MovieChat Forums > Bodysong (2003) Discussion > How'd these lousy reviews get chosen?!?

How'd these lousy reviews get chosen?!?

posted 18 years ago by fullofstars2010
6 replies | jump to latest

The film is called bodysong and it succeeds at acheiving it's goals. Hence the excellent 6.9 rating. THe review I find available here at Imdb.com is not only perfunctory but also levels no creative criticism i can find save for the line describing body song as "...basically a load of crackly second-rate old footage on worthy themes cobbled together." Finally the reviewer choose to leave the film before it's completion... sure sign they missed the point. The themes are worthy and 'cobbled' together in this way DOES convey a coherent narrative--of what requires little imagination, nevertheless remians provocative.

See this film, draw your own conclusions, live your own life, don't trust reviewers/critics, they are mostly robots anyways. By the way, the original moonlanding footage has been missing from NASA archives for some time; do any of us need to see that same poor-transfer we have all seen before(beatles)? I think i'd prefer to see something i haven't seen before, a film like 'Bodysong'

I do not LOVE this film, but it was done very well and deserves a review that reflects this. Im afraid that someone who may enjoy this film will take the review offered here on the IMDB page seriously-- as i nearly did. THankfully, the author made it clear they are more fans of modern studio footage than the content of the footage itself by noting repeatedly it is "dated from the 70s or earlier...Crackly, poor colour, etc. And it was pretty second-rate footage too." Im afraid I cannot draw a conclusion of what is meant by the last part of this statement... these were mostly ANCIENT home movies/military footage from the mid 30's till roughly as late as today(no information to the contrary-i assure you much of it is 90's by the quality). The director chose that film for a reason, where does one find grainy, badly colored, footage of 30's babies learning to walk in afluent english settings, THAN 30's FOOTAGE OF BABIES LEARNING TO WALK IN AN AFLUENT ENGLISH setting, ABSURD... Pssht. makes me want to maim myself to stop from imaging what films this reviewer does like... enough ad hominim.

My point: if the amazing joy of parents bringin their newborn to the world/educating it... and the awesome shot at minute 68:45 do not move you. then fine, leave the theater, you likely don't like the whole notion of bodies in motion...or reality and may find it impossible to believe that you too, were a giant-pink rasin dropping from your mother's gaping, ravaged, womb.

The review states the film is 83 minutes and yet the author didn't have the attention span to see it through to the films conclusion. They also claim they could do better in a few days with some tape and scissors. Not funny, absurd really(was that the goal)-- and it only serves to reinforce my claim that the review offered by 'bfinn from United Kingdom' should be discounted entirely (better to have it voted out, an unlikely outcome 3 years late). Apparently the author of the review is more appalled by the AWESOME beauty of childbirth and the overwhelming elation of the subjects of these images then the images of war (beatings served to the unarmed and defenseless; children held at knife/gun point; jews being walked naked through the streets of Germany; the targeting of distant bodies running for safty from night-vision artillary; etc.) Funny that anyone would find birth more 'gross' than the later images of society stripping the dignity from humankind. Perhaps this is the very dialogue in which the director feels we should be engaged.

This film captures the HUMAN story in the language of human transitions in life and in motion. Focusing on the human form and human interaction the body is the subject and we see how society has been, at times, both punitive and rewarding of such. who cares when the footage is from or what it cost---this is irrelevent to criticism of film. Im appalled having to state this.

Enjoy,
Cb

[–] funky_monkey_8_ 18 years ago

I personally don't regard a 6.9 rating as 'excellent'. And either way 144 votes is by no means a worthy sample.

I'll probably watch this film in about 25 mintues on (English television) and cast my own (then experienced) opinion on here. But with synopsis I've read in the tele mag', it seems it has certainly set its standards very high and will suffer direly if it doesn't reach them.

Of course, I'll keep an open mind.

[–] necroticfuzzfunk 18 years ago

the music is entirely done by the guitarist from radiohead, which i found interesting.
i think the film does what you expect, it assembles a variety of footage that dates back almost as long as humanity has been capturing moving images. as a summary of what goes on on this planet, you can't knock it too much, i'd give it 7/10. the only problem is the structure, as the guy above said, should have been thought through a little more (unless it's perfectly structured & i'm too dumb to pick up on it) didn't quite comprehend why everyone started dancing, felt it lost focus a bit towards the end. .

but yeah, it seems effective for the most part, the war part showed how violent the 20th & most bloody century in human history was very well, almost every clip i expected to see was in there.

as for the person who said it was amateurish because of the film quality, well, ironically they must be a bit of an amateurish, novice film consumer if they thought the quality of the images is supposed the focal point of the movie & the element the director is putting up for scrutiny - it's the themes, the content of the clips not the physical qualities of the transfers & framing etc.

did they think the director went to WW2 & vietnam, etc, in search of footage?
they probably weren't that dumb,i'll give thyem that, but as the other guy said, if you want footage of kids in the 30s, youre gonna have to use whatever you can find.

also, know what you mean about the sex & aggro jazz. something more electronic(like the composers work on radiohead's kid a / amnesiac), or perhaps totally organic, anything more slinky & sensual sounding than the abrasive textures and jarrign rhythyms actually used, which reflect the natural & joyous nature of sex...how exactly?

perhaps the sensory overload of orgasm could use that kinda music, but when used thoughout it seemed a bit, well, bad trip.

really interesting film though, they should send it into space!

[–] filmnotmovie 18 years ago

I think maybe the dancing was a study of emotions and culture?

[–] lorrigirl 17 years ago

I'd say it is a 10 on drugs, otherwise 6.9 sounds about right. The music and images are really cool, but after 10 minutes (without drugs) you start to wonder when it will be over.

[–] richimorton 15 years ago

Write one .........

That which does not Kill me makes me Stranger . . .

[–] Beardos_Film_Watcher 15 years ago

I just watched this and wanted to share my thoughts.

It is indeed a very ambitious idea. However, I don't think it worked as well as it could have, but there are moments where it is very interesting and enjoyable viewing.

I found the structure a bit uneven and as much as I love Greenwood's music (I noticed the parts later used in There Will Be Blood) it seemed incorrect for the kind of footage at times.

Overall I would recommend people to watch it as I enjoyed the interesting and often beautiful footage partnered with the unmistakable music. But I don't think it's gonna blow you away. It shows promise, but lacks a binding force in my opinion.

Ultimately, just watch it and see what you think...

I loved the brilliant tribal dances sequence, with the figure doing some kind of 'no-handed cartwheel' type thing in a circle (you can tell I know next to nothing about that sort of stuff). Very impressive!

:)

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=35080015