Your Favourite Users

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
dardan
Posts: 313
1636 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 9:08 pm

Your Favourite Users

Post by dardan »

Which users have you given most stars to? Why? They can be found here: http://www.criticker.com/?sr=4

#1 - afx237vi - 35 stars
Too bad he is no longer active here or on any other website under this username. More on why he likely is the best reviewer on Criticker in a comparison with another review below.

Best review [I have seen so far]:
The Hustler
90 - "A wonderfully crafted tale about lonely, flawed people operating in a world where even if you win, you're still a loser. Ostensibly a film about pool, this is given extra depth by the interplay between the characters, each of which is working their own angles, not entirely sure of whether they are the hustler or the hustled. Much bleaker than I expected it to be, but that's fine by me."

#2 - djross - 28 stars
Authoritative reviewer/rater and has caused me to change my rating for several films. One of the very few (within my close-ranged TCI's) who too possesses the ability to especially smell the following types of bullshit: 'feigned naturalism' in e.g. Before Sunrise or Lost in Translation and 'stupid shit' (V for Vendetta).

#3 - lumpnboy - 15 stars
The most inaccessible reviewer, but mostly because he wants to jam as much information as possible into his mini-reviews (I can relate). Similarly to djross lumpnboy has received quite a bit of stars from me because of the informative nature (especially in the case djross) of their reviews.

#4 - Suture Self - 13 stars
One of the most versatile reviewers I have come across: capable of both wit and providing insight. Will likely receive a lot more stars from me in the future.

Best reviews:
La Strada
90 - "This movie will appeal to absurdists who feel life is a cruel joke. La Strada is often playful and funny, yet at its core, there's no progress or greater meaning to be had, just death. The fact that Gelsomina is not the first sister to join Zampano, but the 2nd, is the story's punchline, and a simple but clever way of creating a cycle that says "this goes on and on and on".

Stroszek
85 - "It's sad to think plenty of people live the lives of Bruno and Eva everyday; aloof, disconnected and confused as to why our world isn't working out for them."

#5 - PeaceAnarchy - 12 stars
More often than not his reviews consist of personal thoughts (lots of "I's") which more often than not manage to strike a chord.

Best review:
Streetwise
86 - "It really struck me just how young these kids are. Even when they act tough you can see just how much is an act and how vulnerable they are, how clearly our society is a failure if we can't take care of these kids. For many of them you can sense their chances of success slowly dwindling away and it's just heartbreaking. From a filmmaking perspective the access the director got is impressive, not just an honest glimpse into a subculture but a glimpse a bit further into their individual realities."


#6 - Magb - 12 stars

Very good but not great. Compare for example the review of Badlands of Magb:
Badlands is one of those films where the main characters do really horrible things, but because the film is so well made and the characters are otherwise so likeable, it's impossible not to feel at least a bit sympathetic toward them. Martin Sheen is just perfect and Sissy Spacek is very good too. Malick's expert direction shines through every shot and scene. And the film is a damn sight better than that goddamn Natural Born Killers.


With that of afx237vi:
A depiction of a life without reason or consequence, only existence. Youthful aimlessness leads to a life of corruption and a loss of innocence, yet both characters remain gleefully oblivious to this fact. For them there is no "why?". The lightness of tone and the use of upbeat music doesn't quite blot out the sense of sadness that permeates this film.

The reason why I like afx237vi (and often those of SutureSelf) so much is that in his reviews he assumes or mirrors the tone of the film he is reviewing. He is able to write long sentences and perhaps more importantly use short ones in a way that makes rhythmical sense.

#7 - Pickpocket - 11 stars
The most consistently funny reviewer out there. Mostly I disagree with some parts of his reviews and there are some misses, but then one line makes me laugh my ass off and I have to give credit (e.g. in his mini-review for Dr. Phil: 'The best part of his show is the ending, where he walks off the stage with skeletor aka his wife.') . Too bad the new moderating rules somewhat contradict with what seems to be most popular here. I hope he can at least continue to use profanity if it lacks hostile intent.

#8 - lisa- - 10 stars
Somewhat similar to Pickpocket in that she unabashedly throws her opinion out into the interwebs, which is much appreciated in both cases.

Best review:
Stroszek
65 - "some old dude, a prostitute and a kind-hearted but socially inept character are brutally bullied by some assholes in berlin, so decide to head off to wisconsin for a better life. certainly about the american dream, but probably best generalised to life in general: things aren't necessarily greener on the other side. bizarre film as most of herzog's stuff is."

9-10-11 Nathan S, Hellboy and Ocelot (all three got 8 stars from me)
----------------
A top 8 with explanations might have been a bit too much, so by all means dont feel pressured to go as far as I did (That is, if anyone wants to post at all).
Last edited by dardan on Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BillyShears
Posts: 108
5493 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:56 pm

Re: Your Favourite Users

Post by BillyShears »

Whatever comes out of my stupid head is my favourite.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Your Favourite Users

Post by Stewball »

Ric, though he's only given one of my reviews a star, what he said was imminently timeless. Instead of his own review, he simply said, "Stewball said it all". Simple but to the point and I applaud him for it. Ric gets it, wit and wisdom personified.

djross
Posts: 1212
5318 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:56 am

Re: Your Favourite Users

Post by djross »

x
Last edited by djross on Thu Jul 20, 2023 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

dardan
Posts: 313
1636 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 9:08 pm

Re: Your Favourite Users

Post by dardan »

On Once Upon a Time in America, are you talking about the 4h version or the 2.5h version?

The studio cut the 4h version to 2.5h in an apparently pretty horrible way.

djross
Posts: 1212
5318 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:56 am

Re: Your Favourite Users

Post by djross »

x
Last edited by djross on Thu Jul 20, 2023 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Suture Self
Posts: 545
2704 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:30 am

Re: Your Favourite Users

Post by Suture Self »

djross wrote:
Dardan wrote:djross
Authoritative.

Trust's a tough thing to come by these days. There are no professional reviewers whose opinion I would trust, and most of them seem decidedly too inclined to the herd instinct. What makes it difficult for me to trust a reviewer, irrespective of whether they are professional or amateur, is when they have given evidence of an inability to perceive what seems to me to be very obvious badness.

When it comes to movies and art, I think of trust very differently. I prefer people that I can trust to be themselves, people that provide an opinion in a way that's both thoughtful and uninhibited. Whether or not their opinion occasionally aligns with "herd instinct" is besides the point. I don't purport to have access to the OBJECTIVE GOOD that enables OBVIOUS BADNESS to be revealed to me before my very eyes, so I don't expect anyone else to operate this way, either. People can have a million legitimate reasons for liking or disliking a movie; opinions, and people, aren't easily reducible like that. Sometimes it's hard to demarcate between what's herd instinct and what's not. For example, I love FANNY AND ALEXANDER with all my heart, it's probably my favorite movie, yet if you go to criticker, you'll see that everyone's opinion of it is soaring; so is my opinion my own, or am I merely beholden to the herd?
Last edited by Suture Self on Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

djross
Posts: 1212
5318 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:56 am

Re: Your Favourite Users

Post by djross »

x
Last edited by djross on Thu Jul 20, 2023 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bojangles
Posts: 916
2727 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:01 pm

Re: Your Favourite Users

Post by Bojangles »

#1 - Alex Watkins - 21 stars
Looks like over half the stars I've given him are for joke reviews. Seems like a long lost friend, but apparently he's just some dude on the internet.

#2 - djross - 19 stars
The archetypal review of djross:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind
This is the film in which Spielberg portrays his own inner conflict through the character played by Dreyfuss: fantasizing himself as a misunderstood artist, he is in fact a pathological conformist. Hence, after a set of conspiracy-type scenes in which he is pursued by apparently unscrupulous authorities, not only do they turn out to be benign, but Dreyfuss dons a patriotic uniform and becomes a kind of vanguard representative of the government. It is, in a sense, Spielberg's TANNHÄUSER.


To be able to take a silly wondrous movie from early-career Spielberg and intellectualize it so heavily--this is what makes djross, djross. Tremendous ability to cut through emotion and identify the message or main point.

The Happening
Attempts to create and inhabit an unreal dream world, rather than convey any kind of "realism." The method is a cinematically unusual relation to space (extreme close-ups and long-distance shots), time (shorts jumps in time between scenes and even shots) and character. Unfortunately, it fizzles out rather than building to any dramatically satisfying conclusion. A misunderstood (but still only partially successful) experiment, pursuing a nightmare logic founded in various contemporary anxieties.


#3 - Icarus - 13 stars
This should really be the top review for Magnolia, but it somehow only has two stars:
Magnolia
This is a bold and brash film about sad and angry people, people who have no answers to their problems, people who don't see their own culpability in the way their lives have ended up in shreds. But it's also a bold and brash film about a group of people driven to brokenness by their self-inflicted suffering, about the profound mystery of new life and renewal that come from forgiveness, and about the transcendence and beauty of life-altering events. This is a modern masterpiece.


#4 - Luna6ix - 12 stars
Just straight up gives his opinion on what worked and what didn't. No longer on the site. I'm hoping he's not dead.

#5 - felipelahm - 11 stars
A smart guy from Brazil.

War Horse
An astonishingly flawed epic, War Horse is a melodrama that demands too much from the spectators, and I understand those who will just hate this. I don't love it, but I kind of respect the innocent magic of this heartfelt, eye-dropping mess -- the rural boy, the british officer, the german brothers, the french girl, a pair of friendly enemies, all in love with the horse -- and the robust cinematic homage to Hollywood oldies -- Ford, Lean, Selznick. Uneven story, striking scope.


#6 - overrated - 11 stars
An underrated gem of a reviewer.

#7 - Moribunny - 11 stars

#8 - frederic_g54 - 10 stars

#9 - Suture Self - 9 stars

#10 - wokhedinn - 9 stars

#11 - theficionado - 9 stars

Suture Self
Posts: 545
2704 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:30 am

Re: Your Favourite Users

Post by Suture Self »

djross, we like your writing precisely because it is harsh and authoritative. I like when you bring the hammer down. I am particularly fond of your star wars prequel reviews, which point out a truth that always seemed obvious to me (the truth being: there isn't a vast difference in quality between the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy). I also appreciate that many of your reviews seem to be written through the lens of Bernard Stiegler's philosophy, of which you seem to be a follower. your opinions are imbued with a sort of religious confidence, almost, and I like it a lot. it's refreshing in a world full of skeptics and wishy-washy turncoats. I can always count on you to be you; ie, thoughtful, well-argued, informed, and self-assured.

but operating in this way does strike me as a double-edged sword, because while you make sure to mention that your litmus test for trust is perhaps overly harsh and even unjust (such is life!), and you qualify your perspective with inserted phrases like "seems to me", you sometimes run the risk of being dismissive; you occasionally categorize, particularly when you call one generation or another "infantilized".

of course, i know all of your reasons for operating in this way, and they're totally justifiable and legitimate. i'm just poking fun at you for being such a stalwart, self-assured movie intellectual, not above calling out the PLEBS for being SHEEP and all that jazz. I guess someone has to do it.

my two favorite reviews of yours this year are your reviews of TOMORROWLAND and MAD MAX: FURY ROAD. I think, when paired together, they say a lot about how you perceive cinema.

Post Reply