Hilarious Amazon Customer Reviews

[dkzzzz]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

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.

I meant cultural philosophical tradition and certain national archetype.

The most common if not the only question that interests humans is existential question. Yes, I strongly believe that peasants don't bother with such questions. Their capacity to self-actualization is greatly diminished by competitive sports. I highly doubt they even realise that they're going to die one day.

 

[itsstillmatt]

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--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.
I was thinking more along the lines of Rocco and His Brothers which is simply a movie done well. Fellini loses me in that he tries to be more than that to the detriment of the act of filmmaking.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by dkzzzz

I meant cultural philosophical tradition and certain national archetype.

The most common if not the only question that interests humans is existential question. Yes, I strongly believe that peasants don't bother with such questions. Their capacity to self-actualization is greatly diminished by competitive sports. I highly doubt they even realise that they're going to die one day.

I don't feel that the intention of good films is to actualize a peasant's existence as to examine the existence of those peasants. For example, Luis Bunuel's documentary, Land Without Bread is a potentially poignant film which focuses exclusively on the peasantry.

Frankly, any introspective film that focuses on the Plutocracy inevitably skewers them such as El Ãngel Exterminador.

 

[calvin1663]

Originally Posted by Bandwagonesque

IDIOTS WHO STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT A REVIEW IS:

THAT is ******* hilarious

 

[itskub]

a bit unrelated.. few years ago one of my teachers was describing a book, a compilation of letters the writer wrote to the makers of basic products such as straws, praising them and such, and even getting a replies from the companies..does this ring a bell to anyone ? supposedley a funny read

 

[ATM]

Originally Posted by itskub

a bit unrelated.. few years ago one of my teachers was describing a book, a compilation of letters the writer wrote to the makers of basic products such as straws, praising them and such, and even getting a replies from the companies..does this ring a bell to anyone ? supposedley a funny read

Henry Root? Lazlo Toth? Ted L. Nancy?

 

[Manny Calavera]

Originally Posted by itskub

a bit unrelated.. few years ago one of my teachers was describing a book, a compilation of letters the writer wrote to the makers of basic products such as straws, praising them and such, and even getting a replies from the companies..does this ring a bell to anyone ? supposedley a funny read
Lazlo Toth? Edit: Wow, somehow I missed your post ATM. Sorry. Must. Stop. Drinking. (So Much)

 

[Manny Calavera]

It's baaaa-aaack. Two reviews for Ran on amazon.com:

2 Stars AKIRA **RAN** INTO GEORGE, January 10, 2004
By \tMartin Clav (MONTREAL, Quebec Canada)

\t
0 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars AKIRA **RAN** INTO GEORGE, January 10, 2004
By \tMartin Clav (MONTREAL, Quebec Canada) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Ran (DVD)
A.Kurosawa is Japan's George Lucas. They are both great epic storytellers and have both made samuraï serials ; yet they both have an aggravating tendency for "fusion culture". By fusion culture I mean an artificial blending of cultures that embodies the hope of a cosmopolitan betterment for humankind. Examples : Star Wars, Star Trek TNG, Afro-Celt Sound System, Esperanto, europeen sushi, Ran, etc.

Visualy : scenary beautiful, thow special effects for blood **actual ketchup** suck big time! Better to see "The Last Samuraï" if you want realism for combat.

Soud : has no dubbing whatsoever! Interesting wind effects for tempest.

Dialogue : you'll find a few interesting proverbs in the subtitles, such as "the hen pecks the rooster and makes him crow". Hardly any text at all, images talk for themselves.

Acting : Lear's buying his stairway to heaven, the Fool looks like a ***********er, all the other major roles are convincing.

Story : has major cuts (in an effort to reduce lengh) that riddle the play with non-sense. Edmund, Shakespear's most notorious villain besides Iago, is cut out. The Gloucester/Edgar duo is fusioned with the Lear/Fool duo, causing the Fool to stay after the tempest, even to survive Lear's death. Much better to see sir Laurence Olivier's King Lear to understand the play.

2 Stars I WISH PETER JACKSON WOULD REMAKE THIS!!, August 31, 2002
By "blakes_angel" (PA)

This is a good action epic for the time it was made (the 1980s) but I wish that Peter Jackson (Fellowship Of The Ring) would remake it in English - he's our finest epic filmmaker right now and he could make this story both more exciting and more emotional (this version lacks feeling). Also, modern day special effects would allow for bigger battles and more realistic violence. Yet this version is still worth a look if you are into epic action movies like "Braveheart" and "Lawrence of Arabia".

Peace.

 

[RJman]

Originally Posted by Bandwagonesque

I found Lawrence of Arabia to be incredibly long, boring and dated. The camera work and scenery was great though.

Originally Posted by Kent Wang

I thought the same.

You're talking about my favorite movie here...

 

[countdemoney]

Originally Posted by RJman

You're talking about my favorite movie here...

Larry rewards multiple viewings. Besides, we are in ADD america. You should see some peoples reaction to 2001.

 

[argoth]

I agree with countdemoney wholeheartedly on the reward of multiple viewings.

I saw Lawrence of Arabia for the first time on DVD. It was one of those 2-disc editions. I had a hard time getting into the movie and that first disc seemed to drag. So much so, in fact, that I didn't bother to throw in the second disc. A year or so passed and I finally got around to watching the second half and it was *amazing*. It was a revelation. I enjoyed it so much that I rewatched the whole thing a few days later and it is now among my favorites. Go figure.

 

[HomerJ]

I thought Lawrence of Arabia was entertaining. Not a big fan of Kurosawa. Rashomon was annoying and ironically I wanted to kill myself watching Ikiru. Fell asleep 20 minutes into Kagemusha. Anyway, back to the topic. Here's a review.

Moist Anal Lube 4 oz. 0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

i loved it, January 30, 2006 A Kid's Review this was a very good product... i use it every day. nothing will stop me from using it Another gem. See larger image Crazy Girl My Secret Desensitizing Anal Ease Gel 4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

The secret is out, November 26, 2007 By Johny Bottom "Insane and lonely guitarist" (Jacksonville, NC) - See all my reviews My girl had a secret, but it did not last long. This is a great product. It turns my girl into a Crazy Girl! ******** has never been so easy or more pleasurable for either of us. After she has an enema, she applies this anal lubricant and she is red hot and ready. This lubricant is not greasy like other ones we have tried and it is very comfortable on the skin, no rashes or itching. Our greatest night of ******** is all thanks to my open minded woman and this incredible lube. It's so easy to use and so comfortable I'm willing to apply it to myself and let her put on the strap on.

 

[athletics]

Whoa. I am not sure what I should be thinking about that. But he lost me at the end.

 

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by HomerJ

I thought Lawrence of Arabia was entertaining.

Not a big fan of Kurosawa. Rashomon was annoying and ironically I wanted to kill myself watching Ikiru. Fell asleep 20 minutes into Kagemusha.

Anyway, back to the topic. Here's a review.

Moist Anal Lube 4 oz.



0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

i loved it, January 30, 2006
A Kid's Review

this was a very good product... i use it every day. nothing will stop me from using it



Another gem.



See larger image
Crazy Girl My Secret Desensitizing Anal Ease Gel



4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

The secret is out, November 26, 2007
By Johny Bottom "Insane and lonely guitarist" (Jacksonville, NC) - See all my reviews

My girl had a secret, but it did not last long. This is a great product. It turns my girl into a Crazy Girl! ******** has never been so easy or more pleasurable for either of us. After she has an enema, she applies this anal lubricant and she is red hot and ready. This lubricant is not greasy like other ones we have tried and it is very comfortable on the skin, no rashes or itching.

Our greatest night of ******** is all thanks to my open minded woman and this incredible lube. It's so easy to use and so comfortable I'm willing to apply it to myself and let her put on the strap on.

I see someone's been shopping for anal lube.

 

[Tokyo Slim]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052...pr_product_top

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars A decent sophomore effort., June 17, 2008
By \tW. Christian - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
For those of you who don't know, this is God's second novel after the Old Testament. It's a marked improvement, in my opinion. He got rid of a lot of his previous angst and scorn, and has really begun to show some of the maturity present in his later works. He's become a much more loving and kind God, and, noticeably, he doesn't throw nearly as many tantrums as he did in the first book.

That said, there is still vast room for improvement. Plot wise, there isn't really much suspense, and the story can be incredibly repetitive. In like four chapters, he just rewords the same basic story over and over again. To top that off, he puts those chapters one right after the other. Like we wouldn't notice! I like the whole Jesus character, but let's face it, the whole good guy martyr thing has been done before. There was no need to devote so much of the book to that guy.

If you're really looking for a good God read, check out the Koran or the Book of Mormon. They're much more polished. Plus, the storytelling in the Book of Mormon is wild. Some people say it goes too far and point to it as evidence that God's over the hill, but I beg to differ. Just read it. God's like a genius or something. I mean, magic spectacles! Tell me that isn't awesome. I don't know how he dreams up some of this crap

\t
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars non-fiction, June 17, 2008
By \tJimbob (USA) - See all my reviews
Very historically accurate portrayal of what actually happened. I finally realize that Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are LIES. The magic in this book is more realistic.

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars Meh, June 16, 2008
By \tJon C. Kimbrell "Wogie" (Bellevue, Nebraska United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I probably shouldn't have seen the movie first. The ending is real trippy, but it takes too long to get there. There's a huge cliffhanger at the end that was probably a set up for a sequel that will never be written, though.

The first half is better. In fact, you can totally disregard the second part entirely. It was an unnecessary addition. The author accomplishes everything needed by the end of the first part.

\t
50 of 77 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars The character of Jesus lacks substance..., July 29, 2006
By \tCaughtInThe Covers (Bookshop, USA) - See all my reviews
While reading this book I felt that the author was torn in too many directions. Some of the chapters seemed to be repetitive and told the same exact story, at times almost contradicting itself. I wish that the plot line of the character "Jesus" and "the Father" was expanded upon more in a cohesive manner. I felt that the role of Mary was very underplayed and I would have liked to hear more about the role of her virginity in her life. Although I did see a slight foil to the "Virgin" by the woman of the night "Mary Magdalen". I would have liked to hear the story from a first person narrative dictated by "the Son". His pain and struggle had a glimmer of potential but lacked in it's Harry Potter type "magic". Bringing back a man from the dead? Doctors do that all the time. How about some flying or love spells... now that I could read about. I am looking forward to a possible sequel though, there's a chance the author could fix some of his confusions and find the focus of the story. Mel Gibson did wonders with the film adaptaion and I wish the book could have lived up to it. It's perhaps the only case where the picture outshined the novel. Better try next time though!

\t
14 of 25 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars God: The Complete Works, June 22, 2006
By \tLucifer (www.bobshakespeare.com) - See all my reviews
A Zondervan Corp sales person with an overstock of new NIV Bibles to sell may tell you, "Do not listen to the 'KJV-Only!' crowd." He may tell you that King James I of Great Britain was "a flaming, red-haired homosexual Scot who nearly every weekend buggered the members of his own Privy Council."

Okay, maybe that's true. But should we therefore suspect that a flaming "King James Version Only" man, such as the Rev. Marion "Pat" Robertson, is homosexual as well? I think not! I cannot believe that Pat Robertson is a closeted gay just because he strongly prefers the so-called "Sodomy-tolerant" KJV. That Pat suffers from a deep homosexual panic about the very possibility of closeted gayness? Okay, sure. But can you blame him? How would you like to have spent your puberty and Saturday nights in the dorms and closets of an all-boys military school in Tennessee if you were a cute teenaged, sexually ambiguous, youth named "Marion"? Truly, if the atheists and homosexuals of this world knew one tenth of what the bullies at that military school put him through, such as the nickname, "Minnie Mouse," then I think they'd better understand Pat Robertson's passion to "ride with the king" - with King James, that is!

But let me add this, in Pat's defense: if King James and Pat Robertson should ever meet in Heaven, it will not be Marion "Pat" Robertson who is the first one to say, "Tickle me Elmo!" I know Pat well enough to vouch that he would never ask another man to tickle his elmo; or another woman, for that matter. If anyone tickles Pat Robertson's elmo, it will be Pat himself.

Besides, King James did not personally translate the "King James" Version. As the King of England, James merely put up the cash for the fifty British scholars who did the actual work - most of whom, granted, were gayer than Truman Capote on a spring day in Amsterdam. That interesting historical fact may explain why the allegedly "****-tolerant" Authorised Version goes easy on the biblical heroes, David and Jonathan, and on the prophet Daniel, and the apostle John; but it can shed no light on the Marion Pat Robertson mystery, nor will the behavior of those fifty dissolute KJV translators ever get Pat to change his position. For one thing, they're dead. Seriously, in these "end times," when Jesus could be returning at any minute, it would be a mistake for English readers to reject the Authorised Version of the Bible simply on whatever nagging doubts they may have concerning the Jacobean nature of Rev. Pat Robertson's concealed sexual proclivities.

\t
36 of 54 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Overrated!, December 29, 2005
By \tC. Mcmillen "Sea Urchin" (Missouri) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Based on all the hype, I thought this book would change my life. But it didn't. In fact, I found it to be fairly disjointed and at times, contradictory. There were too many perspectives and the story didn't really even have a cohesive plot. This is the most overrated book I've read since The Da Vinci Code!

\t
36 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars Good message but suffers in implementation, June 13, 2004
By \t"a10t2" - See all my reviews
I'm not generally a fan of fantasy fiction, but I felt obligated to read this title, it being the popular example of the genre. The story has a good premise that I can't help but think suffers in its implementation. The collaborative writing and editing processes, to say nothing of numerous translations, render the basic message somewhat indistinct. For example, as early as the first chapter, the authors make an attempt to introduce literally everything into the plot, even going so far as to suggest that the beginning of the story is the beginning of the universe. The rest of the book, however, makes no attempt to reconcile these far-reaching plot threads, instead focusing solely on the actions of a (relatively) small group of characters in the Middle East. Even with these strenuous limitations the remainder of the novel suffers from an overabundance of characters, most of whom are crude caricatures and only mentioned in passing. The authors would have done better to limit the scope of the plot, both in time and setting, to better highlight their message. The few characters who are developed suffer from serious inconsistencies as a result of the collaborative writing process.

Take, for example, the main character, God. In the first half of the book, which has a very linear and logical format, God is something of a bully. Only a few pages into the first chapter he has condemned the entire human race to a lifetime of suffering by casting their ancestors out of an idyllic paradise. Whenever anyone says or does anything critical of him, God either kills them outright or makes them wish they were dead. He kills women and children, he levels cities, at one point he even wipes out the whole human race with the exception of a single elderly couple, who are forced to engage in years of back-breaking manual labor simply to survive. God's history is never fleshed out; the authors simply leave him in place, unchanging, as a literal deus ex machina to be called into play whenever the plot gets too convoluted. It isn't hard to imagine that God's character in this part of the book was inspired by the Greek ideal of Zeus: an omniscient entity who rains suffering upon mankind from on high whenever he's in a bad mood.

At some point the original authors apparently felt they had done their part and the book sat around unfinished for a few centuries until a new group came along to add their contribution. The second portion of the story, the "New Testament", doesn't start off in a promising manner: God, evidently still in his Zeus mode, impregnates a mortal woman who, by his own admission, has done nothing wrong. (The authors even make a point of saying that, although married, she was a virgin prior to this episode.) Predictably, she gives birth to a half-human demigod, who at the age of thirty suddenly decides to start talking to people about his origins. Apparently fatherhood has softened God up somewhat; he's now willing to forgive and forget, no matter what people do, as long as they're willing to tell him how great his son, Jesus, is. The authors make no attempt to explain the about-face, and after a while some Romans show up to kill off the Jesus character, without God's interference. The intervening portions of the book are devoted to a collection of pithy parables with less-than-subtle morals, presented out of order and without context. Here the editors' methodology of slapping together the works of disparate authors, even leaving out whole books to clear up the larger inconsistencies, comes into play. A few main characters wander about, telling everyone how great Jesus was, presumably so that God, who doesn't show up at all in this part of the story, will treat them well. The narrative is stripped of any cronological basis and on the whole becomes fairly tedious.

Having fortunately sensed that they were losing their audience, a third group of authors then came along and added a brief summary so fantastic that it makes the rest of the book seem like an accurate history. God makes another appearance, just in time to see the human race he allegedly loved destroyed - except, of course, for those people who told other people about what a nice guy his son was.

On the whole, the book could have better presented its moral message by sticking to a well-defined format, be it a cronological narrative or a succession of fables. It's certainly worth a read; just be prepared to be confused by the characters and their motivations.

etc. etc. etc.