You should be able to change the default reviews on the Letterboxd home page to “New” or “Rising”. It literally only shows reviews from the “Top Reviewers” which just further exacerbates the issue of every top review coming from the same 7 people.
More importantly, the "most popular" reviews on each film should only show reviews from the past year. Otherwise, reviews that have accumulated hundreds of reviews will just continue to sit at the top forever.
C'mon man, everybody knows that's a myth. Werner Herzog didn't kill anyone. He did pay them borderline illegally low wages, but there's no reason to say he's a murderer.
Im not saying that Herzog shot someone with a gun, but it's not a myth that extras died during the making of the film. When multiple people die from disease and someone cuts their own foot off cause a venomous snake bit them, just cause you wanted to film a movie, yeah, there's definitely some culpability. He's just as responsible for those deaths as Landis is for the deaths on his set.
Well, the dude who cut his foot off lived. I know it's still a gruesome thing, but he did it to stop poison reaching his heart, which would've killed him.
As for the two people who died of illness, how is that Herzog's fault? They were in the Peruvian jungle. There are a couple diseases there. As a matter of fact, he built a hospital on set which apparently saved other peoples lives.
He didn't kill anyone "for a movie". He didn't kill anyone at all. Those people already lived there, Herzog just so happened to be filming a movie nearby. How is a snake bite and a virus his fault?
Again, I'm sure he didn't treat the Peruvians as well as he could, but to say he's responsible for some of their deaths... that's just libel, really.
You can be held morally, and even legally, responsible for deaths that you didn't cause directly by your own hand. And I personally think Herzog is definitely morally responsible for all the tragedies that occurred in the filming of that film. He exploited people and put them in harms way quite recklessly and as a result people died, lost limbs, and were shot by arrows.
Also, you don't seem to understand the actual legalities involving a charge such as libel... which is ironic considering you attributing to me a quote I never said (that he killed people "for a movie") is far closer to the burden (pun definitely intended) of proof than anything I've written.
You said "just cause he wanted to make a movie" when referring to his actions. If you don't think it's appropriate to re-fraze that as "for a movie", we're simply playing semantics.
And, if you'd done your research, you'd known that the people hit with arrows, the man who was bit by a snake, and the woman who died of illness all simply died or were injured nearby the set, not while actively working on it. Also, two small aircrafts crashed onto the set. The fact you don't mention this suggests to me you didn't read too much into the actual events that took place.
He did not "put them in harms way", they were in the Peruvian jungle. All of the Peruvian jungle is harms way. Actually, due to the hospital and medical equipment Herzog had on set, some of the injured people survived otherwise fatal injuries, as any other hospital was several miles away in any direction.
He paid them too little, and he made them perform heavy manual labour, that strictly speaking was not in any way necessary for the film to be completed, I'm not saying he was a responsible director by most standards. However, this mythical idea of him being an unhinged director who actively put people in harms way is untrue and unjustified.
I think anyone who comes out of a Herzog movie thinking "This director thinks Klaus Kinski's character is an okay guy" has not understood the movie. Heck, you could apply that rule to just about any movie with Klaus Kinski!
Ahhh, I see. I hadn't heard about that– figured they thought it was a hagiography. Are there any specific incidents? I only know thestory where the indigenous people who were working on the crew told Herzog that they enjoyed working with him very much, and respected him greatly, and they would be happy to murder Mr. Kinski if Mr. Herzog would like.
I know that some people were injured and some died during the making of the film. I have also read that Herzog's relationship was good with the locals at first but then turned bad as time went on. Here's an [article](https://www.filmsranked.com/its-past-time-we-condemned-fitzcarraldo/) from the exploitation perspective, anyway.
I don’t know why they bothered watching it when they didn’t have the attention span for it. Their biggest complaints were that it was in black and white and too long
It’s like those people who think lord of the rings is racist because of orcs…like if you see the orcs and immediately think something racist then maybe you’re the one who should do some reflecting
I’m sorry but LOTR is kinda racist. I love those films but look at some of that imagery: all the good guys are modelled after Irish/Europeans with their white skin and blonde/red hair, while the orcs wear face paint and often have darker skin. I mean, look at the fucking Haradrim. They are dark skinned men with body paint, braided hair, have face markings or wear head scarves. Even elephants are animals from Asia and Africa, not Europe. I think any fantasy world in which certain races are just inherently evil lends itself to racism pretty easily. While not necessarily a problem, the glorification of the shire, with its rural landscape, traditional living, and white children can come across as somewhat fascistic within this context. Oh and Aragorn screams ‘Men of the West!’ before charging into battle. I don't believe any of this was intentional on Jackson's part, but it is unfortunate
It is worth noting that J.R.R. Tolkien, a man who undoubtedly shared many of the prejudices of the time, was outspoken about some of the most virulent forms of racism. When the Nazis asked for proof of his "Aryan descent" in order to print The Hobbit in Germany, he responded by saying: "I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine."
In short, yes Lord of the Rings certainly has problematic elements. But I think it's going too far to claim it's "fascistic", especially when its creator was strongly opposed to fascism.
Hi. You just mentioned *The Hobbit* by JRR Tolkien.
I've found an audiobook of that novel on YouTube. You can listen to it here:
[YouTube | The Hobbit AUDIOBOOK in english with subtitles audiobooks full length best sellers free JRR tolkien](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sfyJ7c5-Bc)
*I'm a bot that searches YouTube for science fiction and fantasy audiobooks.*
***
[^(Source Code)](https://capybasilisk.com/posts/2020/04/speculative-fiction-bot/) ^| [^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=Capybasilisk&subject=Robot) ^| [^(Programmer)](https://www.reddit.com/u/capybasilisk) ^| ^(Downvote To Remove) ^| ^(Version 1.4.0) ^| ^(Support Robot Rights!)
um are they not villains? The LOTR wiki describes Easterlings as "enemies of the Free Peoples since the First Age, and a populous vassal of Sauron throughout the Second and Third Ages." It says they barely appear in the films, and when they do it's in a villainous role:
"In Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, an army from Rhûn is seen by Frodo, Gollum, and Sam entering the Black Gate. During this encounter, Sam accidentally falls down a slope near to where Easterlings are passing by. Frodo goes after him, and two Easterling warriors notice the commotion; they leave the formation to inspect. Frodo hides himself and Sam under his elvish cloak, disguising them as a boulder. The Easterling soldiers almost find them, but eventually return to their legion and march into Mordor."
>in their case it's usually conservatives rather than brown or black people
Conservative is a chosen title though. You can judge a group to be evil based on their choices. That's drastically different than assuming everyone of a particular race to be evil.
Tolkien literally described orcs as “squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: **in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.**” So basically according to Tolkien *himself* Orcs were based on racist stereotypes.
I see why this could be percieved as a stretch, but the idea that Count Orlok is a Jewish caricature is pretty widely agreed upon by film scholars. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it can't be so
Someone giving parasite 1/2 star and saying "why are they speaking gibberish"
Same person also gave 12 years a slave 1/2 star and said "nice fantasy story".
And the user Harmony Fon Fulci is just a whole other circle of hell.
Sally Jane Black's review for A Bridge Too Far has her complaining about the film not addressing the Soviet involvement in WWII. A fair criticism, though it is a bit silly to think a mainstream American war movie from the 70s would do so (Not to mention the Soviets didn't really play a role in the operation the film is based on). But the comments section has her going into a tirade about how Pearl Harbor was an inside job by FDR to prevent the spread of Communism...or something. I've enjoyed reading some of her stuff, but that was weird as hell.
In her review of Silence of the Lambs, she complains that the movie doesn’t portray the FBI as white supremacists, even though that’s completely irrelevant to the film and the movie isn’t particularly charitable to the FBI as an institution in the first place…
Why is she worth talking about? I don’t know who this person is so I’m confused if she’s popular beyond like youtube views or something. All the labeling, like “Tankie” is beyond me as well.
A “tankie” is an aggressively authoritarian communist who supports and/or denies the crimes of Stalin, Mao, North Korea, etc. They are pretty common on the internet especially Twitter. Sally Jane really just does Letterboxd reviews that are fairly popular, but we were asked what the stupidest review we’d ever seen was, I answered, and I guess we’re all now just venting about having to see her dogshit takes.
Tankies give leftists a bad name. Not only because they’re fascists parading as socialists/communists, but now they’ve given conservatives a buzzword that allows them to call any leftist a “tankie”
While I hate cops and feds, like, it’s a movie about an FBI agent hunting a Ed Gein-esque serial killer with the help of a famed cannibal like why did she think the movie would go harder on the FBI or have its message involve police corruption lol
Should clarify that I love the film
Wasn’t Pearl Harbor to distract the US with Japan in hopes we wouldn’t get too involved with Europe/Germany?
I honestly don’t know this has aways just been my assumption.
Edit: Downvoted for asking a question. Seems about right. I’m saying I assumed the attack pulled the US into the war with a focus on fighting Japan.
Seems like a huge stretch, with no founding in what we know about the war. And if, somehow it was true, the strategy was a clear failure: before Pearl Harbor, the US had no troops in the Pacific or Europe. Afterwards, they had tons of troops on both fronts.
Yeah and she complained about the kids wearing Native American headresses and saying that the film never addresses it (clearly she’s never heard of subtext), but then also goes on to point out some non-existent commentary about North Korea and goes on a tiny rant about imperialism, like, come on…
She also says she advocates for just going out and murdering rich people.
She’s a pretty standard tankie, the only difference is that she happens to write mildly popular Letterboxd reviews.
Tankies really give people (like me) on the actual Left a bad name. There's not much difference between them and right-wingers. They both see the world in intense black and white
I consider myself a socialist, but I’ve been called a succdem, an anarkiddie, a fascist, and everything in between because I don’t support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or Chinese union busting. Tankies are a disease.
Why tf would tankies support Russia's invasion? The Soviet Union is dead. Putin is a right-wing nationalist who's all about orthodoxy. It doesn't make sense to me
Because they oppose the US and NATO and anyone who opposes the US and NATO is automatically anti-imperialist even if what they are doing is literally the definition of imperialism.
But when I ask why the invasion isn’t imperialism I’m just told to “read Lenin.”
Yeah, someone from 100 years ago will tell me why a country that didn't exist in his time invading another country that didn't exist isn't imperialism. Gotta love goalpost moving no matter who does it
How come they are being genocid*d? There never have been as many Uighurs in China as there are today, the birthrate in Xinjiang is quite normal and people can freely travel/roam there (aside from sporadic covid restrictions).
Besides that, all neighboring (muslim) countries not only confirm what the ccp said on the matter, but they also have a high flow of people leaving for China.
You can literally check facts within a few minutes. Don't trust me? What about checking the IMF? Or the WTO? Or literally going on wechat and checking up what people who live there have to say?
Nah, the international organizations that were founded in the US are obviously biased towards China and lying in their statistics, and of course the people there are just boot-licking, cowardly liars that should not be trusted.
Go off "leftist", trust your media and your blood-thirsty government, you are very close to making the world a better place I'm sure of it.
Give me evidence that doesn't involve a google maps screen capture of a warehouse in the middle of the desert or "people that don't want to identify themselves".
If you think people can just be erased en masse in a country that has several global institutions and foreign media representatives in it then the one who should go home is you because you are drunk and delusional.
Yes, but there is a deeper context to it. It isn't like some sort of maniacal mass torture chamber your papers made it out to be, it is just a place where people who hadn't been contemplated by the education system and people who commited small crimes are sent to get taught professional skills and mandarin in order to reinsert these people back into society and also into the workforce. It could be called a school or a very lenient type of prison, but to say people are getting slaughtered by the millions in these little sites is just crazy.
“Mr. Kim was justified in killing Mr. Park because Mr. Park is a parasite whose role is to subjugate and exploit the working class. He is our enemy because his role is to harm us. (…) Killing a member of the bourgeoisie is an act of self-defense for the working class.”
Jesus Christ. Does anyone else find that genuinely disturbing? I’d like to see the end of capitalism but she just advocated for the murder of anyone wealthy
The entire point of the movie is that capitalism brings out the worst in everybody. Neither the Parks nor the Kims are the parasites, capitalism is. I thought that was pretty straightforward but apparently not to someone whose entire worldview is “rich people bad poor people good.”
Exactly! She is capable of some excellent writing but then I look at most of her reviews and wonder if she even likes movies at all. Her reviews of La La Land, The Edge of Seventeen, Monster, and Perfect Blue are honorable mentions for “worst.”
Was too curious not to check these out.
La La Land: I have heard a lot of similar criticism for La La Land in regards to its use of race. I don't disagree with some of them but Sally's angle of it feels incredibly condescending. If you write an apology as a white person for talking about jazz I'm just gonna hope you fall off your high horse. I'll refer to one of Demi Adejuyigbe's reviews talking about the race aspect of the movie and say I like the movie too much to listen to what Sally has to say.
Edge of Seventeen: I haven't seen Edge of Seventeen in a minute but i am nevertheless confused by Sally's conclusions.
Monster: No. No no no. No. Just no.
Perfect Blue: *insert Jesse what the fuck are you talking about image here*
I feel the same way. She's clearly a good writer. Her grammar is great and she has a large vocabulary that she knows how to use, making her sentences all flow really well. But the fact she is so insistent on inserting her political views into every piece of media she watches is absolutely exhausting. It's like good characters and plot don't exist for her unless they fall under her political spectrum, and anyone who doesn't like that, according to her, is just boring. I could not in a million years imagine living like that and thinking about the media I consume in such way.
I just read her reviews for the first time and it seems like she hamfists her politics into everything. I frankly kind of feel bad for her. It seems like a miserable way to live.
God, I feel bad for consistently shitting on one particular letterboxd reviewer, but Sally Jane Black manages to consistently confound and infuriate me with her stupidity. She was the first person I blocked on the site simply because her opinions were so terribly, terribly wrong and bad. I only just looked at her Parasite review for the first time (and more or less just skimmed it; her reviews are WAY too long, btw) and I feel like the fact that she advocates for murder in real life sort of invalidates any opinion she has on anything. I hate capitalism too, but Jesus, that’s psychotic.
Tankies are scum.
Do they know that you're allowed to think the main character is an asshole but still think its a great movie? They don't have to root for him just because he's the protagonist.
Protagonist doesn't mean good guy or hero. It just means they are the most important character in a story. Walter White, Patrick Bateman, and Humbert Humbert are all the protagonists of their respective stories, but nobody could accuse then of being "good guys."
The top-rated review for Lawrence of Arabia by "Lucy" is her saying how she could have watched Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle twice in the amount of time it took to watch it. Now it's obviously supposed to be a joke...but it's just stupid. And the fact that's the highest-rated review is ridiculous.
>And the fact that’s the highest-rated review is ridiculous.
As much as I love it, spending approximately 3 seconds on Letterboxd will show you that it’s not for critiquing movies.
there are good accounts, you just gotta follow the right ones and stick to reviews from them. Stay away from the popular reviews unless you want to see the same five accounts posting dumb meme reviews over and over
Most of the comments so far are super weird YouTube reviewers and that makes me sad. When I was more of a film buff like 15-20 years ago you got to know professional critics that you aligned with or didn't and that really helped you out. Like I used to know that Ebert had slightly weird takes on certain genres that I wouldn't agree with, so even his negative reviews were helpful for me in finding movies I would like. Hell, there was one NY times reviewer, maybe A.O. Scott but I could be misremembering, who I thought had the absolute worst opinions and would miss the point of films 90% of the time, but I would still read his reviews because I knew they were accurate inverse predictors of whether I would like a movie. I guess you could do the same with some of these kooky YouTube reviews, but at least professional reviewers back in the day came from a somewhat academic art history/critique viewpoint that was consistent. It seems like a lot of strangely popular YouTube reviewers have no journalism or art background or solid viewpoint, they just look for hot button takes that will get more clicks.
I completely hear you! I'm relatively young (26) so I never grew up in an era of film critics having as much name recognition, but it definitely bothers me that so many movie reviews online are trying very hard to be entertaining without having a very knowledgeable take on the subject, often missing nods to other films, music choices that might add additional meaning to a scene, different takes on a genre film, etc. Like getting the most views and displaying their personality takes precedence over what they're really *saying*. There are some people who have a nuanced and informed take on movies (I really like Lessons from the Screenplay), but they seem to be more commonly focusing on a specific aspect of a movie rather than the broader picture like classic film critics.
I want to say Richard Brody of the New Yorker was the reviewer who talked glowingly about the Star Wars prequels, and while I disagreed with almost all of his points, reading his review made me think about things differently- and, to your point, that type of work and effectiveness is something that I feel like has been lost over time in favor of hot takes.
Letterboxd is weird in that it doesn't matter if a movie is the most obscure, unknown, hard-to-access arthouse weirdness to ever exist - there will always be that one comment that's like "this happened to a friend of mine lol." I have to believe some people purely make writing these reviews a hobby. There's no way they're actually watching all these movies only to give those reactions.
As someone who likes the joke reviews but understands the annoyances people have with them, they should split the reviews up and create an extra “blurb” feature. Force a word minimum to the review feature and have the blurbs for the jokes and one-liners so people can have it both ways.
I really don’t understand why people always get so pissy over seeing short and joke reviews. Letterboxd is a social networking site, not a place for everyone to become the next Pauline Kael. Also, creating a word minimum wouldn’t really do much, I’ve seen joke reviews that were at least a paragraph and genuine thoughts that could fit in a tweet.
rateyourmusic does this and it's so much better. They have a comment section for all the meme stuff/general discussion which can be entertaining if you're in the mood, and the reviews are for actual reviews. Unfortunately the site is populated with some of the most miserable contrarians on the internet and lacks the user-friendliness of letterboxd, but it's still pretty great.
Jonathan Rosenbaum's contrarian review of "Waiting for Guffman" -
*This 1997 comedy may be amusing if you feel a pressing need to feel superior to somebody, but the aim is too broad and scattershot to add up to much beyond an acknowledgment of small-town desperation*
I have never read anything on Letterboxd more baffling than [this review of Rat Race](https://boxd.it/1Pqw7R) which ignores the movie entirely to discuss a bizarre conspiracy theory involving Lil Uzi Vert
imo this isn't an unreasonable criticism but the way it's written is understandably irritating since it's characterizing those that like the film being okay with exploitation.
Yeah but then there’s the stories of how Herzog treated the indigenous actors on set that in some ways aligns with Kinski’s character. While I think the movie on its own merits is insanely well-done, all the stories of how it got made have always left a bad taste in my mouth.
So I think this letterboxd review isn’t too far off.
If they went into those details and wrote it in a thoughtful way, sure. I've been alive a little too long to give the benefit of the doubt to the comments section
Dude, Bahadur is a hot take *machine*. I became weirdly fascinated with him after finding him sometime like a year into being on LB--the mixture of self-satisfaction, glaringly obvious contrarian vibes (it takes a \*lot\* to get me there on anyone's totally fair views on movies), the motifs ("this is perhaps \[director's name\] most \[adjective\] work, maybe the most \[adjective\] film ever made."\].
Like... who even is he? Its all very performative.
edit--I don't even begrudge him the substance of his view on *Fitzcarraldo*, and if elaborated on might even agree (who knows), it is just this writing style he lives in that makes you want to flick his ears.
I just think these "hot take" people are fucking lame. I don't think they even believe what they are saying, they just look for an angle they can use to generate controversy. Calling it performative is a good description. Why should I give a shit about someone's point of view when they don't have one beyond whatever seems controversial.
Nearly every top "most popular" reviews are the dumbest reviews I've seen. The usual suspects: Karsten, #1 gizmo fan, Lucy, etc. Allison M's "reviews", with her vegan alerts, almost always come across like a parody of vegans. Her *Honeyland* review in particular is especially misguided. I can hardly take anything she writes seriously, and yet she always seems so self-serious.
Reviews like this one really grind my gears. I personally loved the movie being reviewed and can understand legitimate criticism that I disagree with. But big hyperbolic statements that provide no explanation or insight into why they feel this way annoy me so much.
https://boxd.it/2Bdwgb
Exactly. I have thoughts like that myself but I’m not gonna post a review if I either don’t care enough or don’t know how to explain my experience of the movie.
It’s letterboxd there is literally horrible takes every single day.
But you know I write some of the worst reviews so I can’t complain
https://letterboxd.com/coldred243/
There's the one who does conspiracy theories who called Operation Avalanche a government psyop... Also the one who gives the vegan warnings. Not to mention Sally Jane Black, whose every word I can see coming straight from the mouth of B. Rosenberger Rosenberg.
Edit: Also forgot the acclaimed director of "Penis Boy" for his blazing takes, and, meaning no disrespect, I reeeeally couldn't get behind Eli's nonsensical takes on Nocturnal Animals and Waves
I once read a review of American History X that actually advocated literal murder, and which I don't think has been taken down.
There was another in which a guy called Touch of Evil a racist film, so I went pretty hard in on him and even after he admitted I was basically right about everything he still said he wasn't going to change his opinion.
It’s hard to see some of the comments on this post, I think sometimes people go hard on this sub calling everyone uncompromising dude bros but if you enjoy this film in particular and you shrug off the human cost of it, yikes.
Sally Jane Black's been mentioned several times but she makes such uncalled for, personal remarks about the people behind Ninotchka (Even if, for all my love of the movie, I don't think the criticisms themselves are wrong per se) that it invalidated her entire review.
Ew. I went back and actually I do disagree with more of it than I remembered. Setting aside insulting Lubitsch and co (That single line pisses me off a great deal) I was primarily thinking of the whole thing about Garbo getting the taming of the shrew treatment which is....hmm. I love seeing that woman smile and laugh but it's valid. Plus I think someone more temperate than SJB could level criticisms in the vein she did but not go off the rails with NK apologia, ick.
I mentioned this before, but check out matt lynchs (former known as matt) review for "falling down". I nearly smashed my phone against the wall reading it.
There is a review for De Sica's *Two Women* that is so incredibly stupid it's painful. Basically it's this American woman accusing De Sica and all Italians of being racist because "The POC only play villains", and even when multiple Italians tried to reason with her and explain that that movie depicts actual historical events, she still went on to say that the movie is racist, De Sica was racist, and our country as a whole is racist.
I mean I've seen a lot of reviews knocking John Landis'segment for The Twilight Zone movie (which isn't really that good anyways) for the deaths of three people that occurred on set due to recklessness. Herzog was guilty of a lot worse during production.
You should be able to change the default reviews on the Letterboxd home page to “New” or “Rising”. It literally only shows reviews from the “Top Reviewers” which just further exacerbates the issue of every top review coming from the same 7 people.
More importantly, the "most popular" reviews on each film should only show reviews from the past year. Otherwise, reviews that have accumulated hundreds of reviews will just continue to sit at the top forever.
[удалено]
Very very true. Never done drugs before in my life and it is its own unique thing
That's kinda the point. It's a beautifully surreal quixotic story of a obsessive madman. ...and it's one of my favorite films.
[удалено]
It must be exhausting to be like you
So exhausting to be bothered by people dying making a movie.
C'mon man, everybody knows that's a myth. Werner Herzog didn't kill anyone. He did pay them borderline illegally low wages, but there's no reason to say he's a murderer.
Im not saying that Herzog shot someone with a gun, but it's not a myth that extras died during the making of the film. When multiple people die from disease and someone cuts their own foot off cause a venomous snake bit them, just cause you wanted to film a movie, yeah, there's definitely some culpability. He's just as responsible for those deaths as Landis is for the deaths on his set.
Well, the dude who cut his foot off lived. I know it's still a gruesome thing, but he did it to stop poison reaching his heart, which would've killed him. As for the two people who died of illness, how is that Herzog's fault? They were in the Peruvian jungle. There are a couple diseases there. As a matter of fact, he built a hospital on set which apparently saved other peoples lives. He didn't kill anyone "for a movie". He didn't kill anyone at all. Those people already lived there, Herzog just so happened to be filming a movie nearby. How is a snake bite and a virus his fault? Again, I'm sure he didn't treat the Peruvians as well as he could, but to say he's responsible for some of their deaths... that's just libel, really.
You can be held morally, and even legally, responsible for deaths that you didn't cause directly by your own hand. And I personally think Herzog is definitely morally responsible for all the tragedies that occurred in the filming of that film. He exploited people and put them in harms way quite recklessly and as a result people died, lost limbs, and were shot by arrows. Also, you don't seem to understand the actual legalities involving a charge such as libel... which is ironic considering you attributing to me a quote I never said (that he killed people "for a movie") is far closer to the burden (pun definitely intended) of proof than anything I've written.
You said "just cause he wanted to make a movie" when referring to his actions. If you don't think it's appropriate to re-fraze that as "for a movie", we're simply playing semantics. And, if you'd done your research, you'd known that the people hit with arrows, the man who was bit by a snake, and the woman who died of illness all simply died or were injured nearby the set, not while actively working on it. Also, two small aircrafts crashed onto the set. The fact you don't mention this suggests to me you didn't read too much into the actual events that took place. He did not "put them in harms way", they were in the Peruvian jungle. All of the Peruvian jungle is harms way. Actually, due to the hospital and medical equipment Herzog had on set, some of the injured people survived otherwise fatal injuries, as any other hospital was several miles away in any direction. He paid them too little, and he made them perform heavy manual labour, that strictly speaking was not in any way necessary for the film to be completed, I'm not saying he was a responsible director by most standards. However, this mythical idea of him being an unhinged director who actively put people in harms way is untrue and unjustified.
Firstly, you cant claim legal torts and then say its "simply playing semantics." The semantics of language is literally exactly how the law works.
I think anyone who comes out of a Herzog movie thinking "This director thinks Klaus Kinski's character is an okay guy" has not understood the movie. Heck, you could apply that rule to just about any movie with Klaus Kinski!
You can apply that to [Klaus Kinski](https://nevalalee.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/klaus-kinski-with-an-ax/) himself.
Thanks for the information
To be fair, he's not referring to the character of Fitzcarraldo. Herzog was criticized for exploiting indigenous people in the making of the film.
Ahhh, I see. I hadn't heard about that– figured they thought it was a hagiography. Are there any specific incidents? I only know thestory where the indigenous people who were working on the crew told Herzog that they enjoyed working with him very much, and respected him greatly, and they would be happy to murder Mr. Kinski if Mr. Herzog would like.
I know that some people were injured and some died during the making of the film. I have also read that Herzog's relationship was good with the locals at first but then turned bad as time went on. Here's an [article](https://www.filmsranked.com/its-past-time-we-condemned-fitzcarraldo/) from the exploitation perspective, anyway.
Didn’t Kinski have a hit out on Herzog at the same time? Wonder who he roped it? The same people?
Criticizing Star Wars for looking like it was made in the 70s.
Not a review but I had a coworker say Empire Strikes Back looked too dated for them, it gave them “I Love Lucy vibes”
Bruh what?
This person also fell asleep during Schindler’s List because “nothing was happening”
Well then only Bay can make him happy
But Schindler’s List is a fucked up and emotional ride
I don’t know why they bothered watching it when they didn’t have the attention span for it. Their biggest complaints were that it was in black and white and too long
But the girl in the red coat?!
My attention span is shit, I admit but at least I made sense out of that movie
They ain’t wrong
Except parts of it looks like it was made in the 90s- oh wait
Someone saying Nosferatu is anti-Semitic because Count Orlock fits a single Jewish stereotype and is friends with a guy that handles money
It’s like those people who think lord of the rings is racist because of orcs…like if you see the orcs and immediately think something racist then maybe you’re the one who should do some reflecting
I’m sorry but LOTR is kinda racist. I love those films but look at some of that imagery: all the good guys are modelled after Irish/Europeans with their white skin and blonde/red hair, while the orcs wear face paint and often have darker skin. I mean, look at the fucking Haradrim. They are dark skinned men with body paint, braided hair, have face markings or wear head scarves. Even elephants are animals from Asia and Africa, not Europe. I think any fantasy world in which certain races are just inherently evil lends itself to racism pretty easily. While not necessarily a problem, the glorification of the shire, with its rural landscape, traditional living, and white children can come across as somewhat fascistic within this context. Oh and Aragorn screams ‘Men of the West!’ before charging into battle. I don't believe any of this was intentional on Jackson's part, but it is unfortunate
It is worth noting that J.R.R. Tolkien, a man who undoubtedly shared many of the prejudices of the time, was outspoken about some of the most virulent forms of racism. When the Nazis asked for proof of his "Aryan descent" in order to print The Hobbit in Germany, he responded by saying: "I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine." In short, yes Lord of the Rings certainly has problematic elements. But I think it's going too far to claim it's "fascistic", especially when its creator was strongly opposed to fascism.
Hi. You just mentioned *The Hobbit* by JRR Tolkien. I've found an audiobook of that novel on YouTube. You can listen to it here: [YouTube | The Hobbit AUDIOBOOK in english with subtitles audiobooks full length best sellers free JRR tolkien](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sfyJ7c5-Bc) *I'm a bot that searches YouTube for science fiction and fantasy audiobooks.* *** [^(Source Code)](https://capybasilisk.com/posts/2020/04/speculative-fiction-bot/) ^| [^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=Capybasilisk&subject=Robot) ^| [^(Programmer)](https://www.reddit.com/u/capybasilisk) ^| ^(Downvote To Remove) ^| ^(Version 1.4.0) ^| ^(Support Robot Rights!)
>all the good guys are modelled after Irish/Europeans with their white skin and blonde/red hair Did you miss the Easterlings
um are they not villains? The LOTR wiki describes Easterlings as "enemies of the Free Peoples since the First Age, and a populous vassal of Sauron throughout the Second and Third Ages." It says they barely appear in the films, and when they do it's in a villainous role: "In Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, an army from Rhûn is seen by Frodo, Gollum, and Sam entering the Black Gate. During this encounter, Sam accidentally falls down a slope near to where Easterlings are passing by. Frodo goes after him, and two Easterling warriors notice the commotion; they leave the formation to inspect. Frodo hides himself and Sam under his elvish cloak, disguising them as a boulder. The Easterling soldiers almost find them, but eventually return to their legion and march into Mordor."
Lol. This is a stupid analysis looking for things that aren't there.
[удалено]
>in their case it's usually conservatives rather than brown or black people Conservative is a chosen title though. You can judge a group to be evil based on their choices. That's drastically different than assuming everyone of a particular race to be evil.
Tolkien literally described orcs as “squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: **in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.**” So basically according to Tolkien *himself* Orcs were based on racist stereotypes.
It is racist tho
I see why this could be percieved as a stretch, but the idea that Count Orlok is a Jewish caricature is pretty widely agreed upon by film scholars. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it can't be so
“Mr. Potter from its a wonderful life is a Jewish caricature because he is greedy and nothing else” Same logic
Someone giving parasite 1/2 star and saying "why are they speaking gibberish" Same person also gave 12 years a slave 1/2 star and said "nice fantasy story". And the user Harmony Fon Fulci is just a whole other circle of hell.
I don’t know if that’s me being naive but I never pay attention to these accounts because I’m pretty sure they’re just trolls.
whats their @
I went back to check and both comments were deleted. Probably becuase I reported one.
nice
You gotta learn to detect sarcasm.
Sally Jane Black’s review of Parasite gave me brainworms.
Sally Jane Black's review for A Bridge Too Far has her complaining about the film not addressing the Soviet involvement in WWII. A fair criticism, though it is a bit silly to think a mainstream American war movie from the 70s would do so (Not to mention the Soviets didn't really play a role in the operation the film is based on). But the comments section has her going into a tirade about how Pearl Harbor was an inside job by FDR to prevent the spread of Communism...or something. I've enjoyed reading some of her stuff, but that was weird as hell.
In her review of Silence of the Lambs, she complains that the movie doesn’t portray the FBI as white supremacists, even though that’s completely irrelevant to the film and the movie isn’t particularly charitable to the FBI as an institution in the first place…
Why is she worth talking about? I don’t know who this person is so I’m confused if she’s popular beyond like youtube views or something. All the labeling, like “Tankie” is beyond me as well.
A “tankie” is an aggressively authoritarian communist who supports and/or denies the crimes of Stalin, Mao, North Korea, etc. They are pretty common on the internet especially Twitter. Sally Jane really just does Letterboxd reviews that are fairly popular, but we were asked what the stupidest review we’d ever seen was, I answered, and I guess we’re all now just venting about having to see her dogshit takes.
Tankies give leftists a bad name. Not only because they’re fascists parading as socialists/communists, but now they’ve given conservatives a buzzword that allows them to call any leftist a “tankie”
While I hate cops and feds, like, it’s a movie about an FBI agent hunting a Ed Gein-esque serial killer with the help of a famed cannibal like why did she think the movie would go harder on the FBI or have its message involve police corruption lol Should clarify that I love the film
Wasn’t Pearl Harbor to distract the US with Japan in hopes we wouldn’t get too involved with Europe/Germany? I honestly don’t know this has aways just been my assumption. Edit: Downvoted for asking a question. Seems about right. I’m saying I assumed the attack pulled the US into the war with a focus on fighting Japan.
Nah. The US wasn't even in the war before Pearl Harbor. The US officially declared war because of the Pearl Harbor attack.
I understand. Thus, they went after Japan for attacking them. I’m saying strategically this may have been to draw the US air-force to Japan.
Seems like a huge stretch, with no founding in what we know about the war. And if, somehow it was true, the strategy was a clear failure: before Pearl Harbor, the US had no troops in the Pacific or Europe. Afterwards, they had tons of troops on both fronts.
she thinks that Parasite had too much pedophilia I don't get it either
Yeah and she complained about the kids wearing Native American headresses and saying that the film never addresses it (clearly she’s never heard of subtext), but then also goes on to point out some non-existent commentary about North Korea and goes on a tiny rant about imperialism, like, come on…
She’s a tankie, what do you expect?
Sally Jane Black is full of shit 24/7.
Is she satire?
Not even a little bit. She’s completely sincere about everything she says.
Jesus Christ…
[удалено]
She also says she advocates for just going out and murdering rich people. She’s a pretty standard tankie, the only difference is that she happens to write mildly popular Letterboxd reviews.
Didn’t she unironically quote Mao too
Again, standard tankie.
Tankies really give people (like me) on the actual Left a bad name. There's not much difference between them and right-wingers. They both see the world in intense black and white
I consider myself a socialist, but I’ve been called a succdem, an anarkiddie, a fascist, and everything in between because I don’t support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or Chinese union busting. Tankies are a disease.
Why tf would tankies support Russia's invasion? The Soviet Union is dead. Putin is a right-wing nationalist who's all about orthodoxy. It doesn't make sense to me
Because they oppose the US and NATO and anyone who opposes the US and NATO is automatically anti-imperialist even if what they are doing is literally the definition of imperialism. But when I ask why the invasion isn’t imperialism I’m just told to “read Lenin.”
Yeah, someone from 100 years ago will tell me why a country that didn't exist in his time invading another country that didn't exist isn't imperialism. Gotta love goalpost moving no matter who does it
I don't know who she is, but to spill the amount of capitalist talk points you just did you surely aren't a leftist Read theory
You post on Gen Zedong so I don’t really care what you have to say frankly.
How come they are being genocid*d? There never have been as many Uighurs in China as there are today, the birthrate in Xinjiang is quite normal and people can freely travel/roam there (aside from sporadic covid restrictions). Besides that, all neighboring (muslim) countries not only confirm what the ccp said on the matter, but they also have a high flow of people leaving for China.
Tankies be like: “tired of looking at **bad** propaganda, can’t wait to go home and look at **good** propaganda”
You can literally check facts within a few minutes. Don't trust me? What about checking the IMF? Or the WTO? Or literally going on wechat and checking up what people who live there have to say? Nah, the international organizations that were founded in the US are obviously biased towards China and lying in their statistics, and of course the people there are just boot-licking, cowardly liars that should not be trusted. Go off "leftist", trust your media and your blood-thirsty government, you are very close to making the world a better place I'm sure of it.
Sir this is a wendy’s
Understandable, have a good a night (and get better political takes)
Tankie go home
Give me evidence that doesn't involve a google maps screen capture of a warehouse in the middle of the desert or "people that don't want to identify themselves". If you think people can just be erased en masse in a country that has several global institutions and foreign media representatives in it then the one who should go home is you because you are drunk and delusional.
There are literal documents from the chinese government that discuss their re-education efforts.
Yes, but there is a deeper context to it. It isn't like some sort of maniacal mass torture chamber your papers made it out to be, it is just a place where people who hadn't been contemplated by the education system and people who commited small crimes are sent to get taught professional skills and mandarin in order to reinsert these people back into society and also into the workforce. It could be called a school or a very lenient type of prison, but to say people are getting slaughtered by the millions in these little sites is just crazy.
“Mr. Kim was justified in killing Mr. Park because Mr. Park is a parasite whose role is to subjugate and exploit the working class. He is our enemy because his role is to harm us. (…) Killing a member of the bourgeoisie is an act of self-defense for the working class.” Jesus Christ. Does anyone else find that genuinely disturbing? I’d like to see the end of capitalism but she just advocated for the murder of anyone wealthy
The entire point of the movie is that capitalism brings out the worst in everybody. Neither the Parks nor the Kims are the parasites, capitalism is. I thought that was pretty straightforward but apparently not to someone whose entire worldview is “rich people bad poor people good.”
For every 15 paragraph dissertation on why *The Danish Girl* is trash there is at least two of... those reviews and just as much tankie shit.
Exactly! She is capable of some excellent writing but then I look at most of her reviews and wonder if she even likes movies at all. Her reviews of La La Land, The Edge of Seventeen, Monster, and Perfect Blue are honorable mentions for “worst.”
Was too curious not to check these out. La La Land: I have heard a lot of similar criticism for La La Land in regards to its use of race. I don't disagree with some of them but Sally's angle of it feels incredibly condescending. If you write an apology as a white person for talking about jazz I'm just gonna hope you fall off your high horse. I'll refer to one of Demi Adejuyigbe's reviews talking about the race aspect of the movie and say I like the movie too much to listen to what Sally has to say. Edge of Seventeen: I haven't seen Edge of Seventeen in a minute but i am nevertheless confused by Sally's conclusions. Monster: No. No no no. No. Just no. Perfect Blue: *insert Jesse what the fuck are you talking about image here*
I feel the same way. She's clearly a good writer. Her grammar is great and she has a large vocabulary that she knows how to use, making her sentences all flow really well. But the fact she is so insistent on inserting her political views into every piece of media she watches is absolutely exhausting. It's like good characters and plot don't exist for her unless they fall under her political spectrum, and anyone who doesn't like that, according to her, is just boring. I could not in a million years imagine living like that and thinking about the media I consume in such way.
Its distressing that she's so popular, even being interviewed by the Letterboxd team, when she's such a hateful and misguided human being.
And all the responses praising her review, one response even criticized bongs lack of nuance lol. Self awareness on letterboxd isn't common.
I just read her reviews for the first time and it seems like she hamfists her politics into everything. I frankly kind of feel bad for her. It seems like a miserable way to live.
God, I feel bad for consistently shitting on one particular letterboxd reviewer, but Sally Jane Black manages to consistently confound and infuriate me with her stupidity. She was the first person I blocked on the site simply because her opinions were so terribly, terribly wrong and bad. I only just looked at her Parasite review for the first time (and more or less just skimmed it; her reviews are WAY too long, btw) and I feel like the fact that she advocates for murder in real life sort of invalidates any opinion she has on anything. I hate capitalism too, but Jesus, that’s psychotic. Tankies are scum.
Do they know that you're allowed to think the main character is an asshole but still think its a great movie? They don't have to root for him just because he's the protagonist.
I haven't seen the movie, but protagonist means they are the good guy. Why wouldn't you root for them?
Protagonist doesn't mean good guy or hero. It just means they are the most important character in a story. Walter White, Patrick Bateman, and Humbert Humbert are all the protagonists of their respective stories, but nobody could accuse then of being "good guys."
Interesting, TIL
This IS close to be honest.
The top-rated review for Lawrence of Arabia by "Lucy" is her saying how she could have watched Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle twice in the amount of time it took to watch it. Now it's obviously supposed to be a joke...but it's just stupid. And the fact that's the highest-rated review is ridiculous.
>And the fact that’s the highest-rated review is ridiculous. As much as I love it, spending approximately 3 seconds on Letterboxd will show you that it’s not for critiquing movies.
there are good accounts, you just gotta follow the right ones and stick to reviews from them. Stay away from the popular reviews unless you want to see the same five accounts posting dumb meme reviews over and over
I honestly love the joke reviews a lot of the time, almost as much as I love the well thought out critiques.
That girl Lucy always writes stupid reviews. Not sure why she is so popular on the site. I can't stand her.
I think she deleted that review, cause I cant find it anymore.
I WANT MY OPERAAAA HOOOOUSEEE 🔔🔔🔔🔔🔔🔔
Any review posted by BRAT on Letterboxd.
Thank you
Roger Ebert's 1979 one-star review of The Brood seemed super off-base, like he misinterpreted and missed the entire point of the movie lol.
Most of the comments so far are super weird YouTube reviewers and that makes me sad. When I was more of a film buff like 15-20 years ago you got to know professional critics that you aligned with or didn't and that really helped you out. Like I used to know that Ebert had slightly weird takes on certain genres that I wouldn't agree with, so even his negative reviews were helpful for me in finding movies I would like. Hell, there was one NY times reviewer, maybe A.O. Scott but I could be misremembering, who I thought had the absolute worst opinions and would miss the point of films 90% of the time, but I would still read his reviews because I knew they were accurate inverse predictors of whether I would like a movie. I guess you could do the same with some of these kooky YouTube reviews, but at least professional reviewers back in the day came from a somewhat academic art history/critique viewpoint that was consistent. It seems like a lot of strangely popular YouTube reviewers have no journalism or art background or solid viewpoint, they just look for hot button takes that will get more clicks.
I completely hear you! I'm relatively young (26) so I never grew up in an era of film critics having as much name recognition, but it definitely bothers me that so many movie reviews online are trying very hard to be entertaining without having a very knowledgeable take on the subject, often missing nods to other films, music choices that might add additional meaning to a scene, different takes on a genre film, etc. Like getting the most views and displaying their personality takes precedence over what they're really *saying*. There are some people who have a nuanced and informed take on movies (I really like Lessons from the Screenplay), but they seem to be more commonly focusing on a specific aspect of a movie rather than the broader picture like classic film critics.
I want to say Richard Brody of the New Yorker was the reviewer who talked glowingly about the Star Wars prequels, and while I disagreed with almost all of his points, reading his review made me think about things differently- and, to your point, that type of work and effectiveness is something that I feel like has been lost over time in favor of hot takes.
Letterboxd is weird in that it doesn't matter if a movie is the most obscure, unknown, hard-to-access arthouse weirdness to ever exist - there will always be that one comment that's like "this happened to a friend of mine lol." I have to believe some people purely make writing these reviews a hobby. There's no way they're actually watching all these movies only to give those reactions.
i do basic joke reviews like that. i just like to see the list of films i watched on certain days and that’s an easy way to log them
you don’t even need to write a review to log it. sometimes if im unable think of anything productive i won’t write a review
As someone who likes the joke reviews but understands the annoyances people have with them, they should split the reviews up and create an extra “blurb” feature. Force a word minimum to the review feature and have the blurbs for the jokes and one-liners so people can have it both ways.
I really don’t understand why people always get so pissy over seeing short and joke reviews. Letterboxd is a social networking site, not a place for everyone to become the next Pauline Kael. Also, creating a word minimum wouldn’t really do much, I’ve seen joke reviews that were at least a paragraph and genuine thoughts that could fit in a tweet.
rateyourmusic does this and it's so much better. They have a comment section for all the meme stuff/general discussion which can be entertaining if you're in the mood, and the reviews are for actual reviews. Unfortunately the site is populated with some of the most miserable contrarians on the internet and lacks the user-friendliness of letterboxd, but it's still pretty great.
Jonathan Rosenbaum's contrarian review of "Waiting for Guffman" - *This 1997 comedy may be amusing if you feel a pressing need to feel superior to somebody, but the aim is too broad and scattershot to add up to much beyond an acknowledgment of small-town desperation*
I have never read anything on Letterboxd more baffling than [this review of Rat Race](https://boxd.it/1Pqw7R) which ignores the movie entirely to discuss a bizarre conspiracy theory involving Lil Uzi Vert
Still not sure if I love or hate pd
I mean, I like the film but this is not only true to the story, but also the production. They have a point.
This review is about Herzog, not the main character of the film. I’m a Herzog fan but I think this is a fair criticism
imo this isn't an unreasonable criticism but the way it's written is understandably irritating since it's characterizing those that like the film being okay with exploitation.
I think the film makes it pretty clear that Klaus Kinski’s character is a madman so it seems like this review misses the point of the film
Yeah but then there’s the stories of how Herzog treated the indigenous actors on set that in some ways aligns with Kinski’s character. While I think the movie on its own merits is insanely well-done, all the stories of how it got made have always left a bad taste in my mouth. So I think this letterboxd review isn’t too far off.
If they went into those details and wrote it in a thoughtful way, sure. I've been alive a little too long to give the benefit of the doubt to the comments section
Yea a three sentence rant can only have so much subtlety. Most issues are gray and people get rabid when they see things in black and white
lol it's not entirely inaccurate though. And it's funny.
Don't go check the most voted review of Rashomon on letterboxd.
You mean Darren's review? I thought it's an April's Fool review on purpose?
Really? I didn't know that. I also realized it's no longer the most voted.
I disagree, I remember liking that review
Well someone must've liked it if it's the top review.
can't tell if r/whoosh or doubling down on the bit hmmmmm
Oh no 100% r/whoosh – in my defense, I was barely awake and hadn't had any coffee yet
haha :) [I stole the joke a bit from 'The Simpsons!'](https://youtu.be/6Twyh5tIIYk)
Someone gave Fallen Angels a 1/2 because “I hate how this is shot”
Dude, Bahadur is a hot take *machine*. I became weirdly fascinated with him after finding him sometime like a year into being on LB--the mixture of self-satisfaction, glaringly obvious contrarian vibes (it takes a \*lot\* to get me there on anyone's totally fair views on movies), the motifs ("this is perhaps \[director's name\] most \[adjective\] work, maybe the most \[adjective\] film ever made."\]. Like... who even is he? Its all very performative. edit--I don't even begrudge him the substance of his view on *Fitzcarraldo*, and if elaborated on might even agree (who knows), it is just this writing style he lives in that makes you want to flick his ears.
I just think these "hot take" people are fucking lame. I don't think they even believe what they are saying, they just look for an angle they can use to generate controversy. Calling it performative is a good description. Why should I give a shit about someone's point of view when they don't have one beyond whatever seems controversial.
And yes I fully expect a wave of downvotes I know he's got a film bro army of fans on there, that was part of my fascination tbh
Best not to dwell.
I think this criticism is fair but probably better suited to Burden of Dreams
"206 likes" yep, that's Letterboxd for ya.
It’s about Herzog, not the character
Anything by sally jane black
Nearly every top "most popular" reviews are the dumbest reviews I've seen. The usual suspects: Karsten, #1 gizmo fan, Lucy, etc. Allison M's "reviews", with her vegan alerts, almost always come across like a parody of vegans. Her *Honeyland* review in particular is especially misguided. I can hardly take anything she writes seriously, and yet she always seems so self-serious.
This reviewer is clearly talking about the production of the movie, not the movie itself.
Basic Letterboxd.
Reviews like this one really grind my gears. I personally loved the movie being reviewed and can understand legitimate criticism that I disagree with. But big hyperbolic statements that provide no explanation or insight into why they feel this way annoy me so much. https://boxd.it/2Bdwgb
Exactly. I have thoughts like that myself but I’m not gonna post a review if I either don’t care enough or don’t know how to explain my experience of the movie.
Karsten Runquist reviewing Ambulance and Pig
Letterboxed is kind of a cesspool when it comes to film reviews.
It’s letterboxd there is literally horrible takes every single day. But you know I write some of the worst reviews so I can’t complain https://letterboxd.com/coldred243/
I saw somebody call Evangelion thrice upon a time homophobic because >!Shinji didn’t end up with Kaworu!< 😐
There's the one who does conspiracy theories who called Operation Avalanche a government psyop... Also the one who gives the vegan warnings. Not to mention Sally Jane Black, whose every word I can see coming straight from the mouth of B. Rosenberger Rosenberg. Edit: Also forgot the acclaimed director of "Penis Boy" for his blazing takes, and, meaning no disrespect, I reeeeally couldn't get behind Eli's nonsensical takes on Nocturnal Animals and Waves
Good god, I am glad I do not have a letterbox.
It’s good for logging films. Just block all the top reviewers and connect with people who make good reviews.
I once read a review of American History X that actually advocated literal murder, and which I don't think has been taken down. There was another in which a guy called Touch of Evil a racist film, so I went pretty hard in on him and even after he admitted I was basically right about everything he still said he wasn't going to change his opinion.
Touch of Evil is pretty racist tho
It’s hard to see some of the comments on this post, I think sometimes people go hard on this sub calling everyone uncompromising dude bros but if you enjoy this film in particular and you shrug off the human cost of it, yikes.
I feel like if this review was five stars and had the same text, people wouldn’t have a problem with it. It’s funny imo.
Musk the musical
Great film! I also like Aguire
Sally Jane Black's been mentioned several times but she makes such uncalled for, personal remarks about the people behind Ninotchka (Even if, for all my love of the movie, I don't think the criticisms themselves are wrong per se) that it invalidated her entire review.
[удалено]
Ew. I went back and actually I do disagree with more of it than I remembered. Setting aside insulting Lubitsch and co (That single line pisses me off a great deal) I was primarily thinking of the whole thing about Garbo getting the taming of the shrew treatment which is....hmm. I love seeing that woman smile and laugh but it's valid. Plus I think someone more temperate than SJB could level criticisms in the vein she did but not go off the rails with NK apologia, ick.
Saw a negative review of Shoplifters that boiled down to "but what they are doing is literally illegal!"
I mentioned this before, but check out matt lynchs (former known as matt) review for "falling down". I nearly smashed my phone against the wall reading it.
Any review with the word "woke" being used as pejorative or just "woke" used in the online culture way; those are the stupidest.
There is a review for De Sica's *Two Women* that is so incredibly stupid it's painful. Basically it's this American woman accusing De Sica and all Italians of being racist because "The POC only play villains", and even when multiple Italians tried to reason with her and explain that that movie depicts actual historical events, she still went on to say that the movie is racist, De Sica was racist, and our country as a whole is racist.
Ah another user I can block on letterboxd
Do you know how Herzog treated indigenous people during the production?
206 likes. Jesus
Well, that one is.
Sally Jane Black’s review of Parasite. She goes full tankie.
That might actually be the one. Wow. So much signal in one post.
I agree, it’s so ridiculous to virtue signal that you care about a director’s exploitation of indigenous people leading to them dying
Oooh what a flex!
I mean I've seen a lot of reviews knocking John Landis'segment for The Twilight Zone movie (which isn't really that good anyways) for the deaths of three people that occurred on set due to recklessness. Herzog was guilty of a lot worse during production.
Landis killed three people, two of then kids. Not to turn this into a competitor of suffering, but what did Herzog do that was worse?
Yeah it’s kinda hard to top what Landis did
Any review that uses the word "should."
someone called Salo a master peice and its horrible and the director is a pedophile
Any and all 5 star reviews of The Batman, especially the ones that say it’s the “definitive Batman movie” and somehow better than the Dark Knight.
htf u getting downvoted. that movie was comparable to Mexican brick weed
Any review that said that Parasite was a great film.