criterionforum.org

Dead of Night is considered by many to be one of the first original anthology style horror films. At the time of its release (1945) such a compilation format with many filmmakers was indeed unique, but as a direct result, the vignette approach means that the movie can and will only be as successful as the individual stories told. Unfortunately, of the six or so narratives provided, only one is a complete triumph with a couple others more being at least halfway suspenseful. The rest are dull and unusually disappointing.

On the other hand, The Queen of Spades is one of those laborious costume dramas that gives period pieces their decidedly deadly cinematic rap. Set in Russia and revolving around a group of army captains, a rich eccentric countess, and a strange card game, this movie aims to be the sordid saga of a desperate man's desire to sell his soul to the Devil for affluence and influence. It turns out to be an exhausted, interminable tale of overly long dramatic pauses, romantic entanglements, and endless static sequences of symbolism.

But no amount of handsome hype can save these movies from what they are: incredibly outdated drawing room drone fests that substitute manners for the macabre and gentility for genuine scares. Michael Redgrave and his insane thrown voice vehicle just barely brings Dead of Night back from the dearly departed. There is no such wooden wonder around to resuscitate The Queen of Spades. That is, unless you consider that once this moldering movie plays its trump cards, it ends up being the dummy.

Mr_sausage wrote:Jesus, Schrek, you've managed to put together a sincerely insulting, reputation lashing piece without using or even needing words of your own. A stark contrast to your usual style...I like it.

HerrSchreck wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:Jesus, Schrek, you've managed to put together a sincerely insulting, reputation lashing piece without using or even needing words of your own. A stark contrast to your usual style...I like it.

Ledos wrote:I remember that review from when it was first posted. Talk about two movies completely going over a reviewer's head. I'm pretty sure that at that time there were user comments for each review on the site, and most of them were equally dumbfounded about the judgement passed.

MichaelB wrote:Mind you, for sheer wrongheadedness, this DVD Verdict review takes some beating...

tryavna wrote:Oh, DVD Verdict, where would our aesthetic values be without you?

DVD Verdict wrote:Are we not supposed to groan when a simple misdirection of the truth overheard through a porch window causes someone to fly into a jealous rage?

DVD Verdict wrote:there is one significant extra: a complete 80-minute 1922 German silent version of "Othello." As you'd expect, it looks terrible, but what do you expect of an 80-year-old film?

DVD Verdict wrote:I have read a number of [Shakespeare's] sonnets, because I've always loved poetry, but I've never had an interest in theater (you know, production theater, not movie theater), so I've never been drawn to his plays.

DVD Verdict wrote:As you'd expect, it looks terrible, but what do you expect of an 80-year-old film?

In The Realm Of The Senses plays like Japanese porn…Boogie Nights with shamisen music rather than disco (and no Heather Graham).

DVD Verdict wrote:While I've admittedly never been much for art films, the next paragraph will attempt to replicated the experience of watching Hail Mary. For this activity, you will need some loud, bombastic classical music, and several photographs of nature. Whenever you see {NATURE}, put one of the pictures in front of this review for a few moments. Whenever you see {MUSIC}, play a random interval between two and ten seconds of the music. Ready? here we go.

IN THIS REVIEW The experience of watching Jean-Luc Godard's {MUSIC} Hail Mary is both frustrating and alienating. {NATURE} Cut into the scenes and conversations are brief {NATURE} clips of {MUSIC} short aural and visual breaks, which I'm sure were supposed to {NATURE} signify something deep and thought {MUSIC} provoking. There is an odd side story dropped into the center of Hail Mary involving the affair IN THIS REVIEW of a professor and student that doesn't connect to the rest of the film. The music is loud, and isn't at {NATURE} all appropriate for the scenes in which it is placed. Sometimes it's only a few notes of one of Bach's piano concertos, or it {NATURE} may be several bars of an organ fugue. The images of nature work in IN THIS REVIEW much {MUSIC} the same way.

There are a few interlacing artifacts, but it looks excellent for a small film this age.

The next time I review a controversial classic, I hope there's more to talk about at the end.

In The Realm Of The Senses is another in a long line of arthouse movies given positive reviews by critics to save face with other critics. I don't feel the need to kiss butt, so I say…it rots.

Make Mine Music
March 22nd, 2005 8:53PM
Permalink

I hate to admit it, but I have finally fallen off the pop culture radar when it comes to music. During the 60s, I became cognizant of the power of song just as the Beatles were entering their experimental studio phase. In the 70s, I was a punk before it was fashionable or retrofitted into teeny bopper fodder. During the early 80s, I was a DJ at the college radio station, and we bucked the trend toward Molly Hatchet and AC/DC by promoting such novelties as U2, REM and XTC. Even during the 90s, I was still in touch with the current trends in tunes. No high school teacher who travels with students to speech and debate tournaments around the nation can be immune to the joys - and jars - of the emergent alternative scene.

2001: A Space Odyssey is like any other classic that bored me to tears: worth seeing, though only once. I've seen Citizen Kane, It's A Wonderful Life and now 2001: A Space Odyssey, and they were all deathly long (though not without their merits).

Bill is also the only person he knows that will admit to including 2001: A Space Odyssey, Miller's Crossing and Pink Flamingos on their list of the greatest films of all times.

DVD Verdict wrote:As you'd expect, it looks terrible, but what do you expect of an 80-year-old film?

By the time we get to the attack, all action scenes and well-observed details, Elephant has lost us. At the beginning, its long takes and Kubrickian tracking shots lull us into a timeless space of ethereal human memory. But when our rifle-packing reprobates begin spewing their "awesome"-filled firefight, we are witnessing an entirely different movie. The attitude has shifted and grace is replaced by gratuitousness. True, for the first few scenes, we have awaited this moment. But when it arrives, Van Sant moves away from the picture poetry that got us here, and tosses in the typical squib-and-blood-bag ballyhoo to shock and satiate.