Polyester (1981)

[Robbie The Robot]

OMG that review is HILARIOUS. Walters would chew it up for breakfast. Especially the critisim of the acting. Has this reviewer ever seen any other Walters work? The “acting” is the best part. Devine and Tod have no chemistry..... bwahahahahahah!!!!

WTF did they think they were watching or expecting?!?

This review should be added to the back of the blu Ray box like a vox pop. I just love it. Pure gold.

[GeoffOliver]

They really need to start letting other reviewers handle Criterion’s releases if Svet can’t handle films from Spike Lee, Douglas Sirk, and now John Waters. Just give him the European films that he seems to actually appreciate.

[Kyle15]

What a joke. I love arthouse types who act all OPEN-MINDED high-and-mighty but then intentionally kitschy movies fly right over their heads.
They know everything so what do we know?

Personally I find it entertaining. Keep missed-point reviews coming! lmao

[spf781]

I've found his reviews to be utter tripe ever since he did a non-review review for Criterion's "Tree of Life" release.

[jordan-r]

Really, with something like this, I wonder why they even bother evaluating the film as compared to just the technical presentation. Anyone clicking into that review will know exactly what Polyester is.

[RCRochester]

I can’t believe that in 2019 someone has actually used the term “slightly retarded” without any sense of irony.

[bigshot]

The quality of reviewing on the internet is very low. Instead of Pauline Kael, you get some goombie who writes x number of words in return for free swag. The specs, the screen caps and a quick wikipedia peek generally give me an idea of what I need to know. I don't read the duffer opinions. I think a lot of the reviewers online are just out of their teens and have seen less than 100 films.

[amputd]

I’ve never seen Polyester so I can’t comment on the reviewer’s take on the film, but based on past performance it’s not surprising his review is polarizing. It’s a shame because he clearly has a broad knowledge of film, and writes very well. His technical scores are often useful, and I personally have learned things from him. But he appears to view films through a very conservative political filter, and that sometimes grossly distorts his impression of the films he is reviewing. I’m not sure whether that’s the case here, but a clue can be found in the review when he states “Then there are the various jabs at socio-political and cultural issues that are supposed to legitimize the ugly which also end up producing caricatures of the worst kind -- tasteless, dull, and at times just flat-out disgusting. (Example: The pro-life activists that spot Lu-Lu after she tells Francine that she can barely wait to have an abortion are, predictably, a pack of angry animals that have gone mad)”. It’s ironic because he gets upset when filmmakers infuse their work with a political perspective, but then counters that by doing the same thing in his reviews. He is clearly skilled enough with the language to be more diplomatic and more subtle in expressing his political opinions, but instead chooses to infuse his reviews with a kind of political grandstanding, that often feels aggressive and out of place. What’s sad is I think he is aware of this issue, but refuses to make any concession out of hubris.

[GeoffOliver]

There have been a few mild controversies involving some of the other reviewers here too that I can recall (outside tech specs), but not as regularly as Svet, who’s clearly very intelligent and knowledgeable about film, but brings too much of his own Euro right-wing worldview into his reviews, and he comes across as pretty full of himself at times (I mean, he does want us to be aware he has a PHD just by reading his name). Brian Orndorf may have his pet peeves (like runtimes), but at least he seems to otherwise give all films a fair shot.

But really, these reviews should mostly be about the tech specs. If someone has clicked on a review for a Blu-ray release, there’s probably a 90% chance they have seen the movie and just want to know how the disc is. There have been a few times a film review here has swayed me, but not very often. If you’re reviewing a film from Spike Lee, Douglas Sirk, or especially John Waters, you have to really know what you’re talking about. Retrospective reviews should always be done in a historical context, and within the context of the filmmaker’s body of work as a whole.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

What a joke. I love arthouse types who act all OPEN-MINDED high-and-mighty but then intentionally kitschy movies fly right over their heads.
They know everything so what do we know?

Personally I find it entertaining. Keep missed-point reviews coming! lmao

I'm a weird hybrid of arthouse enthusiasts and outright exploitation/schlock aficionado, so i'm hype to receive Polyester later today.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

I'm a weird hybrid of arthouse enthusiasts and outright exploitation/schlock aficionado, so i'm hype to receive Polyester later today.

Me too! If you love that kind of thing you'll probably love Polyester and John Waters altogether. He's a fave.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

There have been a few mild controversies involving some of the other reviewers here too that I can recall (outside tech specs), but not as regularly as Svet, who’s clearly very intelligent and knowledgeable about film, but brings too much of his own Euro right-wing worldview into his reviews, and he comes across as pretty full of himself at times (I mean, he does want us to be aware he has a PHD just by reading his name). Brian Orndorf may have his pet peeves (like runtimes), but at least he seems to otherwise give all films a fair shot.

But really, these reviews should mostly be about the tech specs. If someone has clicked on a review for a Blu-ray release, there’s probably a 90% chance they have seen the movie and just want to know how the disc is. There have been a few times a film review here has swayed me, but not very often. If you’re reviewing a film from Spike Lee, Douglas Sirk, or especially John Waters, you have to really know what you’re talking about. Retrospective reviews should always be done in a historical context, and within the context of the filmmaker’s body of work as a whole.

The worst one is probably the Mandy review. Shockingly immature and insulting to those who like the film.

[GeoffOliver]

I’m already bracing myself for Svet’s review of the Godzilla set.

[captainron_howdy]

Mandy and The Devil's Candy reviews were a complete atrocity.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

I’m already bracing myself for Svet’s review of the Godzilla set.

Probably a lecture on why they don’t belong in the Criterion Collection.

[SpaceBlackKnight]

Out of curiosity, does this restoration of Polyester have the "flashing" New Line Cinema logo at the start? I recall hearing some release prints didn't have it and some did, and as this was a pickup it could be the case where the OCN dosen't have it while a logo was attached to whatever release prints were made. I recall the DVD having a modern NLC logo, which could have done some replacement of it's own if there was one on the source Warner used.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by SpaceBlackKnight

Out of curiosity, does this restoration of Polyester have the "flashing" New Line Cinema logo at the start? I recall hearing some release prints didn't have it and some did, and as this was a pickup it could be the case where the OCN dosen't have it while a logo was attached to whatever release prints were made. I recall the DVD having a modern NLC logo, which could have done some replacement of it's own if there was one on the source Warner used.

There is no New Line at all, it's been plastered with the 1984 WB logo as seen here:

[Dave Bannion]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

(I mean, he does want us to be aware he has a PHD just by reading his name).

His review of Welles’ Ambersons is another head scratcher.

I say this as someone with a PhD — Like a lot of academics, the reviewer struggles with balance when it comes to his assessments of creative work. There’s an unwillingness to see things from a different ideological position.

So with that, you can start referring to me as Dr. Dave Bannion. Thanks.

[GeoffOliver]

There’s nothing wrong with flaunting your degree that you earned, but at the end of the day, your work needs to be more reflective of that than your name. I learned that from my film professor (also a PHD, and refuses to be called “Doctor”).

[MifuneFan]

Svet does not have a PhD. He has a DM degree, which is for Music, hence the Pro Bassoonist name. DM stands for Doctor of Music.