Hilarious Amazon Customer Reviews

gdl203 · Jun 27, 2007

Gents - please remember that the word cutaway is patented by new member Eric so you'll have to find a different word, ok?

JBZ · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by gdl203

Gents - please remember that the word cutaway is patented by new member Eric so you'll have to find a different word, ok?

Sorry. You're right. I don't want to get sued. I'll choose "jump-cut" (TM).

lawyerdad · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by Bandwagonesque

I love people who don't understand what the purpose of reviews are. For example, Simpsons Season 1. Rate the seller, not the DVDs dumbass.

Exclamation marks mean I'm really serious and passionate about reviews!!!

Come on!!! Who Does't love the chirismas episode!!??!?!

Manton · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

Come on!!! Who Does't love the chirismas episode!!??!?!

The one where Bart goes to France is also quite good. And the one where Marge learns to bowl. Bart the General was also not bad. Season two was better, and by season three they had achieved greatness, which they maintained for about four years.

dkzzzz · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by Manton

The one where Bart goes to France is also quite good. And the one where Marge learns to bowl. Bart the General was also not bad. Season two was better, and by season three they had achieved greatness, which they maintained for about four years.

"South Park" made the "Simpsons" unwatchable .

Manton · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by dkzzzz

"South Park" made the "Simpsons" unwatchable .

I don't think so. I think the Simpsons' writers just ran out of gas, but kept producing the show because it was still insanely profitable despite its poor quality.

As I recall, South Park debuted just as The Simpsons started to suck, which I suppose is a curious coincidence.

shoreman1782 · Jun 27, 2007

BS. South Park is great, but it's a rare SP episode that has the shelf life of a golden-age Simpsons episode.

I watched the "Lemon Tree" episode the other day--might be my all-time fave.

Sorry to contribute to the tangent.

itsstillmatt · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by Kent Wang

I agree with the above Rashomon review. Though Rashomon is the best of his films that I've seen, Kurosawa sucks. The American black-and-white era produced much better works than the best of Japan. edit: Fellini sucks, too. USA! USA! USA!
I don't know if you are joking, but I tend to agree. Kurasawa does nothing for me, and Fellini is tedious. I am always shocked at the fame he has when compared to true masters from the same generation like Pasolini, de Sica and Visconti. Perhaps they play better to a big (American) audience, but they pale in comparison.

Manton · Jun 27, 2007

Man, tough crowd. I loved Ran and Kagemusha. Seven Samurai could have been shorter, I think.

Fuuma · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by Kent Wang

I agree with the above Rashomon review. Though Rashomon is the best of his films that I've seen, Kurosawa sucks. The American black-and-white era produced much better works than the best of Japan.

edit: Fellini sucks, too. USA! USA! USA!

"Hollywood is like being nowhere and talking to nobody about nothing."

It is entirely possible that you dislike Kurosawa's style and thematic angle. Why not check classic work by Ozu, Mizoguchi and Naruse or later ones by Suzuki, Imamura, Fukasaku or Oshima, just to name a few "classic" directors whose movies are available on the american market.

Thracozaag · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by Manton

Man, tough crowd. I loved Ran and Kagemusha. Seven Samurai could have been shorter, I think.

Not to mention his lesser-known films such as Sanjuro, High and Low, The Bad Sleep Well, and Ikiru.

koji

dkzzzz · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by Manton

The one where Bart goes to France is also quite good. And the one where Marge learns to bowl. Bart the General was also not bad. Season two was better, and by season three they had achieved greatness, which they maintained for about four years.

Opra's ***** & Ass kidnaps Oprah just to see Paris one last time.
I'd say it beats anything I have ever seen on TV.

LabelKing · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by iammatt

I don't know if you are joking, but I tend to agree. Kurasawa does nothing for me, and Fellini is tedious. I am always shocked at the fame he has when compared to true masters from the same generation like Pasolini, de Sica and Visconti. Perhaps they play better to a big (American) audience, but they pale in comparison.
Fellini seems to have filled the void of post-war Italian cinema for sheer spectacle in an Hollywood tradition, or at least late Fellini with Roma and Satyricon. However, this is not some empty emulation of the Hollywood saturation, this is eccentric decadence and convulsive color in a niche that had largely been dominated by abject portrayals of people--the Eggleston to their Arbus. Visconti is less "spectacular" namely in the sense that the spectacle was not of the paramount importance rather than the story. A visual Visconti film like Death In Venice has less to do with the singular on-screen esthetics than it has to do with the narrative. That is also the situation with The Damned where the colors are generally muted compared to the perverse coloration of Satyricon. Both are decadent, but in different ways.

dkzzzz · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Fellini seems to have filled the void of post-war Italian cinema for sheer spectacle in an Hollywood tradition, or at least late Fellini with Roma and Satyricon.

However, this is not some empty emulation of the Hollywood saturation, this is eccentric decadence and convulsive color in a niche that had largely been dominated by abject portrayals of people.

Visconti is less "spectacular" namely in the sense that the spectacle was not of the paramount importance rather than the story. A visual Visconti film like Death In Venice has less to do with the singular on-screen esthetics than it has to do with the story.

Intellectual cinema requires a certain national philosophical tradition to guide the director's actions or generate his ideas. I find most Italian directors quite superficial and uninteresting as if they lacked a capacity to go beyond merely reflecting life.

LabelKing · Jun 27, 2007

Originally Posted by dkzzzz

Intellectual cinema requires a certain national philosophical tradition to guide the director's actions or generate his ideas. I find most Italian directors quite superficial and uninteresting as if they lacked a capacity to go beyond merely reflecting life.

When you mean national do you mean cultural or something superficial like "Nationalism"?

I can certainly see archetypes in Italian, French and German cinema much as I can see them in Chinese or American cinema as well.

And the idea that the common people or peasants do not reflect the philosophical mysteries is amusing at best.

Hilarious Amazon Customer Reviews

Purveyor of the Secret Sauce

Distinguished Member

Lying Dog-faced Pony Soldier

RINO

Distinguished Member

RINO

Distinguished Member

The Liberator

RINO

Franchouillard Modasse

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

Distinguished Member

Stylish Dinosaur

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

It’s a mark of quality and craftsmanship

I like it when it’s subtle

I don’t like visible stitching

Doesn’t matter to me

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: