8½

For the love of God, won't somebody please colour this...
image via leftfieldcinema

In 1963 Italian film director Federico Fellini released his eighth-and-a-half film, 8½. Since that day, the film has been regularly hailed by almost everybody, coming 3rd in 2002's Sight & Sound poll of directors for the Greatest Movies Of All Time. So, with a heavy heart, I looked on the web to see if anyone would be stupid enough to say its crap. I'll be honest, I expected a few, but not this many... This one comes from Amazon.co.uk:

I know it's supposed to be a classic (It's not "supposed" to be. It is for reasons too numerous to list here.), but i was bored to tears. Utter drivel (I see. Because it doesn't excite you, it must be drivel? Not all films are "exciting"...). Maybe I'm just not intellectual enough to understand 'world class' cinema. (No. You're not. Now pipe down, piss off and watch some more Michael Bay shit.)

Here we have one from lovefilm:

I had to watch this prior to attending a film class (This is always an ominous way to start. Why do film classes have so many students who know and/or care so little about film?) and am sad to say that I just don't 'get' the fuss made about Fellini's films (What's not to 'get'? The direction and camera is just beautiful.). There is some good camera work, scenery etc but I didn't really follow or enjoy this at all (Not following it, I can kind of understand, it does wander around time and reality quite a bit but it's fine if you pay attention. But how could you not enjoy it? One of the best things about it is its humour. Some of the dreams are hilarious.). Apparently Mr Fellini is something of a genius (Not "apparently". He is. Without any doubt. In the Sight & Sound polls he came 7th in the critics' table, and 2nd in the directors' table.)

Here's a second helping of lovefilm:

Oh, well, am sure there was some deep meaningfull something about this (There was. About the pressure a director is under to create a masterpiece, while trying to manage personal problems and deal with public expectation), but I just felt boredom solidifying my blood (I don't think that's how either boredom or the bloodflow works...). It was beautifully framed (Correct) and the opening scene was amazing (Correct again. Congratulations), but sitting though it was a chore (It shouldn't have been. It's funny enough, often enough, to prevent the picture from becoming bogged down). I forgot why I rented this, then I saw Claudia Cardinale! (Ah, good old chauvinism...)

Here's another:

I had heard that 8 1/2 was a must see classic film (You heard right!). So with eager enthusiasm I accepted an invitation to watch it over at a friend's house (You clearly have cultured, intelligent friends). A couple of drinks later we sat down to feast on this seminal movie. (And what a feast!)

Black and white, subtitles, dream sequences, reality sequences that seemed like dreams, very unusual goings on, I was having trouble staying with it and so I start to drift (I'm sorry, but being in black and white with subtitles is not a criticism. When will you numbskulls wake up and realise that sometimes, films look better in monochrome? And without the dream sequences and flashbacks, there wouldn't really be much film. This is where the characterisation and development of Guido really occurs). I try desperately to stay on the ball, follow the story, but it’s so difficult to follow, and I drift, and my eyes hang heavy as I fall into a deep sleep 20 minutes in (How? How did you manage this? You had better have been awake for the preceding 72 hours or something.). Game over. (And yet, even though you only saw TWENTY FUCKING MINUTES of a ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY MINUTE film, you come on here and review it? How is this fair to the film? And what about all the minutes that have been lost by the poor sods who've read this review expecting a well-thought-out and argued critique of the film and its themes, or style? One of them might have cured cancer till you're bullshit review distracted them.)

I think up and till that point I was enjoying it but I think tiredness got the better of me (If you enjoyed what little you saw then why the fuck did you give it one star? Are you mad? Are you deliberately trying to give me a rage-induced heart attack?). My friend who had invited me over was outraged and horrified that I had slept through what he considers to be one of the finest films he's seen in a long while (Good for him. I like this man. Can we not hear from him instead of the ramblings of a possibly drunk madman?).

Needless to say we are no longer friends and all contact has been severed (If it'd been me you'd have never woken up from from that bastard sleep...). To try and make amends I have given the film 2 stars, one for every 10 minutes I watched. (But you didn't though did you. You gave it one star. And that's without returning to the fact that you're reviewing a film you've seen less than 15% of the bloody thing.)

 And another, with a similar problem:

One of a very few films I couldn't watch to the end (Then why, pray tell, have you posted a review for it you putrid maggot?). I couldn't find a single thing to like about it (Not the acting? The direction? The interesting story? The bloody humour? Nothing at all?). It was agonising (Not as agonising as reading your review I'm sure). I understand it's supposed to be a classic. (It's still not "supposed" to be anything. It is. Just like you are a cunt.)

If this anyone else reviews this film without having seen all of it I might just have to actually scream... Maybe this review from Amazon.com will be alright...:

Every time I watch this movie- or try to watch it- I fall asleep in self-defense (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH). Terrible, boring, not the great masterpiece everyone seems to claim. (Oh, go and stick your head in an oven.)

I think it's best if we just leave it there for now, to be honest. But don't worry, I've more than enough for a part 2, so that should be along soonish. With any luck it won't involve any nervous breakdowns...