User's review
Watching this movie, one learns a great deal about what makes a movie unwatchable -- it indeed it offends on a variety of levels. How did it get to be so bad? The primary answer is genre failure. The director attempts to evoke the atmosphere of early "monster film" cinematography -- one sees this across a range of cinematographic semiotemes in the film (the moon, the crypt, the mental asylum) Indeed, plot elements and narrative structure are evocative of earlier cinema. So it's a like if Ford reintroduced the Model T. Certainly there would be a few sales but then one would quickly learn that the car had no power and could not handle well on the road. In the same way, the image grammar of this film has long been deposed by new representations. Ten seconds of it would be okay, but two hours is just tiring. I literally fell asleep at one point, and that NEVER happens to me at the movies. On of the film's innovations is to try to give the epoch a post-modern flavor by introducing an hispanic character. This might have worked in a boring sort of way if the actor playing the role had been born in Engladn. Del Toro's Mexi-American roots betray him in this film, however. From the very first moment he begins to act in the film it is clear that this man has never before set foot in a moor. It seems as if DelToro knows that any acting he does will portray his inappropriateness in the role and he attempts to compensate by not acting at all. As a result, he seems more like a piece of furniture than a human being when he is on screen, and the fact that others on screen treat him as if he is human, is interacting with them, makes them appear a little affectively dissociated too. All in all it was a horrid film -- so bad I lack the literary ability to get my sentences down into the gutter where this thing discovered and created itself. Something this cliche, this pathetic, this ruined as a potential for cinema turned into nothing at all, such a thing comes along rarely in even a decade. It's as if Ed Wood had resurrected to do one more film with a better budget. I encourage all readers to go, because that is the only way they will get the full sense of cinematic ennui which my sentences can't come even close to creating.
| 7/10 | basilherringboneiii@ - 116 reviews 19.2.2010 - age: 13-17 - 40 replies Then why on earth would you give this flick a 7? You are writing one things and scoring it much higher than your descriptors reflect. I believe that you meant to score this a 5 or even a 4... You actually gave this movie a higher score than the average review in here. So explain it to me in 25 words or less. As I say in the note, itself, some things are so bad that they compel viewing, in the manner people might gawk at a car accident. This movie is the car accident of cinema 2010. For a person interested in the logic of cinema, how it works and when it doesn't, this film is a gold mine. Keeping in mind that backers put millions of dollars into making it, and that it drew a stellar cast, it provides a wonderful illustration of the gap between conception and realization. Anyone interested in that issue would be fascinated to observe how a film, which must have been conceived in good faith, could actually turn out so horribly bad. I also encourage people to see bad films in order to cultivate the cinematic palatte, through exposure to the taste of offal. But, in another sense, in the sense of sending a message to a viewer seeking basic entertainment from the film in itself, this movie is a 0, perhaps a 1 or a 2 at best -- definitely not worth watching unless you can be reflexive with respect to entertainment, which I am at all times. The given score was, then, part of the irony of the evaluation. Sorry for the confusion. I see all the movies both good and bad. Like you I try to garner anything from the flick besides the plot and acting. But I disagree with you on the scoring. Some directors create car wrecks to create an effect or a mood. Sometimes it is to have you feel the frustration of the protagonist or the victim or whatever... You are saying that this movie's car wreck was unintentional and was just sadly bad... Anyway thanks for your response. I gave this puppie a 3 or 4. I enjoyed the setting but otherwise this movie couldn't make up its mind on many levels. If given a choice I would rather watch the original with Lon Chaney. We perhaps are not worlds apart on this film, albeit we score it differently. Many of Tarantino's films are attempts to do what you are describing in this note -- also films like Sin City: to create a sort of "triumph of the B movie" by returning to a 50's genre and "sexing it up". In this case, I think the director was going much earlier into cinema -- shortly after talkies and in terms of images, sometimes even before talkies. There was a discursive awkwardness in those early movies -- though actors could perform stage drama with text, representation of discourse in cinema was new. The awkward speaker, who comes in two seconds after his cue, in a manner that dissociates utterances from responses, was part of that early form. Perhaps DelToro was trying to do that or the director was trying to create that. At any event, I don't think it worked. If it had, we would both be rating this film higher. At any event, thanks for your provocative and challenging insights. Are you really only 13 to 17 years old? Bravo critique, whatever age you happen to be. I have not seen the film yet, but now know exactly what to expect. Thank you. Thank you for your kind words. I am, in fact, a 13 year old character. Happily so because older characters who write reviews tend to get a lot more rude response comments. People find it hard to attack a thirteen year old, and embarassing when he writes back and makes them look foolish. So 13 is just the right age for me to be. It is a happy "coincidence". Well you are certainly the most articulate 13 yr old I've ever read. I would like to see you pursue a career as a film critic, producer, director, whatever... a perfect replacement for the likes of Roger Ebert at the very least. Thank you for sharing your insights. I have not seen this film yet but may yet go for pure entertainment value. Yours is a generous soul, to offer such positive words to another person. Also a developed one -- where others feel a need to attack effort, you find reason to praise it. The unexpected kindness of your words gives me that much more hope with respect to the openness and maturity of the human spirit. BHiii. Are you not to young to watch this movie? Perhaps you are right. I may be too immature to appreciate the subtleties of the aesthetic. No doubt it will leave me morally deformed as well. Oh well, too late now -- I can't (un)watch it. Thanks for asking... Who cares what age you are. You're trying to be a pseudo-intellectual critic, and too wordy at that. Either you liked it or didn't. Honestly... ! I TOTALLY agree! Either this kid is a very arrogant, yappy (er. Verbose) child, or a very arrogant, yappy opinionated adult. Either way, they sure like to hear themselves speak, and no doubt had a good dictionary/thesaurus open on their toolbar! [...] Can you not tell the difference between an intellectual and a pseudo-intellectual? Or are you so tragically undeveloped as a human being that you level contumely at all you do not understand? [...] Bear in mind, [...] that you cannot elevate your own status by diminishing mine, particularly in what is no more than a fatuous ad hominem attack that, at the same time, attempts to realize "liked it or didn't like it" as the gold standard of critical judgment. Perhaps I could say the same of my review: either you liked it or you didn't like it. Curiously, however, given your stated opinion, your own proposed standard was not enough for you -- you needed malversation, for your own sad reasons; you needed to convert your fear of an intelligent review into an acephalous attack on my character. Well then, if you would have this standard as the standard of judgment, where are your lived grounds for suggesting that it is a standard you, yourself, are willing to keep. Apparently, they don't exist, and so it is ironic that you end your complaint with "Honestly...," for there is nothing honest about your note -- it overflows with the pestiferous insecurity of one who cannot think; yet, nevertheless, reserves the privilege of attacking those who do. And this being so, by definition, you are what Jose Ortega Y Gasset refers to as an "intellectual barbarian". Still, all is not lost, for you might take instruction from your own articulated ignorance. Let me formalize the counsel: First, the fact that you have a small vocabulary and a low level of literacy does not mean that your betters are "wordy" -- indeed, to so accuse reflects back upon you as accuser; makes a public display of your own opacity. With that in mind, may I suggest, given the way you write, that your best strategy for impressing others might simply be keeping your mouth shut and your pen in a box? Please, little man, heed this most generous aureum consilium: learn to keep your opinions where they belong, among the viragos and the trulls who seek authority by randomly attacking those who have it by natural design. BHiii. LOL Good one com. I am enjoying this review section more than any movie I've seen in a long while. I understand your age position well. It is lost on the puppy who is being critical. I by coincidence have a similar age. Thanks, Psterl, I could tell from your earlier note that there are affinities connecting us. For some reason, I find that when I write as an older AVATAR, people attack even more. Ultimately, it just gets tiring. By using this AVATAR, however, child cinematic prodigy, Basil Herringbone iii, the whole thing turns into a game for me, so that the huffy respondents become a source of strange pleasure. Sometimes I add subtleties to my writing just to bate them, like "semiotemes" and "cinematic ennui" -- I call it fishing for beligerents. By the way, you would have appreciated the non-edited version of the above retort (passages removed are marked with ellipses [...] In those missing passages, I used a variety of French expressions because there is nothing a person like that writer hates more than being spoken to in more than one language at a time. For some reason, the editors removed them, however, and a little fun went with it. Of course, for me, I really think that it needs to be fun -- a break from being a "real" person. Otherwise why bother. Again, thanks. BHiii. Well now you have let the cat out of the bag to a degree. Simialry to you, I have a double mask-erade party. I have a double persona in here... for my good cop bad cop reviews. For one I am more of a petulant puppie while the other is more cerebral. I'll even post replies to myself... lol For this site I wish they would put every "first" review outside the box. I would also have one liners to be put in a separate area and call this area District 8, Well I will look for you on other reviews. I saw Shutter last night. It was a good one. Take care Pat. Yes I wonder how many people are using the same strategies we use for writing reviews. My guess, based on the nature of most reviews (liked it or didn't like it, as the judge of the world suggests above) that most are just writing casual responses and are not "into this" enough to bother role-ing with it. Having said that, I must comment on your natural ability to turn or return a phrase, my favorite being "District 8" which is just subtle enough to be overlooked, the mark of a good pun. As for our secret identities -- they remain well-guarded. I have a saying, grounded in real research, that the best way to hide an idea is to write it down. The printed word, for the contemporary adult, is the bar of soap for a nine year old boy. Thus, this deep in a string of messages, I can assure you that nobody is reading. That is in fact why I am going a little long in this response: if I can get it up to about fifteen lines, you will be the only person who ever sees it. As our culture hero (see below) says to me: zzz. Yawn. I also like your suggested review innovations. I have been thinking about making Basil persistently obnoxious, just to create moral turmoil in the audience. Jules Henry said in a book called PATHWAYS TO MADNESS "There is no absolute punishment for stupidity, in our society, no matter how exuberant and suffocating it might be. But intellect, if expressed without limit, provokes a ferocious attack from society. Maybe it's time for a new avatar to emerge: Francoise de Sante Plume, e perhaps. We could have our own district:) Shutter Island was great, but I could not think of a way to make the review exercise worth doing. You know from the beginning that this film will most likely be resolved with the same logic as The Sixth Sense and The Others (i. e., suddenly, I woke up); but Scorsese actually uses the narrative to gradually convince you that won't happen, and when you finally believe him... WHAM!!! , it does. This is one of the reasons he is so great. Thanks again and best, Basil. Hi again Francoise De Sante Plume. We'll have to stop meeting like this. I did post a review for Shutter so perhaps we can continue our chats there. I am now left to wonder what you did for a living... not 'do' but did... Your reference to stupidity and Intellect are true. I believe Einstein said that there is a limit to genius but sadly not one for stupidity. I also like the phrase "silence is the fence of wisdom." So as we communicate I will narrow down my guesses as to your career... teaching is too obvious... you're too smart to be "just" a teacher... lol So I would like to see your views on Shutter. I wrote my review but wrote far less than I wanted to. I focused on the visual aspect of the movie. I am sure there is a whole universe of thought on the use of water in this film... I would even guess they used stunt double matches in the building C scenes... Very powerful effect... Do you go leafing through the pages of a thesaurus often, or just get excited for wordplay. I think you picked the wrong forum to get noticed if journalism is your thing, er or maybe scrabble... either way I find your comments ridiculously pretentious and I feel sorry for you for feeling the need to impersonate a 12 year old to gain attention. My two coppers. Lol He's just playing with you... and you fell for it... you even missed some of the big picture in his words. Thanks buddie[...]. Of course, you are right about my Andy-Kaufmanesque strategy, yet you can see how many people willingly take up the role of dupe. I wonder why they feel obliged to attack someone who "thinks he is so smart" -- it's as if they feel a moral duty to protect ignorance, stupidity, or perhaps the status quo. At any event, thanks for responding to this latest culture warrior so that I don't have to bother myself. [...] I think he needs to find a better game then or better yet maybe stay off the internet for a while and stop embarrasing himself. I missed all the words fortunately, I think I read the first paragraph before the dry heaves set in, and there sure as hell wasn't any picture there I could see. Well said; this reviewer seems to be a very lonely, arrogant, [...]. At least he's not wasting paper and ink when he writes when he writes his benign insights. My Dear True. You can see that I have spent a good amount of time responding already to those like you who need to assault what they cannot understand, and it is getting a little tiring -- there are so many of you out there. Indeed I would prefer just a sentence, but the fact that you needed to write TWICE suggests that you are a genuine fascist, so I will have to be a little more detailed: first, you say that I should not be in this environment if I am seeking attention; yet I have 32 notes posted to my original response -- that seems to belie your sarcastic claim that I get "no attention" (if indeed, that is what I seek), all the more because YOU YOURSELF have TWICE felt the need to chip in what you (I assume because of inflation) are willing to credit as having the worth of two cents. A mature person, when crossing ideas that do not appeal for one reason or another, simply moves on quickly to the next review, or what have you. But you are not that person. You are the sort of person who will read two dozen thoughtless and empty reviews and never stop to write "Why did you bother reviewing if you have nothing to say." No, you don't do that, because you are quite at home with the helplessly illiterate and stupid. Nevertheless, something in you compels you to stop and police a vocabulary that you admit is broader than your own. "Oh, no!" a dim voice calls from the bowel of your brain to the toilet of your tongue," someone is using a word that I don't understand. That must be stopped!" and then you take up a role that has plagued history -- the role of the grand inquisitor -- he who stamps out innovative or original thought. And in that role, you make a week effort to shame me into a smaller performance of myself through sarcasm -- exactly the sort of thing that a junior high school student does. But note, and I have said this to your sort many times in my responses to these sorts of comments, that you say nothing substantive with respect to the film. It's as if you have no interest in the film at all. What you seem to be interested in is your own fear that you might be reading the words of someone who knows more than you do and is not ashamed to reveal it. Oh, now THAT you need to attack. We can't have people thinking, can we? We can't have people forcing us to go to the dictionary. Do you then believe that the few words you have in your head and the few ideas that reside there are sufficient for for the rest of your life. Well, perhaps you are right. Certainly you have enough wits to bag groceries, for example; and that is perhaps all you will ever need. There are others out there with wider aspirations, however, and maybe they don't believe that the most noble moment of their lives was the moment they caught the ball or put the ball in the hole during the big game in high school. Perhaps there is something more for them to do with their lives. They can find ways to grow by typing movie reviews, for example. And perhaps movie reviews are not the only thing they do, but even if they are, what concern is that of yours? You think I should not review in the manner I do? Well I think you should not respond to the reviewer in the manner you do. Which of us is more ignorant, then: the one who wrote what he imagined (perhaps) to be an intelligent review, or imagined (perhaps) to be a provocative review, or the one who needed to jump in with some sort of judgment against an attempt to be provocative or imaginative. Yes, it is odd, my grocery bagging friend, that you would choose to moonlight from your day job as a member of the thought police. Do you walk up to people in coffee shops and write them tickets for having interesting conversations? Do you have surveillance cameras on your front lawn in case someone says something you don't understand while walking by? Do you carry a stop sign and hold it up in the classroom or at work when someone mentions the book he is reading? Have your superiors given you a uniform. You refer to my "age", and I would like to say that you seem a lot younger, but the truth is you don't: you have a form of stupidity and ignorance that can only be gathered over a lifetime: the smug sort. The sort that writes a stranger to attack "big words" rather than going to a dictionary. No, when I read you, I do not read the ignorance of a child, for children always combine their innocence with wonder. They are indeed learning machines. You are in fact, the sort of person who brings an end to childhood wonder. Perhaps then you are a schoolteacher? You stopped growing, if your notes are representative of your full character, as a human being some time ago, and you now seem to feel a need to jump on anyone who has not agreed to do the same. As I mentioned in responding to another of your type, you are what Jose Ortega Y Gasset refers to as an "intellectual barbarian" -- someone who knows no facts with respect to a topic nevertheless reserves full rights with respect to holding an opinion. As for the "thought police", you can look that up in the writings of William Irwin Thompson, but of course you will look up neither. It is unlikely that my words would make you look up anything indeed, but do hope they at least will make you "look up" yourself. You need to take a good look at yourself in the mental mirror, grocery boy, and ask yourself why you are attacking people who know words that you don't. Did you attack the quarterback when he threw the crucial ball in high school, or the forward who "Shoots! He SCORES!" And what does the ability to put a ball in a hole contribute to society? Believe it or not, and I have no time to educate you if you do not, the human race did not get to where it has because people put balls in holes. It got to where it has because all through history, individuals like me (but certainly my betters) have been passionately invested in writing and thinking. They created the shoulder harness that allowed horses to work fields, instead of inefficient oxen, they created the mathematics that allowed all the practical devices in engineering for example, and they created the philosophical understandings that ground, for example, democratic civil life. Everything that you take for granted in life, from your automobile to your refrigerator, is the result of people like me, not like you, trying to think beyond the parameters of what is already there. And you... you are the person throughout history, who pulls their tongues out and roasts them on spits in front of an audience. Well, news flash, grocery boy, those days are gone. No doubt you miss them. So go ahead, live your meaningless life all week and on weekends find a ball and put it in a hole. But consider that you might also draw to a close your infantile policing of the efforts of other human beings, whether you like them or not. Denouncing someone else for having a contribution too stylized for your liking, whether that person is 10 or 100 -- is that really what you want history to leave as your record? Or will you stay forever with the philosophy of uselessness: be normal -- be no one. 7 out of 10 is pretty good for a terrible movie. The score I gave is ironic. It's not easy to make a movie so terrible. It's like saying that it's "superbad". Thanks for asking. Speaking of falling asleep... usually the movie is longer than the review. Not this time. Yawn. Zzz... Ahahahahaha yess! I was about to write exactly that lolz. Why would you attach your level of literacy and your attention span to Statue-rat? Didn't you read the way he was humiliated by the response of the original reviewer? Oh, of course not -- I forgot: you can't read! Dear Statuerat. Since you seem to be suffering from a literary attention deficit disorder, I will be brief: 1) the fact that you are but marginally literate (hence unable to follow a nuanced argument) does not mean that I am boring; 2) a more detailed assessment of the kinds of people who send the sort of message you have sent me can be found in my response to Joliejojo above. Here's a movie that most you will relate to; The 40 year old virgin. Thx for watching. News flash: smug insults work on toilet stall walls, but they carry little weight in a context that allows complete sentences and critical judgment. Your wry wit, which suggests that the fact I am smart means I must also be sexually frustrated, is based on a general assumption made by the ignorant -- that their stupidity makes them better at sex. While it is true that stupidity may lead them into more contexts for sexual activity, which they may ultimately regret, there is no correlation between stupidity and sexual prowess. There are a number of reasons. The first in importance is one that you perhaps have never coonsidered: many women find intelligence an aphrodisiac. Women often say, for example, that they like a man who can make them laugh, and a good sense of humor often accompanies a strong mind (hence the word "wit") Your second error is to overlook the fact that there is at least one brilliant woman for every brilliant man. Your third is to fail to recognize that genius can direct itself to any task, including cultvating a sexual personnae and sexual competence. And if you think that sexual pleasure is not a function of intelligence then you are even weaker than your humor suggests. It is not without reason that we have the saying "the brain is the most erotic organ". If that doesn't make sense to you, please don't ask me to explain it. We are clearly coming from different worlds. Both technically and morally sex is something that also requires study. So no, you will not trump me by implying that my potential for sexual conquest is inhibited by my intelligence. Quite the opposite is commonly the case, which you would know if you knew anything. And thus, I return at the end of this note to the point that I made at the beginning. Slander is meant for the toilet room wall, where it can be performed without risk of retalliation and where it functions as a form of elimination not dissimilar to the other items produced in that context. Sadly for you, then, you are out of your natural element when you write on a web page. You need to go back to your natural habitat, the toilet stall. BHiii. You are incredibly smart for a 13 year old, you are my new idol. I'm sure that you are every bit as articulate as I am, perhaps even a little more subtle. May I, then, express my equal admiration of you? This thread just gets better and better... Thanks for the chuckles, Basil. I may cut and paste some of your more salient barbs in defending myself. As for your career I am baffled... And I am not a graphic designer, although I have explored interests on the artistic side. After all I am only 9, my paint by number stuff has been exhibited on bathroom walls. "From the bowels of your brain to the toilet of your mouth" A classic! I am still waiting for your Shutter review. Pat. Yes, I think his writing is a good example of what I mean by an "upper" upper-decker. He is one of the few who have been successful at making me angry. I think it's because he took the secondary step (in his second note) of maligning me, not head on, but to someone else (what I call third-party character assassination) That's not something I admire whenever I see it or hear of it, but particularly, of course, when someone does it with me... in earshot. At any event... I am as baffled about your career. Though not retired, nor near it (13 or otherwise) I am as independent as one can possibly be and (here's a bizarre hint) love what I do. Shutter Island will be tricky for me as I feel you have taken the brass ring on that one. I'm looking at writing from the perspective of Francoise de Sant Plume or Francoise Saint Tableau Noire's perspective on the movie "The Crazy's". Now that was an experience. BHiii. [ATTENTION: This comment reveals content of the movie.] [ATTENTION: This comment reveals content of the movie.] I would hope that your writing is done creatively as opposed to legally or technically. Thanks for your further insights into Shutter Island... It should have been called Aperture Island. I am heading out to see Matt Damon's new flick... Yes Mich seems to be following me around as is the Buddie_dog... But I believe that you are correct in that we are now buried in the archives. I commend you Francoise de Sante Plume. I actually enjoyed the storyline in forty year old virgin... I am still waiting on Shutter Island for your arrival... As for toilet stall humor my favorite grafitti was," I think I'm a homosexual necrophiliac," said John in dead Earnest. 'badoom tish' (drum roll) |
Note: The review posted on this page is a personal opinion of our reader. We are not responsible for its content.
Did you see ''The Wolfman''?
Terms and Privacy Policy under which this service is provided to you.
© 1996-2013 CinemaClock Canada Inc.
