elisereid-29666
Joined Dec 2018
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings562
elisereid-29666's rating
Reviews89
elisereid-29666's rating
Before seeing Cats, I had heard all of the dreadful reviews and they made me laugh so much I wanted to see the movie for myself. A sidenote is that I get a kick out of watching bad movies, and often even find myself enjoying them in unironic ways.
When I finally saw this movie, I was dazzled. It reminded me of a surrealistic take on the classic MGM musicals of the 40s. And this is why most people hated it, in my opinion-because surrealism is not for everyone.
I, on the other hand, adore it. In my opinion, Fellini was at his best in the 70s, when most critics thought he'd gone off the deep end (I can't stand his neo-realistic works, but I love his later stuff like Casanova). Henry Jaglom is my favorite filmmaker of all time. I think Popeye was Robert Altman's best film. Caligula is a surrealistic masterpiece to me.
I mention these other works to give you an idea of where I stand on cinema. My opinions are likely unpopular with many audiences and critics, and films like the ones I love often fail to find their audiences. Cats is one of them.
So what was the ideal audience for this film? It should not appeal to Broadway fans, but rather to people like me that love when movies show a world distorted by surrealism.
Of course, surrealism, at its best, isn't about distorting the world-it's about showing the audience something about the real world that clarifies it for us, but in a way that we would never have thought of ourselves. That's what's magical about it, and that's what was magical, to me, about Cats.
When I finally saw this movie, I was dazzled. It reminded me of a surrealistic take on the classic MGM musicals of the 40s. And this is why most people hated it, in my opinion-because surrealism is not for everyone.
I, on the other hand, adore it. In my opinion, Fellini was at his best in the 70s, when most critics thought he'd gone off the deep end (I can't stand his neo-realistic works, but I love his later stuff like Casanova). Henry Jaglom is my favorite filmmaker of all time. I think Popeye was Robert Altman's best film. Caligula is a surrealistic masterpiece to me.
I mention these other works to give you an idea of where I stand on cinema. My opinions are likely unpopular with many audiences and critics, and films like the ones I love often fail to find their audiences. Cats is one of them.
So what was the ideal audience for this film? It should not appeal to Broadway fans, but rather to people like me that love when movies show a world distorted by surrealism.
Of course, surrealism, at its best, isn't about distorting the world-it's about showing the audience something about the real world that clarifies it for us, but in a way that we would never have thought of ourselves. That's what's magical about it, and that's what was magical, to me, about Cats.
I'm almost ashamed to admit that I absolutely hated this film the first time I saw it, when it was released in theaters 17 years ago. At the time, I was a self-righteous 18-year-old that took herself and the world far too seriously.
What put me off the most about Borat was that it seemed to be celebrating the kind of guy Borat is-a misogynistic, anti-semitic, homophobic jerk. What's more is that most of the people he meets on his journey seem to be cut from the same cloth as he, and the film almost seemed to poke fun at those that were not. I was particularly offended by the scene where Borat stays at a B-and-B run by a nice, elderly, Jewish couple that treat him kindly and graciously. His treatment of them seemed too harsh for me, and what offended me was that the film seemed to take his side.
In retrospect, I cannot believe how blind I was, and how ignorant I was to blow off this movie so that I would not revisit it until so many years later. In the years since my initial viewing, I've grown more accustomed to and familiar with Cohen's style of comedy (especially his character Bruno). I'm not sure, but I think it was because I loved his later film of Bruno so much that I decided to give this one another shot.
What I failed to grasp on my initial viewing as an 18-year-old was that the movie is actually making fun of all those misogynistic jerks that Borat comes across on his journey. That they were real people that actually believed the things that Borat says, and that we, in the audience, are supposed to see them as villains rather than protagonists. In the vignette at the Jewish B-and-B, we are supposed to realize that Borat is so incredibly stupid for being afraid of these nice people, that his fears are groundless and hysterical. Other scenes, such as those with the frat boys, are supposed to grab us because it assumes we know that those boys are losers who get what they deserve by being exposed like this in a movie.
All-in-all, I'm so glad I gave Borat another chance, and if you misinterpreted it the way I did when you saw it, maybe you should stop taking yourself so seriously and re-think your attitudes a little. Laughter is the best medicine, especially for an illness such as a closed mind.
What put me off the most about Borat was that it seemed to be celebrating the kind of guy Borat is-a misogynistic, anti-semitic, homophobic jerk. What's more is that most of the people he meets on his journey seem to be cut from the same cloth as he, and the film almost seemed to poke fun at those that were not. I was particularly offended by the scene where Borat stays at a B-and-B run by a nice, elderly, Jewish couple that treat him kindly and graciously. His treatment of them seemed too harsh for me, and what offended me was that the film seemed to take his side.
In retrospect, I cannot believe how blind I was, and how ignorant I was to blow off this movie so that I would not revisit it until so many years later. In the years since my initial viewing, I've grown more accustomed to and familiar with Cohen's style of comedy (especially his character Bruno). I'm not sure, but I think it was because I loved his later film of Bruno so much that I decided to give this one another shot.
What I failed to grasp on my initial viewing as an 18-year-old was that the movie is actually making fun of all those misogynistic jerks that Borat comes across on his journey. That they were real people that actually believed the things that Borat says, and that we, in the audience, are supposed to see them as villains rather than protagonists. In the vignette at the Jewish B-and-B, we are supposed to realize that Borat is so incredibly stupid for being afraid of these nice people, that his fears are groundless and hysterical. Other scenes, such as those with the frat boys, are supposed to grab us because it assumes we know that those boys are losers who get what they deserve by being exposed like this in a movie.
All-in-all, I'm so glad I gave Borat another chance, and if you misinterpreted it the way I did when you saw it, maybe you should stop taking yourself so seriously and re-think your attitudes a little. Laughter is the best medicine, especially for an illness such as a closed mind.
I was really looking forward to this movie. It's the third film by Mel Stuart I have seen, following Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (my all-time favorite movie) and I Love My...Wife (also on my favorites list). This film appeared to have all the ingredients of those films to make a great viewing experience, and I settled in for some entertainment.
Overall, I did enjoy it, but not as much as I was hoping to. I admit, it was something of a letdown after those two other sensational films, but then maybe my expectations were too high.
This film has a great cast, but unfortunately there are just too many characters to make a coherent narrative, and none of them are given the proper amount of time to develop so that we might relate to them. At times, I was even bored because I was so overwhelmed by the sheer weight of people in each scene.
So why did I rate this film eight stars out of ten? Because, despite its flaws, it was a very pleasant film overall. I liked it the way one might enjoy a meal at a fast food restaurant-enjoyable, satisfying, but forgotten soon after.
The big exception to my problems with the film was the ambiguous, bittersweet, wonderful ending. It was echoed by Stuart later in his 1970 classic I Love My...Wife. It's just a shame that the rest of the film didn't live up to the ending.
Overall, I did enjoy it, but not as much as I was hoping to. I admit, it was something of a letdown after those two other sensational films, but then maybe my expectations were too high.
This film has a great cast, but unfortunately there are just too many characters to make a coherent narrative, and none of them are given the proper amount of time to develop so that we might relate to them. At times, I was even bored because I was so overwhelmed by the sheer weight of people in each scene.
So why did I rate this film eight stars out of ten? Because, despite its flaws, it was a very pleasant film overall. I liked it the way one might enjoy a meal at a fast food restaurant-enjoyable, satisfying, but forgotten soon after.
The big exception to my problems with the film was the ambiguous, bittersweet, wonderful ending. It was echoed by Stuart later in his 1970 classic I Love My...Wife. It's just a shame that the rest of the film didn't live up to the ending.
