'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism both old and new, as well as memorializing public figures we've lost.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3801 Post by Matt » Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:29 pm

Pauline Kael dragged Crowther every chance she got. Her review of Lolita includes the phrase, "Bosley Crowther, who can always be counted on to miss the point..."
Monterey Jack wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:28 pm
I'd love to read a lot of reviews of John Carpenter's The Thing from the summer of '82 when critics ran roughshod over it and called Carpenter "...a pornographer of violence", but little of it survives today, and it doesnt paint an accurate portrait of how it was perceived then compared to how critically beloved is is now.
I have access via an academic library to thousands of historical newspapers and journals, and I can't find a single actual citation for this "pornographer of violence" quote other than Carpenter saying in an interview that he was called that by a critic.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3802 Post by Gregory » Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:44 pm

Monterey Jack: for sure, and before reading your comment I'd just amended my post to say "easily available online" because of course there's so much else available via full-text databases, but 99 percent of the time I'm not going to go through that process unless I really have to.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3803 Post by MichaelB » Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:54 pm

I don't understand what you mean by "little of it survives" - surely pretty much all of it survives in the relevant newspaper archives?

Newspapers.com might be a good starting point for research.

User avatar
Skrmng Skll Th Thd
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3804 Post by Skrmng Skll Th Thd » Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:37 pm

Matt wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:29 pm
Pauline Kael dragged Crowther every chance she got. Her review of Lolita includes the phrase, "Bosley Crowther, who can always be counted on to miss the point..."
Pauline Kael, who can always be counted on to never watch a movie twice, to never change her mind, and to value film as a vicarious "experience" rather than the artifact is is...

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3805 Post by Altair » Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:31 am

Skrmng Skll Th Thd wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:37 pm
Matt wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:29 pm
Pauline Kael dragged Crowther every chance she got. Her review of Lolita includes the phrase, "Bosley Crowther, who can always be counted on to miss the point..."
Pauline Kael, who can always be counted on to never watch a movie twice, to never change her mind, and to value film as a vicarious "experience" rather than the artifact is is...
And who can usually be counted on to a wonderfully literate, stimulating, and provocative writer. I value film criticism as first and foremost, a piece of writing, and Crowther's fundamental problem (apart from his rampant sexism), is that he writes in a dreadful mid-century 'journalese' speak that has not aged well. Kael's essays and reviews however, are still a pleasure to read.

And don't come at me saying she didn't finish watching all the films she wrote about, or that she played favourites, or that she got Kubrick wrong, and so on, and so forth. Would watching a film twice have made her a better writer? Probably not. And writing about cinema as an experiential art form is perfectly legitimate, because before videos, most people did not encounter the materiality of film, only its expression in flickering projected light.

User avatar
Skrmng Skll Th Thd
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:32 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3806 Post by Skrmng Skll Th Thd » Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:55 pm

Altair wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:31 am
Skrmng Skll Th Thd wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:37 pm
Matt wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:29 pm
Pauline Kael dragged Crowther every chance she got. Her review of Lolita includes the phrase, "Bosley Crowther, who can always be counted on to miss the point..."
Pauline Kael, who can always be counted on to never watch a movie twice, to never change her mind, and to value film as a vicarious "experience" rather than the artifact is is...
And who can usually be counted on to a wonderfully literate, stimulating, and provocative writer. I value film criticism as first and foremost, a piece of writing, and Crowther's fundamental problem (apart from his rampant sexism), is that he writes in a dreadful mid-century 'journalese' speak that has not aged well. Kael's essays and reviews however, are still a pleasure to read.

And don't come at me saying she didn't finish watching all the films she wrote about, or that she played favourites, or that she got Kubrick wrong, and so on, and so forth. Would watching a film twice have made her a better writer? Probably not. And writing about cinema as an experiential art form is perfectly legitimate, because before videos, most people did not encounter the materiality of film, only its expression in flickering projected light.
"Come at you"? I didn't quote you or address you, "Bro," so I don't appreciate the offensive/defensive posturing about points I didn't make to begin with.

As for the Kael Vs. Crowther Deathmatch 2018, I agree that Kael is multitudes more readable, and that Crowther is a desiccated turd in comparison. But I think Kael's work, her approach in general, has not dated well either. It's as if she tried to write like the films she most admired were made: off the cuff, in the moment, with an adolescent, Boomer-era "YOLO" sensibility. In fact, the living writer who most reminds me of her is - haha - Jeffrey Wells, with his laughablely cluless "Samurai Poet" self image and middlebrow "Jizz-Whiz" condescension. Kael's much more informed as a viewer, of course (Wells proudly trumps the fact that he hates films about "poor" people, or most Asian films, and so on) but I still find her tedious and unrewarding compared to someone like James Agee or Dwight Macdonald, or - even better - just listening to one director talk about another.

User avatar
tojoed
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:47 am
Location: Cambridge, England

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3807 Post by tojoed » Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:29 pm

Altair wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:31 am
Skrmng Skll Th Thd wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:37 pm
Matt wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 6:29 pm
Pauline Kael dragged Crowther every chance she got. Her review of Lolita includes the phrase, "Bosley Crowther, who can always be counted on to miss the point..."
Pauline Kael, who can always be counted on to never watch a movie twice, to never change her mind, and to value film as a vicarious "experience" rather than the artifact is is...
And who can usually be counted on to a wonderfully literate, stimulating, and provocative writer. I value film criticism as first and foremost, a piece of writing, and Crowther's fundamental problem (apart from his rampant sexism), is that he writes in a dreadful mid-century 'journalese' speak that has not aged well. Kael's essays and reviews however, are still a pleasure to read.

And don't come at me saying she didn't finish watching all the films she wrote about, or that she played favourites, or that she got Kubrick wrong, and so on, and so forth. Would watching a film twice have made her a better writer? Probably not. And writing about cinema as an experiential art form is perfectly legitimate, because before videos, most people did not encounter the materiality of film, only its expression in flickering projected light.
Well said, Altair. And,of course, all her reviews are available in actual books.

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3808 Post by Rayon Vert » Sat Dec 01, 2018 4:43 pm

Is there a list somewhere of her likes and dislikes? My impression was always that her tastes ran opposite to mine, with the notable exception of her championing of De Palma and Altman.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3809 Post by domino harvey » Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:45 pm

This official summary of Black Shampoo, an apparent exploitation cash-in on the Ashby movie, is suspiciously specific
A black hairstylist has sex with his female customers, and tries to keep the Mafia from taking over his business.
Gotta include the word "female" so modern viewers don't get worried about a movie starring a hairstylist

User avatar
Cremildo
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:19 pm
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3810 Post by Cremildo » Sat Dec 01, 2018 9:13 pm

Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian) on Adina Pintilie's Touch Me Not:
People will want to make their own minds up about the film, but for me there is something worryingly crass and naïve in it.
Wow! Thanks for the deference. Yes, we will want to make our own minds up about the film.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3811 Post by MichaelB » Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:21 am

Isn’t that a far preferable approach to making absolutist statements?

User avatar
Cremildo
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:19 pm
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3812 Post by Cremildo » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:28 am

I'm not sure what would be absolutist about simply writing, "For me, there is something worryingly crass and naïve in it". Any moderately intelligent reader would realize that that's Bradshaw's take, not a statement of fact that can't possibly be disagreed with. No need for the reviewer to make patronizing allusions to others making up their own minds as if they were stubborn for possibly having a different opinion on the matter.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3813 Post by MichaelB » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:36 am

I don't think it's the least bit patronising. Bradshaw is clearly aware that his view might be a minority one, and is allowing for it. If anything, he's being the polar opposite of patronising.

User avatar
Dead or Deader
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 12:47 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3814 Post by Dead or Deader » Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:33 pm

Brad Stevens wrote:One certainly finds no evidence of them in the oeuvres of such supposedly ‘important’ figures as Steven Soderbergh and Paul Thomas Anderson (the modern equivalents of Fred Zinnemann and Stanley Kramer),

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3815 Post by knives » Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:11 pm

Need more context.

User avatar
Cremildo
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:19 pm
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3816 Post by Cremildo » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:08 pm

The context is a Sight & Sound piece on style, more specifically how rare "classical Hollywood mise en scene is in the work
of today’s supposed masters".

User avatar
HinkyDinkyTruesmith
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:21 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3817 Post by HinkyDinkyTruesmith » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:14 pm

That makes it infinitely worse.

User avatar
bdsweeney
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3818 Post by bdsweeney » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:29 pm

Cremildo wrote:The context is a Sight & Sound piece on style, more specifically how rare "classical Hollywood mise en scene is in the work
of today’s supposed masters".
From which issue? I’m now curious to read the article.

User avatar
HinkyDinkyTruesmith
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:21 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3819 Post by HinkyDinkyTruesmith » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:39 pm

I believe it's this article.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3820 Post by furbicide » Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:54 pm

I don’t know what’s up with IMDb’s algorithms, but out of five user reviews for Knife+Heart, this is the one that got featured:
what the...????

Sorry to say this but I was totally wrong when I decided to see this film. Totally wrong. I went to it because the critics said the best about Vanessa Paradis performance. Maybe she is great. Maybe. And I am sure she is. But I did not stay long enough in the theatre to check. Not my stuff. Nude movies, blow jobs among homosexuals, men dressed as women...Not my taste, not my cup of tea. But I repeat, maybe that's a great picture. Maybe...
(Full disclosure: I haven’t read the other four, so maybe they’re even worse. Who knows? This is IMDb we’re talking about...)

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3821 Post by Big Ben » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:10 am

The plot synopsis says it's about gay porn. Why would he watch something like this if he knew he'd be offended?

McCrutchy
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3822 Post by McCrutchy » Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:17 am

Big Ben wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:10 am
The plot synopsis says it's about gay porn. Why would he watch something like this if he knew he'd be offended?
It also says that Paradis plays a woman who "produces third-rate gay porn", which is confusing. I mean, I can guess what "first-rate" and "second-rate" gay porn is, but "third-rate"? Surely you wouldn't even need a producer for that, just two guys, a smartphone and a laptop?

EDIT: Never mind, it's set in the late 70s. Still, from the trailer, the porn being produced looks pretty "second-rate" Surely "third-rate" gay porn in the 70s was just two guys and a cameraman in a motel room, or just boy/boy/girl scenes from straight porn with the girl cut/cropped out in the editing room.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3823 Post by knives » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:51 pm

Here's a doozy:
lol. trust griffith to make a boring, stupid and nearly incomprehensible mess that encourages american audiences of the time to bathe in their own imagined tolerance whilst simultaneously pandering to their basest prejudices. a grand technical achievement? an important historical document? i don't care.

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

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3824 Post by domino harvey » Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:06 pm

I did not like this; not one of the better or more memorable TV offerings. The lead woman “actress” was not good-looking and was insufferably irritating. Her cohort Amy was perhaps the saddest-faced most boring character in TV history, and looks like she has a left glass eye. All the other “actors” were equally boring and forgettable. I had a hard time separating the two great houses that confiscate the two boy-children, but, with thought, I was able to do it. This is not what you want in a fricking TV show. The “battles” at Waterloo were bad and predictable. I hated the uniforms. The musical score was awful—modern, with singers like Kate Bush. Classical music would have been POWERFUL. There was only one worthwhile scene toward the end, where Dob and Amy finally have it out and Dob yells the Truth at her. Then back to bleahhh. Oh...the Evil Lord so-and-so (i forget his name) was a pretty good actor but over did his part. All in all, this offering was boring, confusing, and a waste of my time.

User avatar
soundchaser
No longer chasing skirts
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:32 am

Re: 'Rediculous' Customer & Critic Reviews

#3825 Post by soundchaser » Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:11 pm

domino harvey wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:06 pm
modern, with singers like Kate Bush.
50 Words for Snow came out nearly a decade ago.

Post Reply