'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4076 Post by MichaelB » Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:04 am

I suspect it would have been protected for 1.66:1 as a matter of practical common sense, but if 1.37:1 was the desired ratio from the outset there's no reason to pander to what was only ever intended to be a compromise solution.

See also the "fullscreen" version of Koyaanisqatsi, created specifically because Godfrey Reggio thought it was more important to fill the screen than to match the theatrical framing, as the film's primary purpose was sensory overload, not immaculate visual composition. But as soon as 16:9 home viewing became widespread, that rationale evaporated, and all subsequent video releases have been presented in the intended 1.85:1.

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4077 Post by furbicide » Mon May 04, 2020 7:00 pm

Two reviews of the same film on Letterboxd.
this was directed by a woman and it shows
Also, it showed that it was a camera MAN.
Not “rediculous” per se, but it’s funny to see what people project onto a film.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4078 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon May 04, 2020 7:30 pm

Why do the majority of posters in this thread never identify the movie the rediculous reviews are about?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4079 Post by domino harvey » Mon May 04, 2020 8:03 pm

Part of the fun, isn’t it? You can generally find the original reviews by googling the quote within quotations

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4080 Post by furbicide » Mon May 04, 2020 9:47 pm

^ That was my thought too! If you're curious, though, Mr Sausage, it's this one (I saw it last night and really liked it):

https://letterboxd.com/film/an-easy-girl/

And for what it's worth, both reviewers are accurate (in fact, if not necessarily in conclusion)! The film is directed by Rebecca Zlotowski and shot by Georges Lechaptois – and while the two observations are not necessarily mutually exclusive, it did get me thinking about how much of current discourse about "male gaze" etc. may be post-hoc reasoning based on little more than taking a glance at what the gender of the filmmaker happens to be. Would love to see some of those concepts interrogated further!

User avatar
senseabove
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4081 Post by senseabove » Mon May 04, 2020 10:18 pm

As a starting point, if you're looking, there was a whole series on female cinematographers at Lincoln Center two years ago that was reprised at BAMPFA last year. I'd assume there are some corresponding Film Comment pieces from the time, at the very least.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4082 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 06, 2020 12:28 am

Every word of this official summary is guaranteed to be funnier than the actual film it is describing, though probably not in the way the filmmakers intended
Unexpected magic transforms a playboy into a beautiful woman who must learn how to value women. But when she develops feelings for her friend, she wonders if her new insight will help nab him or keep her planted in the friend zone.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4083 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 06, 2020 12:33 am

Actually, the YouTube trailer's description is even better
How do you punish a womanizer? Make him a woman. The wheel of karma takes a hilarious turn when a bit of unexpected magic transforms a misogynistic playboy into a beautiful woman who must learn how to value females by being one herself.
Yes, what could be a worse punishment than being a woman? SO funnie!

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4084 Post by furbicide » Wed May 06, 2020 7:59 am

I read that third sentence in Steve Coogan’s voice (as per the intro to this video):

https://youtu.be/Xhlx43rTs2Q

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4085 Post by furbicide » Sat May 09, 2020 9:46 pm

Oh, here’s a good one (courtesy of the Time Out Film Guide!)
Apparently conceived as a socialist response to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Tarkovsky’s film offers only the flabbiest kind of sentimental humanism by way of a riposte to Kubrick. It starts out promising both poetry (of the Dovzhenko Ukrainian school) and dialectics (of the Marxist school?), and proceeds to squander both on kindergarten psychology and inane melodrama. Its hero journeys into space only as a metaphor for a journey inward; after 2 hours, he’s got no further than the lap of his father, which he rejected ten years earlier. Watching Tarkovsky render the sci-fi mechanics of his own movie redundant as he goes along is a genuinely brain-freezing experience.

User avatar
Altair
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:56 pm
Location: England

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4086 Post by Altair » Sun May 10, 2020 1:54 am

I like Solaris, but to be fair, that's a pretty witty review (and why I've always treasured my Time Out Film Guide).

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4087 Post by furbicide » Sun May 10, 2020 5:01 am

I love the book too – and very much for, not despite, its occasionally left-field takes – but I feel like the author took one look at the country of origin and got on the phone to the House Un-American Activities Committee.

(Also, perhaps I just don't get it, but what does "poetry of the Dovzhenko Ukrainian school" even mean, and how on earth does it relate to Solaris? And WTF do Tarkovsky's distinctly Russian Orthodox sensibilities have to do with Marxist dialectics!?)

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4088 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 13, 2020 2:48 pm

Several right wing Blu-ray.com members are arguing that the original run of the Twilight Zone was "subtle" in its social commentary

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4089 Post by cdnchris » Wed May 13, 2020 3:03 pm

Yeah, that one with Dennis Hopper was subtle as fuck.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4090 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 13, 2020 4:50 pm

There are so many words that could describe the Twilight Zone, but “subtle” has never been one of them. The preachiness of so many of them is just part of the package. That said, absolutely nothing I’ve seen or heard of the new revival makes it sound like it’s worth watching, but that’s because it sounds pretty in-line with the original’s worst tendencies

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4091 Post by cdnchris » Wed May 13, 2020 4:58 pm

No doubt. As much as I loved the original some of the preachiness hasn't aged well. Like that Hopper one: it's good in how it studies how someone could get suckered into the beliefs of the character, but the reveal is a bit much (though the speech at the end could be written today, which I guess shows how on point the show was).

But then again, at the time, I have to assume it was felt that the best way to deliver a message to a general audience was to really smack them in the face with it, leave no room for misinterpretation

User avatar
The Pachyderminator
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:24 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4092 Post by The Pachyderminator » Wed May 13, 2020 6:07 pm

I have 30 days to blow, literally, my job is seasonal- and I'm legally bound to be in my house......... For 30 whole days. Anyways, I figured I'd google "best films of all time" (AND WATCH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM), well, I must say... I now know why this film made the cut.... BRILLIANT.... God i love this film... it's long like Titanic... But just like Titanic... That time is going to FLY by.... and before you know it you'll be seeing Jack floating off into the distant abyss as the female he just lost his virginity to watching is horror and clings to a ......... wait a minute thats the wrong movie... BUT U GET THE IDEA... This movie is a CLASSIC... IF YOU are reading what I am typing right now.... Dont just get this and watch it.... NO NO NO No... U make it a special occasion... You gets some good popcorn... u get your favorite blanket... u turn off ur cell phone.... U get a bottle of vodka (i legally cannot do this)........ whatever you want to do... and THEN you sit down and watch this masterpiece.. great intro - slow to start - it gradually builds and before you know it you'll find yourself falling in love with your favorite character of the film.... MIND YOU.. This was filmed like 457 years ago. The mere fact they were able to pull this off then at such high quality even to this day is a beautiful achievement. I do not recall seeing boobs though... so if you love boobs.... Check out Titanic. Kate is great, has a great pair.... Now that i've described this like one of the french girls I used to see... i'm out of here.
I'm very glad this person enjoyed
SpoilerShow
Seven Samurai
even though it's lacking in certain areas...

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4093 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 13, 2020 6:11 pm

Well, I did not guess that one. He’s right about one thing, at least: it is long

User avatar
soundchaser
Leave Her to Beaver
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4094 Post by soundchaser » Wed May 13, 2020 6:26 pm

Not right on everything, though...
SpoilerShow
Mifune is a boob for most of the movie’s runtime!

User avatar
Feego
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
Location: Texas

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4095 Post by Feego » Thu May 14, 2020 3:36 pm

For some reason I really thought he was talking about The Shining until the line about no boobs.

User avatar
Grand Wazoo
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:23 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4096 Post by Grand Wazoo » Thu May 28, 2020 11:43 am

Glenn Kenny on Under the Silver Lake:
When a filmmaker spends whatever amount he spent making a film that protests "I'm not this guy" for two and a half hours, not only is he absolutely that guy, he's probably worse. And the regurgitated Pynchon hash doesn't help.

User avatar
Never Cursed
Such is life on board the Redoutable
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4097 Post by Never Cursed » Thu May 28, 2020 11:50 am

I don't think that's too far from the sentiment that many here have expressed about the film (though personally I don't agree)

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4098 Post by furbicide » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:49 am

I’m sure a few here will have already had the good fortune of reading this month-old triumph of film criticism:

https://screenrant.com/the-shining-dome ... oorly/amp/
Stanley Kubrick’s 1980 psychological horror film The Shining has not aged well for a contemporary audience. Adapted from Stephen King’s 1977 novel of the same name, the film follows the Torrance family at the haunted Overlook Hotel. Starring Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall, it features an array of problematic and triggering instances of domestic violence and child abuse. While movies have the power to highlight and examine important issues such as these, Kubrick’s film and characters brush them off as unimportant and permissible.
You may be wondering if this is a troll job, and the thought crossed my mind, too – until I reached the final paragraph and realised that the article must have instead been written by some kind of dysfunctional AI:
Ultimately, the misogynistic depiction of Wendy alongside the film’s issues of not addressing the problems of domestic violence and child abuse results in a film that does not age well in the slightest. Furthermore, Stanley Kubrick’s own abusive methods towards Shelley Duvall and egregious misinterpretation of the Wendy Torrance character place an additional layer of problems that the film has.

User avatar
bottled spider
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4099 Post by bottled spider » Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:10 pm

RE: Backdraft
So... this is a serious film that calls fire “the animal”, and that continuously implies that it is a living being, uh?

I studied way too much science at school to eat this shit, I’m sorry.
Another letterboxdeder similarly complained of the unrealism of firefighting professionals speaking of fire as a living thing, instead of what it is, an element.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#4100 Post by colinr0380 » Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:02 am

That is a particularly silly element of the film (especially when you have the foley work trying its best to literalise it with the fire making tiger-like roaring sounds), and I don't think it would be possible to make a film in the style of something as naïve in the name of entertainment as Backdraft now in a post 9/11 world. Though I do like to bracket that explanatory monologue trying to anthropomorphise fire in with the electricity repair man's great paranoid monologue in the underrated 1988 horror about killer electricity, Pulse!

Post Reply