Happy Second Birthday Three Movie Buffs

The Three Movie Buffs

Patrick:
Over the course of the past two years Three Movie Buffs has written more than 200 movie reviews. To mark our second anniversary we decided to pick what we consider to be the best and worst reviews written by the other two.

I'll start with Eric. I think his best review is also one of the earliest. I'm picking The Lion in Winter because he touches upon the plot and themes of the movie, even throwing in a few well-chosen quotes, without belaboring any points or giving too much away. And I especially like the last line about the actors 'picnicking on each other'. Sometimes less is more as he proves with this witty and succinctly written review.

For his worst review I chose Moulin Rouge not because I disagree with his opinion, but because his arguments are completely unfair and have nothing, really, to do with the movie. He spends the entire review pointing out other movies with similar plots, characters, and/or settings. So What? For example he says that they copied Singing in the Rain because both movies use songs that were already made popular. He gives no support for why he thinks this particular movie inspired Moulin Rouge since many other classic musicals did the same thing. It's as if he merely wanted to find comparisons to appear clever rather than seriously review the movie on its own merits.

For Scott's best review I pick Return of the Jedi. I think this is the best of his story-reviews. He does a great job of including the review into the story of how and when he first saw it. His enthusiasm is contagious and he includes some trademark humor that I enjoy, such as the 'Darth Maul delivering food to orphans' line. And although he loves the movie he is not above pointing out its flaws. Their is also a feeling of nostalgia that I get whenever I read it.

Scott's worst review, in my opinion, is Bonnie & Clyde. Not because it is one of his few throw-away reviews, but because he seems completely unsure of himself. He gives the movie three stars and briefly mentions what he doesn't like about it. But then he turns around and mentions several things he did like about it. It is all rather unconvincing as far as I'm concerned. This is one of the few, if not only, movies I can think of that he doesn't really seem to care about supporting his arguments. In short it is something a movie review should never be, wishy-washy.

Eric:
It was hard for me to pick what I thought were the best reviews. So much to read. However, it was fairly easy to pick out the bad ones. I remembered the ones I read and thought "what was that?" So I picked 2 of each.

I will start with Patrick because he started with me. His worst are Finding Forrester and Castaway. Because he just did not get these movies. Castaway has three important acts, yet he only saw it as a one act film with a long prefix and suffix. Finding Forrester is about excepting who you are no matter what the rest of the world expects. Patrick wrote it was about writing.

Patrick's best reviews are High Society and Rebel Without A Cause. In both of these reviews he makes the same valid point that to better enjoy older movies you need to watch with an educated, open mind, with full understanding that these films were made in a different era. It was one of the rare points I have ever read in a review that actually made me rethink my opinion.

Scott's worst reviews are Air Force One and Bonnie And Clyde. Air Force One is his throw away 5 second review. He put absolutely no thought into it. After I read his review of Bonnie And Clyde I came to A conclusion. I do not think he has seen the movie in a long time. His point about memorable scenes do not make a memorable movie demonstrates that he in fact remembers some but not all of the movie. Yet the fact that a movie stays with you does demonstrate that it is a great film. I think Scott would give this film an entirely different review if he saw it again.

Scott's best reviews are Planet Of The Apes and Radio Days. Like Patrick wrote about Scott's Return Of The Jedi review, Scott's "story" reviews are his best. They are personal as well as charming. With Planet Of The Apes he knew the subject so well that it is definitely his best. On this review you learn about the movie, its creation and about Scott as well.

Scott:
It was my idea for we three movie buffs to decide which was the best and worst of each others reviews and I think I found it the hardest to chose. I first dismissed all ‘throw away’ reviews since to truly qualify as a bad review an attempt must have been made to truly review it and that attempt had to have failed. To be the best the review had to not only tell something about the movie, but also possess a portion of the personality of the reviewer. Therefore, difficult choices aside, here are my picks for Eric and Patrick’s Best and Worst.

Eric’s worst is his Godfather review. It starts with a sort lame variation of the Wayne’s World joke. You know, the “You’re really good…NOT!”, only in reverse. He then goes on to say that he has nothing to add, which is fine, for a throw away review on any normal movie. But this is The Godfather for Christ’s sake! As if he realized his mistake, he then goes on to say some things that if expanded upon, could have been quite good; about it being a male soap opera etc. And then it just ends abruptly. I’ve had conversations with Eric about The Godfather and believe me, he has strong opinions and ideas about this movie, but none of them come out in this review.

Eric’s best Review on the other hand is The Way We Were. It’s well thought out, starts with a central thesis, that this movie is one of THE most character driven movies of all time, expands on the topic and comes to a well rounded conclusion. It is the polar opposite of his Godfather review.

Patrick’s worst review is for The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. Apart from the fact that he liked it, I really don’t know what else he got out of this movie. At one point in this overly short review for such a great movie, he states that he “...can’t stop gushing about how great it is.” But then he turns around and stops almost immediately.

Patrick’s best review was harder for me to choose. Not because he doesn’t have some good ones, he does, it was deciding among them that was hard. I finally settled upon Dinner at Eight. It’s instantly a Patrick Review. Which is to say it’s very informative as well as praising. It tells you who was in it, what else some of them appeared in, who produced it, and even where the source material originated. And of course it’s an older movie, black and white, and, has he points out in it, features a group of actors all born before 1890.