Change Your Image
eetstatik
Reviews
The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things (2004)
Don't worry--It's fake.
No really. JT Leroy is a phony. It's all an elaborate hoax, similar to "A Million Little Pieces." JT is really Laura Albert, a writer from San Franciso, and the JT seen in interviews is in fact Savannah Koop, a relative of Albert. The only reason I'm ruining everyone's fun is because I've read some comments where people who've suffered real abuse as children seem to have found an emotional conduit in this story. When an author makes up a story and passes it as real is horrible enough, but when it manipulates the feelings of those who have been through real suffering--I have to make my voice heard. I'm sorry to anyone who has been manipulated by this cheap trick and hurt by the hucksters behind it.
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
A Tedious Failure From a Director I Expected More From
I really did not get either Rushmore or the Royal Tenenbaums first time I saw them. Then, after letting them gestate, I took a second look and found myself enjoying both films. So when I heard that The Life Aquatic would star Bill Murray and would have a more adventure angle I was excited. A quirky tale of adventure on the high seas, sort of a dry, deadpan version of Erik the Viking or the Adventure's of Baron Munchausen, both films I enjoy. I certainly wasn't expecting anything overly fantastic, but I was at least expecting a semi-enjoyable film. Instead, the Life Aquatic is a sad excuse for a film from a director I had a higher opinion of.
Where to begin? Well, the humor that seemed so fluid and natural In Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums is lost here as the movie is sadly very dry and unfunny. When it tries to be funny, if often feels pathetically awkward. In fact, I would say awkward is the operative word here. The direction, delivery, and certainly story are awkward. The script I make extra note of as it feels half-formed and unfinished. Rushed, perhaps, because numerous disconnected fragments come and go with absolutely no momentum in either story or characters. The characters themselves seem set up well, but never go anywhere until they suddenly reach revelations that comes completely out of the blue and feel terribly forced.
What's truly sad is the Hipster Indie Mafia wants you to believe this is a glorious film. "It's different," they say, and we will agree because we want to look hip and cool. Why everyone says they love the White Stripes and the Independent Film Channel even if they have never experienced either. And the director is from New York. Even better, the city of mindless underground conformity that loves to hear itself talk. This culture of hip, anti-mainstream brainwashing isn't rebellious, it's just as controlling as the mainstream itself. Only, it does so in a different enough matter it is never called out on its hypocrisy. Face it, Sundance is the new Hollywood and with it is an entire culture of so-called "counter culture" that wants you to drink expensive coffee, pierce your lip, wear trucker hats and studded belts, and talk about how much you love the latest flash in the pan Indie band or performance artist.
I am sorry for the lengthy tangent. You may assume I am angry at the filmmakers. I am not. I am merely disappointed in them. I expected more from them and was left unsatisfied. I may hope the Life Aquatic is merely a failed experiment that might hold something greater in the future. My true anger is directed towards those that tricked me into seeing this substandard film. You know who they are. The Robotic Critics, the Lying Marketers, the Hip Indie Film Geeks, the so-called enlightened film world that praises itself to satiate its own ego and trick us into loving films that bear no rewards what-so- ever all with the power of peer pressure. May they get what they deserve.
The Constant Gardener (2005)
A noble failure, yet still a failure.
I find myself becoming more and more jaded with critics. They have been heaping praise upon praise on "The Constant Gardener," and making it this year's first real critical darling. Yet, upon witnessing it, I found myself terribly disappointed by the entire endeavor. It certainly cannot be blamed on the plot, which many people have stated to be too complex and involved. However, more complex plots have been executed before to great success. It is not the plot so much as the execution of the entire film. First, I have a great deal of displeasure with Meirelles' direction. He seems to be rather content to throw his camera about at all moments, often robbing us of both a clear view of what we are seeing, and further mudding it up with his inappropriately close angles, which only heighten our detachment by not laying out a clear scene. True, he does capture some beautiful shots of Africa, but he hardly seems to understand that the camera is used to tell a story visually, instead of just showing us nice scenery or the actors emoting. He really needed to be reigned in and focus on the story, perhaps learn what a steady cam is as well. His detached style does not help matters further when trying to shoot an emotionally charged thriller such as this where we must be as involved as the characters with the feelings of jealousy, anger, and loss. I'm seeing this style popping up more and more, and frankly I'm starting to believe it is an excuse to get away with rushed, sub- par direction. Another failure is the inability to create a feeling. Our hero, Justin, is a rather docile man suddenly thrust into a vast conspiracy that he seeks to topple in the name of the woman that was taken from him. An intriguing premise, surely; a thriller that, underneath the surface, is really a romance. Yet, this subtly operatic premise is done in a rather bland and pedestrian way that fails to make us truly believe that Justin would be willing to go to such lengths for love. The conspiracy itself does not generate the feelings of insurmountable fear that should come from a single man against a violent confederation of greed. It feels less like the villains of society and more like some bullies and half-interesting characters. The worse of these is Pellegrin, who should be the symbol of greed and power that we'd imagine him to be, but comes across more as a sub-par cartoon Bond villain. It's sad to see what could have been such a promising plot crushed under the weight of mediocrity until it becomes nothing more than a soporific exercise in tedium. The ending itself is a sadly anti-climatic last gasp of social preachings before the credits roll. If I must be positive, I would have to say that Rachel Wiesz gives one of the best performances of her career. It really is the best I can say.
Bulworth (1998)
Beatty--Trapped In the Sixties (Spoilers)
Warren Beatty once again places himself on the Hollywood pulpit to preach to the American masses about what is wrong with them and can only be cured by himself, the wealthy, powerful elite. Oh, Beatty, bestow to us the wisdom that comes only from being part of the oh so enlightened entertainment industry. Can you sense my disappointment? Let me begin why I am taking such a rather sarcastic tone. Warren Beatty plays Sen. Jay Bulworth who finds on the eve of his reelection campaign that he has become disenfranchised with his own beliefs and hires a hit out on himself as he spends his last days speaking the raw truth at campaign stops. Sounds like a winner, right? Wrong. Why does Beatty's attempt at modern political satire fail? Let me begin with his politics, which are hopelessly outdated. His type of damn the man, power to the people rhetoric maybe made some sense in the sixties and seventies when every high-school civics student wanted to grow their hair long and become a hippie, but now his black and white absolutism dilutes the arguments and shows just how sheltered he has become. Let's see, all White, Rich men are hateful pigs and bigots, while poor drug dealers are the beleaguered masses who commit crimes only so they may make ends meet and deep down will melt if you buy them ice cream. Homeless men deliver sage like wisdom, and insurance CEOs are so evil that they will shoot a man from the roof of a building. This type of race war baiting and class warfare propaganda might have made sense to naive and angry teens who have no kernel of knowledge of the real world, but for a man as old as Beatty, it is childish and one sided. There is no discussion, merely the propagandizing of a man who does not realize that the world has passed him by. Now, I believe most people realize--like many political commentators and theorists--that the magic wand answer does not exist, and Socialism is yet another flawed system as is its equal, but opposite, Free Trade Capitalism. And the true evil? Well, in my mind it is Government growing too big for its britches, but that's just me. The second reason his message fails is beyond content and strikes directly at its execution. Beatty is not seen as a desperate man trying to speak the truth, but more of a messiah figure. Yes, Beatty actually has the gumption to evoke the names of people like Huey Newton while at the same time positioning himself as a modern civil rights leader. He even goes so far as having Bulworth become enamored of Hip Hop and (in a series of truly embarrassing scenes) begins rapping and dressing like some sub-MTV gangster. Here we hit rock bottom as we see the grotesque nature of Beatty's egocentricity as he imagines himself as the White savior of the underclass (which itself stinks of the upper- class guilt that seems to power this charade like fossil fuel) and defeats his message by deeming Blacks unfit to help themselves with the Great White Hope Proxy to help them along. What more, Beatty exposes an unnecessary White shame, since Bulworth is essentially a man who wishes to be Black, and portrays all Whites as inherently evil (even the Black gangster is seen as an Angel underneath) which itself is offensive not only because of it's anti-White rhetoric, but also of the insinuation that to believe in equal rights, one only need to listen to Rap music and they automatically understand everything. Oh? So an entire race of people are defined entirely by one musical genre? How insulting. But, not as insulting as Beatty's final waving middle finger at the audience, when he dares to martyr Bulworth as a modern, White, Martin Luther King Jr. when he is assassinated in a reenactment of King's death. Don't believe me? Just compare the two, the shots fired from behind, from a rooftop. The terrified people pointing towards the source to find the gunman missing. It's all there, and is a truly gut- wrenchingly offensive display of celebrity ego to tarnish the name of that great man by evoking his death for gratification of an overvalued sense of self-worth. Beatty thinks rather highly of himself, doesn't he? The only good thing is that he enraged Racial Seperatist Spike Lee with his display of an interracial romance. That's good, but it's been done before. And as much as that is important, the best is when it is shown as normal. Not that intelligent discussion of the real life impactions of such as romance is not important, but sometimes just treating it like a thing is just as powerful as when you show it as controversial. But, for Beatty, that would require him to pull his head out of the sand and admit the world is more than black and white. And that he has shown himself incapable of.
Van Helsing (2004)
A Stupid and Extremely Disappointing Movie
Stephen Sommers is a man I had previously had an odd view of. Yes, his movies were all style and rather idiotic at times, but on the other hand you could sense the almost child-like glee in which he approached his movies. The man seemed to do it because he loved doing big action adventures and in an industry where everyone signs on the dotted line just for the money, that is something of a relief. Not after I saw Van Helsing, though. I will be blunt and tell you that this is probably the cheesiest, dumbest, and surprisingly boring movies I have seen in a long time. Sommers is not doing it because he loves it like he did with the moronic but strangely charming The Mummy series, but most likely because he got a pretty big paycheck. How else can we explain just how hollow the characters are. I know this is not drama, I expect that, but Brendan Frasier in The Mummy was an interesting guy even if not the most developed. Van Helsing himself seems like the perfect setup for a great comic-book hero but all his details are terribly muddled or completely disposed of. And the story--dear god--a simple adventure that will fulfill the potential of the setup would suffice, but it honestly feels like it was made up on the spot. The direction itself is flat, like Sommers just wanted to get it over with. He's not a great director, but he can at least stay asleep behind the camera.
The cast, however, suffers the greatest as some of them seem genuinely embarrassed. Kate Beckinsale needs to stop doing these movies because she's not that great at them as her accent is laughable (she got it from Boris and Natasha) and she looks truly humiliated to be in this drek. Poor girl. Richard Roxbury as Dracula tries his best and seems to be having fun but he's the only one as his campy performance is grating. But Hugh Jackman. Poor Hugh, he's a decent actor, a handsome leading man and seems like an alright guy, but he needs to fire his agent. He's been in crap movie after crap movie and even though he tries his damndest to be a professional he can't save this. Sad that such an alright guy can't pick a decent script because he (and to be fair the whole cast) deserves better.
As for the action, well, maybe i'm spoiled but it seemed boring and lifeless. The main attraction of the movie and they can't even make it interesting? Bad, bad, bad. As far as the CGI goes it is grotesquely over used and rather shoddy. I don't mind CGI but it has to be used (like all effects) to serve the vision but it is the vision itself and surprisingly fake looking considering the good work of ILM and the huge budget of the movie. I will ask the question on my mind the whole time. How do you screw up Wolverine tearing through a myriad of zombies, werewolves, vampires, and Frankenstein's monster with steam-punk weapons? Simple. Have a greedy second-grader write and direct it.
Wonder Showzen (2005)
Miserably Bad
WONDER SHOWZEN tries--and fails fantastically--at making an adult orientated parody of classics kids shows. Well, here's an A for effort...and a big middle finger for the end result. The creators of the show seem to have completely forgotten what makes an adult remaking of something originally for kids work, and that is a witty approach to the often false lessons given in the average kids show from the standpoint of the much dirtier (and wiser) adult mind. The unfairly canceled and sadly underrated TV FUNHOUSE was great at doing this, by holding up the often overly familiar clichés of kids shows we've all grown to know and mocking them with witty and knowing panache. SHOWZEN, however, seems to just be an adult sketch show with puppets and kids with little understanding of how to parody classic kids show in any way except to shock.
Another thing, the show itself is remarkable tedious. It isn't because of the shocking material, but because the creators decided to go for shocking material in and of itself. They seem to think shocking people is a means in and of itself of good comedy, not realizing shock value in comedy only works when it skews and usually satirizes taboos with wit and humor. SHOWZEN can barely muster up enough wit to make half the jokes even memorable, much less worthy of wasting 24 minutes of your life. These bad jokes, combined with the onslaught of eye-rollingly bad attempts at being edgy (really, it's like a 13 year old Slipknot fan thinking he's cool because he's angry all the time, not realizing it just shows how little he knows about life) and the pointless tedium of some parts of the show (like the screaming heard during the disclaimer) makes it a worthless piece of sh*t. Well, I never said the truth was nice. It's obnoxious, slow-witted, and like being locked in a room with a gaggle of teens too in love with their own bitterness. In other words, it's perfect for the imbeciles at MTV.
I, Robot (2004)
A passable summer movie
Summer blockbusters often are incredible stupid and shallow. I've reconciled this and realized that summer is a time where you have fun, not necessarily voiding quality, but it's not the time when you look for startling drama. When i want that I watch NETWORK for the millionth time. However, it is nice to see a summer movie that tries to be well- written while entertaining instead of, say, VAN HELSING, which had a story seemingly made up on the spot. I,ROBOT manages to be very well plotted while touching upon some interesting ideas--this is not Shakesperean complexity here folks, but it does at least mention some notions of free will and humanity, so it at least acknowledges that some of us have brains. For that, it is what i think the average summer movie--in a perfect world--should be, fast, well-written, well-made, and has some element to get the audience to believe in the world and the hero, instead of the tripe we are usually given. That's I,ROBOT in a nutshell, a well-made, entertaining movie that doesn't insult your intelligence too much. The action is somewhat video game like, but is part of the plot, and the effects are heavy but are beautifully executed and are integral to the story (no Burly Brawl nonsense here). It isn't SPIDERMAN 2 (at least speaking within the summer season) but thankfully, it also isn't THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. If every summer blockbuster could at least be this decent, than those rare summertime
exceptions of excellence might be future classics, instead of what we are usually given.
Frida (2002)
Vanity Project Misses the Mark
Frida Kahlo had an interesting life. Resisting the sexual and politcal status quo of her time as she painted from her subconscious, she expressed herself no matter what those around her thought. She had affairs with prominent political figures, tried to rein in her own cheating husband, and lived with the crippling effects of a bus accident.
Why then, is this movie such a failure at displaying her life? Well, first i'd put some of the blame at the feet of director and co-writer Julie Taymor who seems too concerned with showing off some of her own art than to show the motives behind Kahlo's. Don't get me wong, i appreciate a director with style, and Taymor put that to great use with the excellent "Titus," but she also had a solid story from Shakespeare to work with. Here she seems lost so she relies on her sense of style to tell the story, but it all comes off the tracks and results in a story that barely scratches the surface of Kahlo's beliefs and the reasons behind the imagery she created.
Even if the story doesn't get into great detail of the character, a great lead actress can still make Kahlo seem human and real. Well, Salma Hayek is a beautiful woman but let's face it, she is a bad actress. Most of the time she is at a dull keel, occasionally dropping to a few embarrassing moments when she tries to emote. In that regard, while Taymor shows off her directing skills, Hayek rides the project for all it's worth as a way to show off herself any moment she gets. As much as I realize Kahlo was an early example of the sexually liberated woman--and as much as i have no complaints about looking at Hayek--without any really penetrating observations, drama, or substanstial insight into the woman, Hayek makes Kahlo look like she was nothing more than a famous tart who slept with alot of famous people. Really, the Kahlo legacy deserves better than to watch Hayek and Taymor vainly try to replace it with their own. It's all just alot of pretty paint that fails to keep the canvas from staying blank. Kahlo fans should avoid.
The Rules of Attraction (2002)
What a Waste!
There is a certain type of film, when asked if a movie is good or bad, i like to call wasted film. Not that the movie itself is a waste of film, more so much that it had a wasted concept, look, performance, etc. that was used on a rather undeserving production. I say this because as bad as THE RULES OF ATTRACTION is, it had wonderful cinematography, music, and some surprisingly adept acting from a group of people i originally thought were just pretty faces. Even the directorial flourishes were welcome (though i am hesitant to compliment them as the director--Roger Avery--was the same man behind the awful script). So, it's a terrible shame to see such talent wasted on such utter garbage.
Note that i called the film garbage, and it has nothing to do with the amount of sex, or drugs, or language of the film. I have noticed some of the reviews cite this as a reason to dislike the movie, but i really found little of it shocking or disturbing or even useful. I can appreciate it when a movie creates a decadent atmosphere for a point (CLOCKWORK ORANGE) or even just to build a mood of chaotic fun (take your pick). Here, however, all the use of supposedly disturbing images and subject matter feels terribly tame (example, the childish sex-scenes that seem as erotic as an episode of HAPPY DAYS) and it's attempts to shock come across as much more adolescent than anything.
There is where i found THE RULES OF ATTRACTION to really start to break down, as the whole thing felt so terribly immature that i questioned the age of the filmmakers. The message of the film felt horribly naive and unfocused and reeked of bad highschool poetry level cynicism with no real intelligence. It even went so far as to quote Nietszche, whose work seems to be used best by people trying to sound smart without actually thinking for themselves.The drug abuse, sex, and violent moments were all along the lines of something a wannabe artsy Goth teenager would write about it in an attempt to seem glib and edgy as his/ her's parents wait for them to end their phase and stop talking so much. Even the dialogue was at a sub-Janeane Garafalo level attempt at being witty, caustic, and insightful without actualy being witty, caustic, or insightful (or even well written). Being in college now, i compare this film to my own world and feel as if the script was written by an angry spoiled thirteen year old who had no real idea what college or even adulthood was really like.
I could blame it all on the source, the novel by Brett Easton Ellis, as the reviews of his work, as well as my own experience with his writting (cut short by my lack of interest in his shallow prose and story) seem to point to the same complaints i have. Yet, couldn't Roger Avery of perhaps re-assembled or re-written the material for his adaptation (as was done in the flawed, but still much better AMERICAN PSYCHO)? As i said, it's all a waste since the production values were quite pleasing, and the performances were enjoyable, especially from James Van Der Beek and Jessica Beil, whom i thought were just Tigerbeat cover models but might actually be reall actors. But, i'm sure there are plenty of people just like Roger Avery--swarmy, smug, self-inflating "artists" so obsessed with complaining about the so-called "Hollywood System" and showing what they learned in film-school than to actually make an intelligent, entertaining work. For a young director it's merely a mistake of youth and inexperience, but for a man Avery's age and experience, it's embarassing, and considering what he was handed, almost sad.
Candy (1968)
Good For Only One Thing
...and no it isn't the nudity, there is little of that for a movie so renowned for being racy (or perhaps being a child of the Cinemax generation i'm merely numbed). It isn't the satire, which is typical of self-righteous hippies with little knowledge of what they are saying. No, it isn't the amazingly star-studded cast (amazing that they signed on) who range from enjoying themselves (Richard Burton) to
downright bored (Brando). No, the real reason is that for a man of my age i am given a window to the strangeness of an age i did not share in. Being a baby of the eighties i was born much too late to see it in theaters, and instead caught in on cable late one summer night. Sharing the strange and confusing experience
(and i watched it sober) with my Father--who was closer to my age in 1968--i
saw an odd smile cross his face as he began to recount his own experience
watching the train wreck that is CANDY, and of his life in that year in general. We agree it's a terribly film, but there's nothing more fun than to laugh at such a piece of wreched garbage with one's own Father as he shares memories of
such a bizarre decade. And that's all CANDY is really good for, either nostalga for those who were there, or wondering what people were on back then for
people who weren't. Maybe like me you'll even wonder how much of it your
parents took part in (so that's why i like licking stamps so much).
Shanghai Knights (2003)
How a Fun Movie Should Be
Everyone should remember that film is meant to be both intellectual and
entertaining. Some movies do both and are great works of art. Some are just
intellectual and while interesting to the mind, are pretty damn boring. Some
movies are just meant to be fun and can be if that they aren't so dumb as to be annoying. However, the latest from Jackie Chan is how a fun movie should be:
about fun, about charm and personality, and having conviction and enthusiasm
about action instead of the same boring old explosions. The back-and-forth
between Chan and Wilson is genuinely charming and entertaining. However,
the real star is Chan's style of Slapstick, which has always been more about
comedy than meanspirited bloodshed (oppossed to any Micheal Bay movie,
which, while i am no prude to violence, i think tend to confuse slaughter as the object of entertaining instead of drama) and i am happy to say can compete
completely with his old-school HK work. Couple this with energetic direction and a plot that while thin (i'd rather a movie use a thin plot to setup action sequences as opposed to the contrived and stupid ones of most action flicks) gives the
movie a lighthearted vibe. In short, a fun, rousing, wonderful piece of popcorn cinema for everyone.
Femme Fatale (2002)
Don't be fooled
There is often the argument of how a director introduces his ideas frequently in his/her work, repeatedly. This often a double edged sword, as on one side we
can expect certain ideas from a filmmaker and reinforces the idea of the soul of the creator inherit in their work. The bad side is, like many of the many
abberations of film analyse brought on by pretension and pompousity, it often is an excuse to let bad directors off the hook. Guess what i think of DePalma?
In all fairness, i do believe he has done great work before and is a talented director, but please, enough is enough. Do not let the rantings of overzealous critics and self-infatuated film students fool you, there is a difference between the somewhat true but overinflated "auteur theory," and a director who reuses the same tired, trashy techniques and ideas due to lack of imagination. Be smart and realize that ultimately, being a genius is no excuse for self-ingulgence and spite for the characters and story. We do not tolerate a person who endlessly speaks of themselves with no regard of the feelings of those around them, why tolerate it in a film? Keep that in mind when viewing DePalma masturbating his sense of style over substance, his sexual fetishes, and his need to rip-off
Hitchcock (whose work is the embodiment of properly applied auteur theory,
engaging, entertaining, well-told filters for his own personnel thoughts and
feelings [lesson that can be learned by the many selfish filmmakers who
audiences are swindled into believing to be geniuses by proxy]).
The Passion of Darkly Noon (1995)
Ahh, Christ!
Ahh, Christ! I am so sick of movies like these. You know the type, filled with lots of symbolism that fails to symbolize anything other than the director being more concerned for his reputation as an "artist," than the audience understanding his message or feeling engaged by the story. Some of this symbolism goes to the
extremes of being laughable, such as, (PERHAPS A MINOR SPOILER, but i
doubt it) a giant, mirrored shoe floating down the river.
What's truly worse is this had the potential of being a very interesting drama, as Darkly Noon, a manchild raised in a religiously fanatical household wrestles
with his attraction to married woman, is ruined by the writer/director's self- indulgence. He feels the need to throw lots of shallow ideas at us, hoping we will find him brilliant and ignore that he does not even seem to know what he is trying to say or even how to tell the story.
What truly makes me upset is that this is the type of movie brainwashed art- house whores are willing to gravel over self-righteously. They are willing to stand in line like sheep and sing the praises of a movie they don't understand, going on and on about how it goes against the "Evil Hollywood System," the
new catch-all category for everyone who feels like complaining; this complaint has become the equivalent of film-school rejects who do poor work, turn it in late, and when they are given their deservingly terrible grade, scream and holler they are not being understood for the "true artist they really are." That everyone else is just "unsophisticated." Well, Hollywood may give us lots of garbage, but at least they don't wrap their trash in boring, pretensious stabs at meaning
designed less for thinking audiences and more for self-obsessed "intellectuals," whom like to show off how smart they think they are. If you want a film that
creates a thoroughly engaging, entertaining, and meaningful drama through
use of surreal imagery try Neil Jordan's The Butcher Boy. Normally, i'm not this mean to a film, but when i get slapped in the face, i feel abliged to return the favor.
Jason X (2001)
whose idea was this
Why, may i ask, would anyone want to resurrect (no pun intended)such a damn silly franchise in such a dumb way? Everyone knows the tell-tale signs of a horror franchise in its death-throes, and the top of that list is setting it in outer-space. So, they take Friday the 13th and set in space to rip-off Alien, then they fill him with nanos to rip-off Terminator at the same time. Great,just great. I have to admit, i do find the idea of a nano-enhanced murderer interesting, but i'd rather see it used for something original and entertaining instead of...this. Eeek!
Train de vie (1998)
anti-semetic
Totally anti-semetic. The Jews in the village are seen as being idiots, liars, and squabblers. The comedy for the most part is dull, the directing rather unclever, the emotions nil, the character development less, and worst of all it even seems to harbor, intentional or not, resentment against Jews, even though it was written and directed by a Jew: as i have already mentioned the Jews are seen as children,but the exploration of guilt of pretending to be the enemy is barely, almost tacked on really, explored. At one point a character even says "Our Nazis are better than the other Nazis. Our Nazis are beautiful." It might have been the writer/director realized how anti-semetic the script was and threw in some heavy handed symbolism to fix it, but failed.
But the worst thing isn't the movie, but the fans. When you dislike a movie like this they tend to label you as corporate shill, as uneducated about film, as falling prey to Life Is Beautiful and its "fake," emotions. Sad you can't point out how bad a movie is when it's lesser known or underground, because so many nowadays fall pray to the belief is it's less known, it's somehow better. I have news for you, that's practically the same mentality of thinking the bigger the budget the better the script. They are both equally shallow, just the former philosophy is harder to criticize because everyone wants to be a "rebel" and be underground. So say what you want about Schindler's List or Life Is Beautiful, you don't have to love them, just don't be think this is a masterpiece in comparison.
Scary Movie 2 (2001)
they just didn't care
The first one was a disposable but funny comedy that you laughed hard at and then threw away when you were done. The second one should have been thrown away before it went into production. Why? They didn't care. The introduction parody of the Exorcist approaches the level of comedy of the original and shows how funny James Woods can be but after that it goes downhill real fast. Which leads me to wonder if they started out with as much enthusiasm as the first, but got lazy and decided just to slap something together. And why not, it seems slapped together from left over ideas they probably wrote over one weekend and contains zero of the care of attacking all the little details of horror movies. I mean, they even reuse gimmicks from the first one that don't even work in the context, they were so dry for ideas. Huge disappointment.
Gam yuk moon tong (1995)
you don't need to be Mandarin to enjoy
Many people are understandably afraid to watch foreign comedies in fear that they will miss the humor, that the subtle cultural aspects that develop a comedy will be lost on them. But one doesn't have to worry about such a thing with the Chinese Feast because it's style transcends cultural boundaries. Okay, i'll put it simply, it's funny, and it's fun, and in a way anyone can understand. I walked away feeling good, feeling happy, and not feeling like i had been treated to a cheese feast like some light comedies. I have seen other examples of comedy from the Asian countries, and maybe i just didn't get the subtle cultural jokes along with the others, but i saw the comedy was very accessible beyond national boundaries. I was also surprised to see a comedy from Tsui Hark after being introduced to him through his much more tragic and pessimistic Green Snake. As for Hark, he gives a fluid and lyrical direction along with a sense of timing which helps make this movie. And if you don't care about any of this, at least watch it for the very attractive Leslie Chueng.
Chôjin densetsu Urotsukidôji (1989)
this could of been a good movie...if they cleaned it up.
I saw this movie by accident. I was new to anime and the only place to rent it was at a local Tower Records. I saw it had a warning sticker, which i believed was for the violence. I was raised to know this stuff was fake, and since it was a cartoon i could bear it a little better. I really just wanted to know what this was about, i heard it was infamous...now i know why.
I have nothing against hentai,if you want titillation go right ahead. i don't even have anything against tentacles either--it's how they are used that disgusts me. If the sex in a tentacle hentai was consensual, like some weird monster porn, i would have no trouble; i'm no prude or right wing nut.Instead this movie chooses the despicable act of rape, and then pushes it further by making that already heinous act as grotesqe as possible.The ugly creatures, the sex ending in bloody death, the rape itself, it all makes me sick
Sad, since i thought the animation, the plot, ideas,the action, it was all great. But all that is overshadowed by the overwhelming need of this movie to purposely offend everyone. I would of really loved this movie if they removed all this explicit, violent, and repulsive sex. Or, if they wanted to keep all of the bizarre x-rated monster sex then fine, if they made it consensual instead of graphic and, admittedly, misogynistic rape. And they could of tried to make it relevant to the actual story. It wouldn't of been hard, it's a tale of demons tempting humans for their souls, it could of worked. Instead what could of been a great anime is destroyed by a sick pervert's need to show how much he hated women, men, how he wanted to test the audience's morality and then punish them, and his need to be as rude as possible. Sad, this could of been a great anime, or at least a nice example of creative sexual titillation for the escapists.