It’s time yet again for the article that’s easy for me and fun for you- Fun with Netflix Viewer Reviews! For volume 11, I’ve decided to focus on people writing funny Netflix viewer reviews specifically for films in the Criterion Collection. These are presented completely unedited. Even when you think I might have edited something in or out of the copy, I assure you that I have not.
3 Women (1977)
What the @#$%? Repetitive, exasperating, mind-numbing experiment gone wrong. You will search in vain for any meaning or edification.We see two fairly good actresses, who were taken advantage of in their youth, to perform in a B (minus) movie. Altman must have been on drugs.
Boudu Saved From Drowning (1932)
The character Boudu is a mean spirit who should have been allowed to drown. He is not true to human nature in any way. His character is alien. Renoir goes out of his way to show us Boudu’s fine physique even though he should be near starving. Boudu searches for his lost dog but seems to have had little affection for it. Boudu has a jolly laugh as he insults the neglected wife of his benefactor and destoys her dining room. What lesson can we take from this film other than no good deed goes unpunished.
The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976)
This movie was about 45 minutes too long, the acting weak, the dialogue stinted and the action missing. No drama, no laughs. I wish I had that 2 hours and 15 minutes of my life back.
Editor’s note: One of my favorite, common Netflix viewer review tropes is “I want ______ hours of my life back!”
Port of Shadows (1938)
Another boring, over-rated, over-analyzed, nihilist wrist slitter with no points of interest or entertainment value. Movie critics and students of cinema will love it, everyone else beware.
Umberto D. (1952)
If you are a pretentious pseudointellectual, then you will *adore* this movie. Not only is this movie half-a-century old, but it’s foreign too! Try not to knock over your Chardonnay as you excitedly fumble with your mouse to give Umberto D five stars. At its core, this movie is about a happy little dog who manages to prevent his obnoxious old master from offing himself. Presumably we’re supposed to sympathize with the main character whose pride prevents him from doing anything that might improve his situation. I can understand being too prideful to beg for money, but what about getting a freaking job? The guy has enough energy to chase his mutt all over Rome, but he can’t bag groceries? Or does his “pride” prevent him from doing so? He can pawn off his belongings, fake illness to stay in the hospital, make pathetic attempts to hit his friends up for money, but getting a job is out of the question? With some critically acclaimed movies, you come away with a feeling, an idea, or a perspective that you’ve never experienced before. With Umberto D, you come away with an uncomfortable feeling deep in your stomach. Then you realize, it’s just gas.
Movie should have been titled LOSERS. One dimensional characters who ramble on and spew verble vomit from their mouths. Many examples why kids should stay in school and get an education. 23 November 2009
Good Morning (1959)
Very very boring. The only thing I found interesting was listening to the language since I am taking Japanese 203.
Smiles of a Summer Night (1955)
I expected to laugh but instead was bored throughout this 2 1/2 hour movie. What a waste of time. The characters loves are all over the place similar to american tv soap opera style with partners swapping all over the place. Nothing to learn nor admire, just a bunch of fickle hearted people.
I Am Curious: Yellow (1967)
Bad news ,boring dumb film. This is the worst film I have seen in years,the sex in the film does not bother me.There is no acting the actoress an the film were babed from the early sixtys I was in school an wanting to see yello, boy i am glad i missed this bomb.Lyman Nayman is a fat oversex sedish girl who belongs in a hor-house some where in Russia. T>REED
12 Angry Men (1957)
There are actually 2 versions of the film “12 Angry Men.” The one I watched initially was the most recent remake with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott, both equally giving a very convincing performance. This one I would give 5 stars. However, upon learning that it was a remake, naturally I had to see the original 1957 film starring Henry Fonda and Jack Klugman. Unfortunately, it didn’t hold candle to the 1997 version. Maybe it’s because I can relate to the more modern approach of cinematography offered by the latter. That and the fact that the 1997 cast were multi-cultural made it seem more “real” for me. But upon viewing the original, 15 minutes into the film, I decided to turn it off. It just didn’t move me like the remake. When you get a chance, grab the newer version and make your own comparison.
The Exterminating Angel (1962)
A movie that only movie snobs can appreciate. Yes I get it, it isn’t supposed to make sense, things are weird and odd just because they are wierd and odd, still that doesn’t mean I need to like it. Acting as with most spanish films of the era was poor and overly scripted and the total lack of meaning to the story is just something I don’t enjoy. I took an upper level Spanish Lit. class in college and we studied surrelism and even then I found the style as an excuse for lazy writing (creating something outrageous and then not explaining it becuase you trapped yourself into a corner and have no explenation). Though it did evoke questions throughout the viewing as with all surrealist work no answers are ever given and that is why it receives such low marks.
If… “If only I had known that this film was going to suck.” “If only I had followed my gut feeling and not rented this.” “If only the studio that made this crap would have lost the original print in a fire.” I hate this movie!!!