Movie Reviews to Annoy and Infuriate 2018
Nonfiction, Art & Architecture, General Art, Popular Culture, Art Technique
| Author: | Alex DV Chambers | ISBN: | 9781386214939 |
| Publisher: | Movie Reviews | Publication: | January 6, 2019 |
| Imprint: | Language: | English |
| Author: | Alex DV Chambers |
| ISBN: | 9781386214939 |
| Publisher: | Movie Reviews |
| Publication: | January 6, 2019 |
| Imprint: | |
| Language: | English |
This book is a collection of film reviews. Among them is the following:
Paris When It Sizzles (1963)
A screenwriter (William Holden) in Paris struggles to write a screenplay in two days with the help of a hired secretary (Audrey Hepburn). It's a very peculiar movie that was probably pretty trippy and weird and avant-garde back in the 60s. It's very self-referential and playful with the form of film itself. It's full of experimental oddities and movie references. Sadly it's also very dated. The post-modern playing around feels limp, restrained and obvious; the surreal comedy very unfunny and the sexual politics very dubious to modern eyes (he makes repeated advances on her). The vampire section with the horse chase was especially unfunny. There's not much substance to it so eventually it outstays its welcome and becomes overlong as it's a slight idea stretched too far at feature length. There really is barely any story. It was a watchable curio from a very different age but its obscurity is easy to understand. It's astonishing that a big budget would be lavished on such a bizarre, rickety, arty, hastily slapped together idea with little obvious broad audience appeal. It might be one of the strangest movies ever made. It's not without some charm and the two actors have a bit of spark together.
5 out of 10
This book is a collection of film reviews. Among them is the following:
Paris When It Sizzles (1963)
A screenwriter (William Holden) in Paris struggles to write a screenplay in two days with the help of a hired secretary (Audrey Hepburn). It's a very peculiar movie that was probably pretty trippy and weird and avant-garde back in the 60s. It's very self-referential and playful with the form of film itself. It's full of experimental oddities and movie references. Sadly it's also very dated. The post-modern playing around feels limp, restrained and obvious; the surreal comedy very unfunny and the sexual politics very dubious to modern eyes (he makes repeated advances on her). The vampire section with the horse chase was especially unfunny. There's not much substance to it so eventually it outstays its welcome and becomes overlong as it's a slight idea stretched too far at feature length. There really is barely any story. It was a watchable curio from a very different age but its obscurity is easy to understand. It's astonishing that a big budget would be lavished on such a bizarre, rickety, arty, hastily slapped together idea with little obvious broad audience appeal. It might be one of the strangest movies ever made. It's not without some charm and the two actors have a bit of spark together.
5 out of 10
