criterionforum.org

Posted: **Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:38 pm**

Morbii wrote:Kinda funny that he later goes to say "not worth the movie ticket, but buy the DVD" (para) where the DVD would be more expensive...

Not necessarily - going out to the movies is a rare (and expensive) treat for me these days, as I have to factor in babysitting costs, and usually a meal to justify the latter. In most cases, the DVD will be considerably cheaper.

Posted: **Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:56 pm**

Actually, the word "buy" is never mentioned. If you've got a Netflix subscription, it won't cost anything extra to watch Funny Games instead of something else. A one-off rental meanwhile will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 compared to a $10 ticket.

The rest of the review doesn't make any sense at all, thought. It's low budget? What's he looking for, aerial shots and CGI composites?

Posted: **Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:19 pm**

arsonfilms wrote:What's he looking for, aerial shots and CGI composites?

or explosions and camera movements through 'holes in skulls'

not to mention that the opening sequence of Funny Games features multiple Aerial shots.

Posted: **Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:24 pm**

He's seen the original, he says, so what exactly was he expecting?

Posted: **Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:29 pm**

An Eli Roth film?

Posted: **Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:31 pm**

film's over the top gore is a refresher and a great way to keep the film going

What gore?? It's all (save for one short scene, which is then "rewound") off screen.

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:38 am**

arsonfilms wrote:Actually, the word "buy" is never mentioned. If you've got a Netflix subscription, it won't cost anything extra to watch Funny Games instead of something else. A one-off rental meanwhile will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 compared to a $10 ticket.

Just to nitpick (and since I obviously felt he meant it initially), I would argue that to "pay for the DVD" means purchasing it. I felt he would have said "rent the DVD" if that's what he meant.

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:28 am**

Morbii wrote:
arsonfilms wrote:Actually, the word "buy" is never mentioned. If you've got a Netflix subscription, it won't cost anything extra to watch Funny Games instead of something else. A one-off rental meanwhile will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 compared to a $10 ticket.
Just to nitpick (and since I obviously felt he meant it initially), I would argue that to "pay for the DVD" means purchasing it. I felt he would have said "rent the DVD" if that's what he meant.

I certainly don't want to argue... but I would just like to maintain that your interpretation of what was said makes the reviewer look like a blithering idiot. I mean a real imbecile. Considering that one still pays to rent DVDs, I'd at least like to assume that my own interpretation is correct, if only in an attempt to hang on to the belief that people can't really be that daft.

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:03 am**

Well, Michael's point was pretty valid I thought (even though I didn't acknowledge it - I guess I was caught up on what happens when *I* go to the theater). However, I wonder if the guy wasn't a blithering idiot anyway

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:37 am**

denti alligator wrote:He's seen the original...so what exactly was he expecting?

no he hasn't

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:05 pm**

Svevan wrote:
denti alligator wrote:He's seen the original...so what exactly was he expecting?
no he hasn't

I haven't even seen it yet, but it was pretty obvious to me the guy never saw the original (this being based on what I've gathered through the years.) It's at the top of my NetFlix now, though (as soon as I return "My Kid Could Paint That")

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:41 pm**

Of course he saw the original:

This is a good attempt at a remake of the original Funny Games, but can never reach that one's heights.

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:14 pm**

Ah yes, he does eloquently point out that the first film had "heights" while the shot-for-shot remake is merely a "good attempt." Point taken.

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:53 pm**

There is literally nothing about that review that gives me any indication that the reviewer actually saw the movie. Quite the contrary, in fact...

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:59 pm**

Of course, you could say that about a lot of reviews.

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:23 pm**

From an IMDb review of The Glass Key.
In fairness, the rest of the review isn't bad, but these first two paragraphs are just full of bad writing and (imo) worse opinions.

Fidelity to Hammett's cynical world-view guaranteed by unappealing trio of Ladd, Lake and Bendix,
6 October 2002
Author: bmacv from Western New York

Alan Ladd, Veronica Lake and William Bendix make up a trio that put its peculiar stamp on movies in the 1940s. Ladd and Lake starred in seven films together; Ladd and Bendix in 10. All three showed up (apart from a couple of those `as themselves' jamborees) for The Blue Dahlia and The Glass Key. And though they were key players in the formation of the noir cycle, their distinctive styles have dated badly; we watch them now with clinical detachment, wondering what their appeal might have been to audiences back then.

Ladd struck attitudes as the toughest of the tough guys; since at full stature he rose to five-feet-four, he brings to mind the Texas expression `All hat and no cattle.' When, in The Glass Key, his upper lip creeps halfway up over his teeth, it's a death's-head rictus; his perfect hair and perfect features crown a perfect absence of charm. In cold charmlessness he's almost matched by Lake, who, in scenes where she's bedecked in veils and snoods and thus deprived of the peek-a-boo locks that grabbed a nation's attention, suggests a grinning skull, too. And Bendix came to co-stardom as Hollywood's homage to the average Joe off fighting the war; whether in low comedy or, as here, high melodrama, he inevitably devolved into dim-witted lout.

I thought Lake with her hair up was just a knockout. She still has the cascading locks in half the film, but I thought it was very effective to counter that with her hair in various "up" styles. There was a reason that Lake & Ladd made 7 pictures together (assuming he's got that number right).

And what's with the weird overuse of semi-colons?

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:30 pm**

I can only think of four Ladd and Lake made together: the Glass Key, the Blue Dahlia, This Gun For Hire, and Saigon.

Posted: **Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:47 pm**

Lemmy Caution wrote:
In cold charmlessness he's almost matched by Lake, who, in scenes where she's bedecked in veils and snoods and thus deprived of the peek-a-boo locks that grabbed a nation's attention, suggests a grinning skull, too.
I thought Lake with her hair up was just a knockout. She still has the cascading locks in half the film, but I thought it was very effective to counter that with her hair in various "up" styles.

Yeah, Veronica Lake looks great in the snood.

Posted: **Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:01 am**

MichaelB wrote:I don't have the exact dates to hand, but my understanding of the chronology is roughly this:

May 1974 - Lancelot du Lac has world premiere at Cannes;
Late 1974 - Monty Python and the Holy Grail starts shooting;
April 1975 - Monty Python and the Holy Grail goes on UK release;
September 1975 - Lancelot du Lac goes on UK release.

What I don't know is whether Lancelot was screened in the previous year's London Film Festival (or at any other UK festival), or indeed whether one of the Pythons saw it at Cannes or on its late 1974 French release (though the latter wouldn't have had subtitles, and probably coincided with the actual shoot). Or even whether someone like Terry Gilliam saw a still - which might well have provided inspiration in itself!

Holy Grail was already in production in May 1974. The book of the film contains a reproduction of the script plus facsimiles of some daily continuity sheets, including one dated 24 May 1974. There is also a document referring to a pre-release screening in August 1974. Based on this chronology, on the use of "AD 1973" as one of the titles being considered for one sequence, and that the script was carefully researched and completed before the film was made (IIRC this was stated in the audio commentary on one of the DVDs), I would conclude that any similiarities with Lancelot du Lac are just coincidental.

Posted: **Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:05 am**

Rufus T. Firefly wrote:I would conclude that any similiarities with Lancelot du Lac are just coincidental.

I agree, and your additional info pretty much clinches it. The only alternative possibility is that one of the Pythons caught a preview screening of the Bresson, but it strains credulity well beyond reason to think that a load of British TV comedians had sufficient sway over a French art-cinema master to manage to blag an early viewing. Especially as this was decades before the era of the easily transferable DVD screener!

Posted: **Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:46 am**

Rufus T. Firefly wrote:
MichaelB wrote:I don't have the exact dates to hand, but my understanding of the chronology is roughly this:

May 1974 - Lancelot du Lac has world premiere at Cannes;
Late 1974 - Monty Python and the Holy Grail starts shooting;
April 1975 - Monty Python and the Holy Grail goes on UK release;
September 1975 - Lancelot du Lac goes on UK release.

What I don't know is whether Lancelot was screened in the previous year's London Film Festival (or at any other UK festival), or indeed whether one of the Pythons saw it at Cannes or on its late 1974 French release (though the latter wouldn't have had subtitles, and probably coincided with the actual shoot). Or even whether someone like Terry Gilliam saw a still - which might well have provided inspiration in itself!
Holy Grail was already in production in May 1974. The book of the film contains a reproduction of the script plus facsimiles of some daily continuity sheets, including one dated 24 May 1974. There is also a document referring to a pre-release screening in August 1974. Based on this chronology, on the use of "AD 1973" as one of the titles being considered for one sequence, and that the script was carefully researched and completed before the film was made (IIRC this was stated in the audio commentary on one of the DVDs), I would conclude that any similiarities with Lancelot du Lac are just coincidental.

Thanks. That pretty much confirms that. Still, I think both films at least warrant a comparison as historiographical texts (although a comparison between the Bresson and Rivette's Jean le pucelle - which I haven't seen - would be the most interesting that I can imagine).

Posted: **Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:58 pm**

From Netflix. Review of La Jetee / Sans Soleil:

i don't know who these people are that are giving this movie(s) high reviews, but they must be hamsters from another dimension...??? The first film is a short, slide presentation, of a time traveler with an overly predictable ending. That Monkey film with Bruce Willis was much better. The second film is somekind of Travellog of Japan, and while there are some interesting images, they are a tiny percentage of the whole film. The Director of this, amazingly tedious, film, apparently has never been exposed to the concept of editing. Every scrap of film that he ever shot, during his entire lifetime, was included in this film, then added a completely DADAistic Monolog to 'Complement' it...??? These two films might appeal to small children with Autism.

Posted: **Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:34 pm**

"DADAistic" is exactly why this thread must never die

Though perhaps I can top that with the ever-reliable Alex Jackson's take on Tokyo Story

On a fundamental level, I think the adoration it has received in some quarters is tantamount to a hate of the cinema.

#-o
And that's maybe the fourth-worst part of the full "review"

Posted: **Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:43 pm**

domino harvey wrote:Though perhaps I can top that with the ever-reliable Alex Jackson's take on Tokyo Story
On a fundamental level, I think the adoration it has received in some quarters is tantamount to a hate of the cinema.
And that's maybe the fourth-worst part of the full "review"

Is everything this guy writes as verbose and dim-witted as his Tokyo Story "review"? I'm a-scared to look.

;~{

Posted: **Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:04 am**

Michael Kerpan wrote:
domino harvey wrote:Though perhaps I can top that with the ever-reliable Alex Jackson's take on Tokyo Story
On a fundamental level, I think the adoration it has received in some quarters is tantamount to a hate of the cinema.
And that's maybe the fourth-worst part of the full "review"
Is everything this guy writes as verbose and dim-witted as his Tokyo Story "review"? I'm a-scared to look.

;~{

Yes, he is an established staple of this thread.

criterionforum.org

'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews