I
swear to god that I just clicked on this review randomly to prove a point: that the
NYT film critics couldn’t spot brilliance if it bit them sharply on the ass.
Maybe they once knew the difference between great films and truly godawful
movies, but being condemned to bow down to the gods of the film industry
have broken them destroyed their ability to give anything approaching a fair
appraisal of a work.
They
aren’t art critics; they have been forged into turd polishers by their masters
at the media conglomerates who own them like serfs tending their land. It takes
this turd polisher several paragraphs to get to his point: Triangle of Sadness
is a bad film.
I
could have told you that, and I haven’t even seen it. It clocks in at 2h30m.
That’s all I need. It’s too damn long as it should have a runtime of 1h30m.
Period. How could it possibly be good with an entire hour of fat added? Answer:
it couldn’t.
Here is a phrase I found in this stool sample of a review:
“I still find the tendency in European cinema that those directors represent
to traffic frequently in facile provocation and sadomasochistic arousal of the
bien-pensant bourgeois audience’s eager self-contempt.”
Jesus
fucking Christ, if that isn’t the most ridiculous sentence I’ve ever read then
I curse my poor memory for my failure to remember the one that tops this one
for silliness. I’m sure that he spent an hour crafting this phrase with one
hand on his pen and the other stroking his flaccid cock, trying to coax some
blood into one, and who-the-fuck knows what he was attempting to put on the
paper.