• Bible Films Blog

    Looking at film interpretations of the stories in the Bible - past, present and future, as well as current film releases with spiritual significance, and a few bits and pieces on the Bible.

    Monday, October 27, 2008

    More reviews on Mary

    Following on from my earlier posts on Abel Ferrara's Mary, Peter Chattaway has rounded up a few more of the reviews to have come from it's recent run in New York. Aside from the pieces I have mentioned before there are reviews from Victor Morton, (Rightwing Film Geek), Robert Davis (Paste Magazine), Daniel Kasman (The Auteurs' Notebook), with other reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.

    I can't help commenting on Victor Morton's criticism that the movie seems "phoned-in". Surely that phrase is already such a movie-review cliché that Morton's use of it also constitutes something "phoned in"?
    Edit: Having now read Morton's comment in context I now realise that, actually, I should have resisted commenting on this until I had actually read it. His remark was made as part of some informal comments on someone else's blog, and not part of a formal review. Furthermore they were made 3 years ago before the phrase "phoned-in" had become a cliché. I apologise to Victor, but decided to leave the above up so that future readers can understand the extent of my idiocy (see also comments).

    Peter also links to a video interview with Ferrara at Cinema Echo Chamber.



    • At 8:08 am, October 30, 2008, Anonymous Victor said…

      Mmmm ... before I make a jerk of myself ... are you saying what I take you to be saying ... namely that the very phrase "phoned-in" is somehow ritually impure.

      If not ... then what is your point about what I wrote.

    • At 9:42 am, October 30, 2008, Blogger Matt Page said…

      Hi Victor,

      I'll save you the trouble of making a jerk of yourself, and admit that actually I've made a jerk of myself!

      I read your comments at Peter Chattaway's blog where he prefaced them by saying they were a part of a "review".

      I was pushed for time, so, like an idiot, I didn't properly check them out. Now I have done I realise that

      1 - they were just taken from a comment you made on someone else's blog.

      2 - they were written around 3 years ago, before the phrased "phoned in" got so heavily worn and became such a cliché.

      Can I please offer my sincere apologies? I should never have posted that comment without checking your original. It was stupid, a little lazy, and unlike the high standards I usually aspire to.

      I'm tempted to completely delete my original comment, but I suspect that part of the reason would be to make me look less bad, so I'll leave it in with added text.

      Once again, I apologise for my comments,


    • At 10:06 am, October 30, 2008, Anonymous Victor said…

      No big deal, and you don't need to change anything on my account, or keep anything in on the basis of scrupulosity about your own motives.

      I'll even acknowledge as a general rule that somebody who likes a film will have more and more-interesting things to say about it than does someone who dislikes a film. (Or more precisely, someone who was bored by it ... if one detests a film, he can write a very informative review.) So I freely admit that my remarks may come across as ... ahem ... phoned-in compared to the amount of work and grey cells and oxygen you've lavished on MARY.

      That said, I do contend that within the limits of a combox I supported my claim that the film is slapdash -- the editing patterns surrounding Binoche; the length and undigestedness of the theologian cameos; Ferrara's ignorance and demeanor. I stand by that judgement.


    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home