'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

[mfunk9786]

""It wouldn't be entirely unfair to the rest of Roman J. Israel, Esq. to rename the movie Denzel Washington."

Oh, Martin Liebman. Let's find all of his uses of "performance" throughout this review:

"a star delivering a performance typical of his body of work"
"named for the towering character but that could just as easily be renamed for the towering performance that makes it"
"But Washington's performance stands a cut above"
"Gilroy focuses so intently on Washington's uncanny, immersive, and endlessly captivating performance that the movie often feels more like a director so mesmerized by the performance that he often forgets to make the story more purposeful and accessible." - a double dip!
"the film sometimes struggles to find the man beyond the performance"
"everything is swallowed up whole by Washington's award-worthy performance"

and my favorite...
"Roman J. Israel, Esq.'s 1080p transfer is as screen-commanding as Denzel Washington's performance."

[Ribs]

Weirder still that he'd say that in an otherwise fairly positive review (and I'm increasingly convinced by the quiet "it's secretly brilliant" tide I've seen growing on Twitter and elsewhere)

[Dead or Deader]

It's our duty to talk about this clickbait mess.


(While there are valid critiques for some of those films, I can't get over labeling a movie being specific to one generation. How is Psycho a boomer movie when most of that generation were too young to watched in initial release.)

[Never Cursed]

I agree that Crash is a piece of shit, but how in the world is a 2004 movie in any way a baby boomer movie?

[Dead or Deader]

I agree that Crash is a piece of shit, but how in the world is a 2004 movie in any way a baby boomer movie?

The Academy voting body was made up of baby boomers who propped it by giving it the best picture award.

[tenia]

"All of these are bad", and the first one they show is a masterpiece.

It's not just a clickbait, it reads like a 20-something (maybe even younger) who probably thinks (s)he knows stuff about movies (at least enough to make a list about some of them and have a few arguments about why they're poor movies), but actually has an extremely superficial look at them and just shows how little (s)he actually knows about these movies.
And some "arguments" about why these movies are bad are probably even worse than the movies themselves. "Saturday Night Fever is bad just because, well, it's bad."

Yeah, right.

[Mr Sausage]

The Godfather doesn't have an ending? Huh?

[Roger Ryan]

I love how the critic believes Hitchcock made an unintentional "black comedy" with Psycho and then turns around and criticizes The Graduate for having characters who behave impulsively. There are forty years of cinema here under attack with Love Story shoved next to Raging Bull (as an example of how Scorsese apes Tarantino by randomly killing off his characters - never mind that no one dies in this particular film); how is this supposed to represent a single generation?

[tenia]

Let's be fair, it just look like an Armond White critic : not only it's non sense, but it tries to find a pattern in this on top of it.

[Banasa]

The Godfather doesn't have an ending? Huh?

I have a sinking feeling whoever wrote this is mixing up The Godfather with The Sopranos

[Big Ben]

The point was to get you to click the next button twenty one times on their shitpost so you'd generate ad revenue each time the page loaded. What happens next will surprise you.

[Dead or Deader]

I love how the critic believes Hitchcock made an unintentional "black comedy" with Psycho and then turns around and criticizes The Graduate for having characters who behave impulsively. There are forty years of cinema here under attack with Love Story shoved next to Raging Bull (as an example of how Scorsese apes Tarantino by randomly killing off his characters - never mind that no one dies in this particular film); how is this supposed to represent a single generation?

The critic who wrote this clickbait junk definitely has gaps in their knowledge of cinema. If you honesty believe a filmmaker who was as well-established by 1992 as Scorsese was stealing from Tarantino style, never mind the countless homages in QT films, you really shouldn't be writing columns about film. It all strikes me as written from the perspective of a college film student who holds grudges against the boomer film professor that graded him with a F.

[bottled spider]

A young woman witnesses a bus accident, and is caught up in the aftermath, where the question of whether or not it was intentional affects many people’s lives.

Another snort inducing Letterboxd plot summary. They gotta being doing it on purpose.

[MichaelB]

Assuming that that’s Margaret, it’s not technically wrong, although I agree that it leaves a bit to be desired.

I once summarised Jan Švankmajer’s Conspirators of Pleasure as “Six people decide to have a wank, and then have one.” Which is pretty much entirely accurate, although again it lacks a certain something.

[bottled spider]

What amused me was that there's no question of the bus driver intentionally running anyone over! Replacing "intentional" with "criminally negligent" would be a reasonably accurate one-sentence TV Guide summary.

[Big Ben]

It's a popular meme now to explain film plots badly actually. One of the most popular is "Several individuals struggle to return a single piece of jewelry.". This is of course the much known plot of Lord of the Rings.

[aox]

It's a popular meme now to explain film plots badly actually. One of the most popular is "Several individuals struggle to return a single piece of jewelry.". This is of course the much known plot of Lord of the Rings.

It's like that meme from a decade ago describing movies backwards:

If you watch the movie `Jaws' backwards, it's a movie about a shark that keeps throwing up people until they have to open a beach.

[Rayon Vert]

it's a movie about a shark that keeps throwing up people until they have to open a beach.

That sounds like an awesome movie.

[Werewolf by Night]

And then there's this classic from 1998.

[Brian C]

it's a movie about a shark that keeps throwing up people until they have to open a beach.

That sounds like an awesome movie.

Barfnado?

[McCrutchy]

This kind of fits in here. It's not a movie review, but it's still amazing.

Kylie Jenner's "review" of SnapChat just cost the company $1.3 billion on the stock market

sooo does anyone else not open Snapchat anymore? Or is it just me... ugh this is so sad.

Imagine if film reviews could do that kind of box office damage, or have the reverse effect, and cause a film's take to explode at the box office. Sadly, such times are probably behind us, but it's comforting to know that such power rests in such well-manicured hands.

[Big Ben]

No there's some merit to it. Trump told everyone on Twitter that Ben Affleck would do great as Batman. That did turn out so well did it? Sad!

[domino harvey]

I remember when the academy rewarded amazing films like Titanic, The Return of the King, Gladiator, The Matrix or Beautiful Mind.
Now they are rewarding incredible low quality films like The Hurt Locker (exactly the same garbage as Dunyayi Kurtaran Adam or the Ed Wood films), Birdman (tasteless), The Artist (tasteless, boring and not a silent movie at all), Chicago (Boring) or Argo(tasteless).
Now they have garbage like Blade runner 2049 (The worst mysoginistic distophia and a complete fascist film , with a very goofy Rachel CG and a very goofy ending), Kong Skull Island (Incredibly awful movie with the most stupid and worst CGI that I’ve seen in my life, with wrong and strange helicopters, goofy CG King Kong, goofy and improperly lit sun), The Last Jedi (Incompetent, absurd, stupid, big, big, GREAT re-hash of all the star war movies, goofy CG rocks, ridiculous glass fox, inconsistent script) or garbage like that.
Some members of the academy say they are cornered against the wall, and then reward the best of that garbage in these conditions. This is false. They are rewarding the best who they thought, just because the academy is incredibly BIASED against other genres, like good science fiction movies (not garbage like the last Jedi).
So, for me, the Oscars are exactly like The Razzies now. They only reward the worst of the year.
Only they saw the buzz, not the quality.

[Boosmahn]

Now they are rewarding incredible low quality films like ... Birdman (tasteless) ... Now they have garbage like Blade runner 2049 (The worst mysoginistic distophia and a complete fascist film , with a very goofy Rachel CG and a very goofy ending), ... So, for me, the Oscars are exactly like The Razzies now. They only reward the worst of the year.
Only they saw the buzz, not the quality.

Who wrote this? I was indifferent towards Blade Runner: 2049 but think it's far from bland, misogynistic (?), or even boring. CGI was perfectly fine if I'm remembering correctly.

Also, Birdman is tasteless? While I wholeheartedly disagree with the argument that it's pretentious, I understand where people are coming from for that reasoning. But, tasteless? That's a new one.

[Ribs]

It has two women kissing for a single moment is presumably the problem