It's rich, stimulating thought in spite of itself.
I don't understand how you can be condescending towards someone who would mistake this for a "good" movie when your review is skeletal:
- Give at least one reason why you think Perry was a poor director, and why Aldrich or Morrissey would have been better. One small descriptor of their styles. Who do you honestly expect to recognize these directors' styles just by their names? Furthermore, even if your audience is exclusively other film critics, "X would be a better director" is so subjective it needs SOME justification.
- Citing the director's "gross inadequacies"--your vocabulary doesn't elevate your prose much higher than a 2nd grader's "this movie sucks."
- "weirdly linked to a shock rhythm of tension and release" -- That shock rhythm is *precisely* what many abusive relationships feel like. One minute they're loving; the next minute they're violent. Abused kids are perpetually on edge, walking on eggshells, and the movie did a fantastic job of capturing the psychological realism of that tension.
- "the dominant tone..." You described the tone as a "weird shock rhythm." Another empty criticism.
- "as it might have been produced by soap opera king Ross Hunter in the 50s: lots of elegant clothes and settings..." Is this secretly a compliment for the set director? Elegant clothes and settings in a movie about a Hollywood star doesn't sound bad to me.
In summary, "anyone who likes this movie is an idiot because the director was bad (so bad it makes me laugh), and the dominant tone is a weird horror movie shock rhythm with a soap opera's costumes/sets." Crank up the vocabulary, and presto, Rotten Tomatoes Top Critic!
Aug 15 - 11:50 PM