nando820

3.0 is interesting on my scale

5.0 Masterpiece ------ (no matter how i look at it, its perfect)
4.5 Amazing ------ (It blew me away, it had things that I didn't see coming)
4.0 Very good ------ (I really enjoy the ride, I probably would come back again)
3.5 Good ------ (I enjoy the ride, might not take it again, but it was pleasant)
3.0 Interesting ------ (it is interesting enough to keep watching, has some interesting aspects)
2.5 Poor ------ (it missed the mark, good ideas poor execution)
2.0 Bad ------ (it wasn't good at all)
1.5 Stupid ------ (it offends my intellect )
1.0 Very stupid ------ (it infuriates me, cant get pass the holes)
0.5 Unwatchable ------ (change channel, mediocrity all around)

PS: I would have given it 4.0

Kedrix

Well, I will apologize . I've been doing reviewing for over 6 years now, and I guess I really carry the torch sometimes. My apologies. Nando's scale is pretty good and follows mine for the most part. The only thing I would change is 2.5..which is just average to me. Anyway....this is a Criterion forum, bring on the Criterions!

MattyMac1986

Hey with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy getting very limited release and talk in the general public on this side of the atlantic I was wondering with a cast as almost perfect, a solid director, and since we already have a John Le Carre novel in the collection what people thought of the possibility of adding this to the collection. Criterion could try and get the rights to the old BBC mini series based on the same book to add to the disc, there would be lots of documeteries about the Cold War/MI5-6/Spying/Le Carre himself/etc that could also be used as extra materials.

If people don't think this is a possibility, perhaps an eclipse set of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Simley's People, and A Murder of Quality all three are BBC mini series based around the same Character George Smiley, staring Alec Guinness and Denhom Elliott. Or perhaps an eclipse set of John Le Carres other works that don't have great DVD editions like The Tailor of Panama(Pierce Brosnan), The looking Glass War(Anthony Hopkins), The Russia House(Sean Conery), Little Drummer Girl(Diane Keaton), Deadly Affair(James Mason), Constant Gardener(Ralph Fiennes),

Just a thought

riotinmyskull

blu-ray.com on ISLAND OF LOST SOULS

Superdaddy

I saw the Guinness versions of TTSS and Smiley's People many moons ago. I enjoyed them and wouldn't mind seeing them again.

As far as the other Le Carre adaptations go, I could be wrong but I think Little Drummer Girl is controlled by Warner, who currently don't seem to license movies to other companies. Some of the others might be cool to see on Criterion, but Eclipse sets would be DVD only and barebones, so adding them to the main line would get them out on BD and most likely with extras. The Constant Gardener is a fantastic film and that would be great to see released on BD.

Brian T

Better reviewers include context, which doesn't come from the heart, it comes from research, particularly if the writer "wasn't there" and can't provide any from memory. That Blu-ray.com review is a joke (then again, it's not the first one on that site). He admits in his last line that he "doesn't understand why it is loved" but completely fails to address or rebuff any of the reasons for which it is. And worse, he provides zero context for either the era depicted in the film or the era in which it was created—or the oft-cited links between the two—and I seriously doubt he's seen any Linklater films besides this one (which would of course provide even more context). Just a sad example of what happens when someone reviews from their heart alone without looking at the larger picture or, apparently, being capable of doing so, which leads to embarrassingly ill-informed lines like "and little green men quietly abduct every single cop in the area." Frankly, I can only hope that DVD Savant gets his hands on a copy. He's one of the few disc reviewers out there (and in here!) who clearly understands the value of formal research and rich contextualization in film/DVD criticism, in addition to expressing from-the-heart feelings about the films under review. Good reviewers might also use words like 'bastardize' and phrases like 'popular culture' in the proper context.

Frankly, I've never thought much of this belief/defense mechanism—borne largely of internet forums—that all reviews are equal because they're just opinion and therefore unassailable and we should all move on because my opinion's as valid as yours even though I live in a bubble and you're an actual film historian, etc. etc., yak, yak, woof, woof. When it comes to web-based criticism by enthusiasts (who are just as often untrained writers who compensate for a lack of clarity and concision by maxing whatever word count they're allowed), a 'bad review' shouldn't necessarily refer to the film being examined.

Oh, and Pizza, you might be interested to know that Leonard Maltin revised his ALIEN review from the original 1.5 stars (if I recall correctly) to 3.5 stars (out of four) several issues ago, and re-wrote the capsule review accordingly. I believe he even made mention of it in the forward of the guide in which it first appeared, though I can't remember which year.

PopcornTreeCt

Well said, Brian T. Very well said.

Hammer99

If I remember right, Maltin had Taxi Driver at 2 stars.

Giles

speaking of Alec Guinness - I'd give my left nut for a blu-ray edition of 'Tunes of Glory' - what a damn good movie. and I really hope they can correct a nasty print imperfection:

(From a DVDTown review of the DVD):

There is a huge problem, though. For about a fifth of the movie´s running, there is a dark green line (transparent) that runs vertically through the right-hand side of the frame. This is a problem that has been confirmed with the people at Criterion, and the line ran through the best available print.

obscurelabel

And if I remember correctly, another region's DVD edition of the film didn't have this flaw and was stated to come from a different film source. At some point Criterion may be able to access better materials to fix this.

pro-bassoonist

Hi there. This is the idiot reviewer you addressed.

I left this forum a long time ago because among other things facts and accuracy have a difficult time surviving here, but a good friend is still an active member on the site and earlier today he sent me a link to your post. I am allergic to lies and half-truths so I would like to quickly address what you have written.

I must speculate that in real life you are either a compulsive liar or have some serious comprehension issues. To be clear, the quote you produced to justify your criticism contains text that is not part of my review. In other words, "doesn't understand why it is loved" is entirely a product of your imagination, a fabricated quote. Additionally, unlike what you claim, the review clearly notes why (in my opinion) the film is loved, and in the “final words” the key reason is spelled out – the terrific period atmosphere.

You seriously doubt that I have seen any other Linklater films besides Dazed and Confused? Unless you can categorically prove otherwise, you would not have to wonder at all, because I actually recommended in my review two other Linklater films which I have seen, both lensed by cinematographer Lee Daniel - Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. Perhaps you missed them while you were fabricating your ”quote”.

Contextualization? I doubt you actually understand what this means, but there are two direct comparisons in the review with films that have similar structures – George Lucas' American Graffiti and Gregg Araki’s Nowhere. Unfortunately, Dazed and Confused comes close but does not match the “realness” of American Graffiti, and clearly does not match the “surrealness” of Nowhere.

Finally, for me enthusiasm and enthusiasts are not dirty words. I have a lot of respect for enthusiasts because they are typically driven by their love for cinema. I know from personal experience that true enthusiasts are also extremely honest people. Judging by your quoting technique, you are not one of them.

Sincerely Yours,

Pro-B

Gizmo

Oh gees. Who Beetlejuiced three times?

Please, return to Blu-ray.com where you will be worshipped by 14 year old's and continue giving as many Criterion BDs a super high score even when most other people do not agree with you.

Though I had to chuckle when you posted "I left this forum a long time ago because among other things facts and accuracy have a difficult time surviving here" and yet you post at Blu-ray.com. Hysterical.

The Valeyard

Quake1028

PLEASE go back there.

riotinmyskull

awww c'mon guys...lets make him feel more at home

GOT 'EM!!!

CloverClover

Pro-B is a good man, one missed review compared to hundreds of foreign/obscure films he will review when no one else will, great fellow in my book.

Spot on about blu-ray.com though, people treat movies like sports there, it is a bit low IQ overall

Quake1028

This may just be the most brilliant post in the history of DVD Talk.

Supermallet

Well I must admit this wasn't how I expected to start my morning.

Pro-B, while you have every right to defend yourself and your work, you do not have the right to insult other members, regardless of how eloquently you dress up the insult. I'm going to assume that your re-emergence is a one shot deal. If it's not, any further violations of our TOS will result in swift and likely permanent action on our part.

Maxflier

Doctorossi

From where I sit, Pro-B looks like the one who was insulted.

Supermallet

By his own admission Pro-B does not post here anymore and had to be informed of the attack through a friend. I'm sure he knows that when you put your work out in a public sphere, you're opening yourself up to the opinions of those who read the work. There is a difference between making an attack on a reviewer who is not also an active member here and a personal attack made from one active member to another in the forums. The former is rude, the second is against the site's TOS.

I'll put it this way: It may not be nice for someone to post a Roger Ebert review and call Ebert an idiot, but it's allowed in the forum rules. However, if Roger Ebert were an active member here, then it would be. I saw the original comment as the former (a general grievance against a non-member based on content from another site). If Pro-B were an active member here, and the other poster knew this, that would be a different story.

Pro-B did not have to resort to personal attacks in his defense, though. And even if the original attack had been the forum definition of a personal attack, we still wouldn't allow Pro-B to retaliate with his own round of personal attacks. That's what the "Report this post to a moderator" button is for.

Brian T

Heheh! I wasn't the only one who addressed your work, Mr. B. I just put a little more time into it than other folks here. Apparently, they knew better.

And I can just guess who your fartcatcher, errr, "good friend" is. He's most likely the same guy whose man-child antics (also known as "growed-up behaviour" in Blu-ray.com-speak) drove the quality of reviewing and discussion at another forum so low that they actually pulled the plug on the site for good.

And by the way, "contextualization" means more than just comparing a movie to two other movies, just as listing other Linklater films in a review of a Linklater film in no way proves that you've actually seen other Linklater films.

That's one of many reasons the film is loved. Based on this, "your opinion" of the film's appeal is myopic.

For those so inclined, I will admit one mistake in my previous post: I said I couldn't wait until DVD Savant got his hands on this title. Turns out, he already did (albeit in Criterion DVD form). Tell me this doesn't provide context in ways that Pro-Balloonist simply cannot begin to approach:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2019daze.html



In addition, more than one person brought up the Blu-ray.com review before I did. As you mention, reviews posted for public consumption should be fair game, but a measure of restraint never hurts, and I used it. My original one-paragraph "attack" (a rather inapt label in this case) was far better articulated and buttressed than the response it received. Frankly, it's the motivations of this "good friend" that should be given the most scrutiny.

Also, please note that even if Pro-Balloonist was an active member here, I did not call him an "idiot." That came from someone else in an earlier post that I quoted in my own. Apparently, in his anger, he failed to separate quoted text from actual commentary.



Discussion forum smarm is so ubiquitous and tiresome these days — everybody does it — but this genuinely cracked me up!

Doctorossi

I'm not sure of the relevance of that...

Fair enough, but to me, the initial comment read like a personal attack and Pro-B's response read like a clinical defense that largely stuck to refutations of the poster's claims.

Doctorossi

... meanwhile, I find almost nothing more dreary than inter-Blu-ray-fan-Website bitching.

I'm a member at most of the popular Blu-ray fan sites. I find none of them to be anything close to "perfect".

Can we just go back to talking about Blu-ray media and spare this poor Criterion thread?

Brian T

If you read it like a personal attack, you read it incorrectly. A harsh criticism, absolutely, but not a personal attack. In fact, it wasn't even addressed to him. I don't know the guy! I only know he wrote a Criterion review on another site that understandably (and rightly) provoked negative feedback here. 'Clinical defense' is a bit too kind . . .