her admiration for Samuel Johnson was invested in a male writer who himself had many good things to say about women. Austen is not a feminist in the modern sense and her philosophy is shaped by neoclassicism more Romanticism, but she was aware of Wollstonecraft and meets her in some degree.

[domino harvey]

IMDB review of Calvacade:

Peace is what a family needs…

Well I won't say much a bout his OLD movie. And I would be lying if I said I wasn't bored… And this movie indeed has a decent story… About two families One being the Rich family and the other being the family of the servants. This movie is appealing only in terms of how the relationship between the families change. Well time changes a lot of things….

The movie seemed a lot like a PLAY.

This movie is too hard to be enjoyed by the viewers of today.

All in all it isn't a bad film. It has to be at least decent to win Oscars right? And it is a well representation of a family that withstood war………

So it is…

[Morbii]

Hello, flipflop.

[MichaelB]

I haven't seen Miklós Jancsó's Private Vices, Public Virtues yet (it's out on DVD at the end of the month), but something tells me this IMDB reviewer slightly missed the point:

This god arwful film played on the Playboy channel and I don't know why for it's terrible to watch. The film has a woman with a penis (this film must have gotten a "X" rating in 1975), a male law officer getting raped by two guys, and other crazy stuff. Obnoxious and boring at the same time as two idiot sing "baba Blacksheep". If this film called erotic in Playboy Channel's programing director, then no wonder some bigshot on the channel told them to stop playing old films and make original films from now on.

[tryavna]

This movie is too hard to be enjoyed by the viewers of today.

With the exception of this idiotic line, that review of Cavalcade isn't really "rediculous" at all. Cavalcade is extraordinarily boring and un-cinematic by any set of standards. It's probably my choice for the worst Best Picture winner in Oscar history -- though Lord knows there's plenty of stiff competition.

[domino harvey]

This movie is too hard to be enjoyed by the viewers of today.

With the exception of this idiotic line, that review of Cavalcade isn't really "rediculous" at all.

Oh come on, where he calls out the film for being like a play as though it weren't supposed to be, his complete dismissal of his own opinion in favor of kowtowing to the Oscars, the capitalization of OLD... this is gold Jerry, gold!

[tryavna]

Oh come on, where he calls out the film for being like a play as though it weren't supposed to be, his complete dismissal of his own opinion in favor of kowtowing to the Oscars, the capitalization of OLD... this is gold Jerry, gold!

So you were choosing it for his logic/phrasing, rather than for his conclusions? If so, then I guess I can agree. It just seems fairly tame in comparison to the entirely misguided, illogical, and/or ungrammatical examples that I'm used to seeing in this thread. (And of course, I suppose I'm not that bothered because it's a fairly lousy movie to begin with and I actually agree with the reviewer's basic opinion.)

[domino harvey]

Inspired by the TWBB thread, I found this new gem from Ray Carney:

I always avoid movies that get unanimously positive reviews. There has to be a lot wrong with a movie when that is the response.

[Gregory]

If a film doesn't get a negative reaction from any reviewer, it's safe to assume it's not going to be a film that really challenges in any way. It's probably more realistic for me to say "from any mainstream reviewer," because if you look at the whole gamut of people writing about film then there is never unanimity. Maybe being challenged isn't always important, for example when watching a musical (musicals can contain challenging elements, of course, but they're almost always easy to ignore for those not seeking them) but in most cases I think it's a good criterion.

[Cabiria21]

From a IMDB review of Antonia's Line (the first sentence is classic!)

In general, I don't like radical feminists, because they are mostly devoid of any humor. The movie "Antonia's Line" depicts a kind of feminist utopia: a "dynasty" of strong women who come along quite well without more than a minimal interference of males in their lifes.

Nevertheless, the movie skillfully avoids every tendency towards dogmatic preaching in favor of the "good cause", and is in fact full of humor.

Even a "male chauvinist pig" like Radlov could enjoy it.

[Cold Bishop]

Inspired by the TWBB thread, I found this new gem from Ray Carney:

I always avoid movies that get unanimously positive reviews. There has to be a lot wrong with a movie when that is the response.

I don't know if that is necessarily wrong. Often the best films are those polarizing love-it-or-hate-it ones, if of course you happen to be on the love-it side... Untill those very films are canonized, then everybody loves them.

However, when we consider that it's Ray "Symbolism is for amateurs" Carney talking, I'm sure there's more to the statement than just that, and I'm sure whatever that more is, it's pretty rediculous.

[Mr Sausage]

Inspired by the TWBB thread, I found this new gem from Ray Carney:

I always avoid movies that get unanimously positive reviews. There has to be a lot wrong with a movie when that is the response.

I'm sure both Citizen Kane and Casablanca are included in that description.

[Saarijas]

So I found this little gem complaining about how Star Wars should have beat Annie Hall for best picture. He complains about how the films is being displayed in full screen and thinks it's because no one has made a new DVD of it, rather then the fact it was filmed that way.

Ironically his name is filmcritic.

I finally Netflixed the Annie Hall DVD to finally see the movie that beat Star Wars.

I'm sorry, but it was absolutely terrible.

Right off the bat, the movie was a 4x3 letterboxed transferred from the answer print (ouch!) Nobody has bothered to touch this thing since 1977? At least get it in 16X9? Wow. That is very telling indeed. The movie looked like crap.

If it weren't for Star Wars, we'd probably still be watching movies this way.

Aside from the technical, I found the movie to be extremely mediocre. The love story was lame (Woody Allen was just annoying and gross) and I was just bored.

I forgot this movie 5 minutes after I watched it. But Star Wars changed everything. I guess that's why Star Wars made the money it did and why Annie Hall has faded away and hasn't been touched in 30 years.

[colinr0380]

Wow!

If it weren't for Star Wars, we'd probably still be watching movies this way.

With our brains?

(Woody Allen was just annoying and gross)

Finally someone has the guts to utter the unspoken truth festering at the heart of modern cinema!

I forgot this movie 5 minutes after I watched it.

Yet still felt able to review it?!?

But Star Wars changed everything. I guess that's why Star Wars made the money it did and why Annie Hall has faded away and hasn't been touched in 30 years.

Yes, the true mark of a classic is the raping of its memory in cynically calculated sequels, prequels and merchandising deals. Allen missed a trick not having a tie in wind up toy lobster you got free with every happy meal.

I'm torn on linking to this review of Atonement (spoilers for the film) from something called filmdrunk.com because I'd like to think it was intended to be funny! Whether or not it was, it is a good example of somebody managing to follow the plot of the film but at the same time somehow just not 'getting' it!:

UPDATE: Lest you be tempted to see Atonement to see why I hate it so much (which would sort of defeat the purpose), allow me to summarize it for you:

James McAvoy works as a servant boy at Keira Knightley's house. He breaks her vase. He accidentally sends her a letter saying "I want to kiss your hot, wet, c*nt" instead of the apology letter he meant to send (a lá Road Trip). She reads the note and then bones him because she's a slut. Her younger sister sees them boning and thinks he raped her so she accuses him of rape and he gets sent away. Three years later he joins the army because all armies need someone who knows how to rape chicks and she becomes an army nurse because she wants to see him, because sluts who bang a guy once always wait chastely for three years until he gets out of prison. They meet up. Then later, after they're married, the younger sister comes to apologize and he's all like, naw, whatever bitch. Then it cuts to years later and the younger sister is an old lady now (you can tell it's the same person because of the stupid haircut and mole - chicks generally have the same hairstyle their whole lives), and she's doing an interview about the book she wrote, which tells the story we just watched, and she says that she made it all up and her sister and the dude actually both died in the war. "So exciting! So epic!"

"(a lá Road Trip)" was the supreme final touch!

I also liked "Three years later he joins the army because all armies need someone who knows how to rape chicks" - Bruno Dumont and Brian De Palma might well agree with that sentiment!

[Cash Flagg]

I liked this review of Criterion's Peeping Tom, in particular his take on Mulvey's contribution:
"I like commentaries where production design is pointed out or stories are told, or even little things like a story about the guy who got the coffee. In my experiences with Audio Essays, only once in a while is there anything mentioned falling into one of those categories. Most of the time they state the obvious or what one shot should mean to the viewer and the whole "poetry" of the film or some crap like that."

[cdnchris]

I liked this review of Criterion's Peeping Tom, in particular his take on Mulvey's contribution:
"I like commentaries where production design is pointed out or stories are told, or even little things like a story about the guy who got the coffee. In my experiences with Audio Essays, only once in a while is there anything mentioned falling into one of those categories. Most of the time they state the obvious or what one shot should mean to the viewer and the whole "poetry" of the film or some crap like that."

Yeah, I was an idiot back in the day.

[Cold Bishop]

God... can we get a thread for rediculous dialog in Hollywood movies

Woman: Giving up and walking away are not the same thing

Fighter Guy: Good.... Cause I'm not doing either one

[CSM126]

God... can we get a thread for rediculous dialog in Hollywood movies

Woman: Giving up and walking away are not the same thing

Fighter Guy: Good.... Cause I'm not doing either one

That's gonna be a great movie for all the wrong reasons.

[MichaelB]

"(a lá Road Trip)" was the supreme final touch!

I particularly liked the accent - both in the wrong place and pointing in the wrong direction, as a tacit rebuke to those critics who think that using French in their reviews makes them sound more intellectual.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Anyone who can call this piece of Fench rubbish a 'masterpiece' is obviously caught up in that delusional mindset of Art moives having to be stripped of everything to make them powerful; therefore it must be a masterpiece is a myth; so much so there's nothing left but a depressing mess. The actors say or do nothing more than clump around in their shiny armour which they never seem to take off, all the time brooding woodenly, and talking to each other like robots, stripped of emotion. The soundtrack is appalling; all through the movie the sound intrudes with the nonstop clancking of armour and a single horse neighing over and over and over again in the background, the same horse, the same neighs. The jousting scene is so boring and repetitious you fall into a mind-numbed trance and you wonder how any director could make such a scene so DULL - and like the neighing horse in the background, it's played over and over again until you feel like screaming, "Get on with it!" like that brilliant scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (a far better movie; buy that one instead).
How this film can be seen as a masterpiece can only be described as self-delusion; or is it just because it's French and therefore must be a masterpiece? Lancelot of the Lake is a borish waste of a story that is in essense powerful and passionate and full of human struggles; there's no passion in this - Let's not go to this Camelot; tis a silly place...

Oh, my friends, this is one perfect, Amazon review of Lancelot. Not only has he never seen Bresson films, but he hates the French and makes that a point of his argument. This one is such a classic. I know this is shooting fish in a barrel, but it just made my day. I love you Amazon. At least he finds Monty Python better than Lancelot. Sad, though, because with a little more brain he could do a comparative analysis. Oh well.

[zedz]

At least he finds Monty Python better than Lancelot. Sad, though, because with a little more brain he could do a comparative analysis.

Great find! There are indeed meaningful comparisons that could be made, but he's way too dim to see that. He's also tantalisingly close to insight in this bit:

The soundtrack is appalling; all through the movie the sound intrudes with the nonstop clancking of armour and a single horse neighing over and over and over again in the background, the same horse, the same neighs.

What could the director have been thinking!? I'm surprised he didn't point out the constant 'misframing' ("What's with all the feet, anyway?")

[tavernier]

Damn those Fench filmmakers!

[domino harvey]

From the Facebook Flixter entry for Shadow of a Doubt-- as good a reason as any for right-click-deleting the internet from existence:

[Belmondo]

From the Facebook Flixter entry for Shadow of a Doubt-- as good a reason as any for right-click-deleting the internet from existence

Wow, we have achieved a new low. She only died a couple of years ago and that kind of stuff is probably what killed her. And, in a crowning example of irony, Teresa was strictly high class from beginning to end and never posed for any "cheesecake" photos even when such things were routine.