The Third Man is an extremely overrated film. The only reason critics and curators like it is because Orson Wells gives a monologue about how he views people as ants and wouldn't mind squashing a few of them.
Reviews
23 Reviews
Den of Thieves
(2018)
Impotent vs. Cuckold
8 February 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Good action scenes. Amazing establishing shots of cities.
But I instantly lose all respect for Gerard Butler when they slip in the line at the beginning about how he's impotent.
I keep watching because at least the bad guy is pretty bad ass. BUT THEN he cuckolds himself to Gerard Butler. Disgusting.
2018 filmmaking.
But I instantly lose all respect for Gerard Butler when they slip in the line at the beginning about how he's impotent.
I keep watching because at least the bad guy is pretty bad ass. BUT THEN he cuckolds himself to Gerard Butler. Disgusting.
2018 filmmaking.
The Matrix Resurrections
(I) (2021)
Humiliation Ritual
31 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Characters/Performances:
Keanu was a good sport and acted well. The new Mr. Smith is bafflingly awful. The new Morpheus was written terribly, poorly casted and poorly acted. Bugs was alright and Jessica Henwick is gorgeous, but they don't do anything with her. Neil Patrick Harris was alright. Therapist-as-handler was about the only interesting commentary the movie had to offer.
The filmmaking:
Editing and soundtrack were generic and truly awful. It was the type of apathetic treatment Netflix shows get. It's like they didn't care. The music didn't even sync up with what was happening on screen. Felt very rushed and detached. You can tell scenes were cut. Prianka's character seems entirely cut from the beginning. Also there was no time to breath and just hang out with the new crew of characters. In the original you had quiet downtime with each crew member where they talk a bit with Neo and reveal their philosophy/where they were coming from.
Continuing thoughts:
While yes, it seems like the film was cut to pieces, it doesn't come off that the writers/director were all there either. This film is the product of a scattered mind. Every interesting idea introduced at the beginning is abandoned as if they're too afraid to elaborate. For example when he first takes the red pill in the theater, Neil Harris is trying to convince him he's having a psychotic break and tries to pull him through the mirror. This is interesting because it implies that subjectivity is going to be warped in this new movie, but of course they don't anything else with it. It would have been awesome if the film was a full-fledged psychedelic trip.
Mainly, you get the sense that the Wachowskis must have really pissed off some people in power with the first Matrix. They ended up dressing as clowns and becoming Eunuchs. The equivalent of a dog rolling on its back to make clear that it's not a threat. This film felt like an extension of that self humiliation.
Neo is now old, impotent and can't fly anymore. Mr. Smith is now a marshmallow. And Morpheus is now a negative stereotype. The ending, where Neo and Trinity slice open Neil's jaw and say, "WE'RE THE BOSSES NOW!" makes you seriously question their capabilities as leaders. It's just irritating. I wouldn't want those people in charge of my Matrix. They're old and mentally ill. And I think that's the point of this film.
Anyway, i hope it bombs and they can let the franchise rest in peace. Because the first film is an absolutely undeniable masterpiece! And one positive about this new one is that it makes you appreciate the sheer technical craft of 2 & 3.
Keanu was a good sport and acted well. The new Mr. Smith is bafflingly awful. The new Morpheus was written terribly, poorly casted and poorly acted. Bugs was alright and Jessica Henwick is gorgeous, but they don't do anything with her. Neil Patrick Harris was alright. Therapist-as-handler was about the only interesting commentary the movie had to offer.
The filmmaking:
Editing and soundtrack were generic and truly awful. It was the type of apathetic treatment Netflix shows get. It's like they didn't care. The music didn't even sync up with what was happening on screen. Felt very rushed and detached. You can tell scenes were cut. Prianka's character seems entirely cut from the beginning. Also there was no time to breath and just hang out with the new crew of characters. In the original you had quiet downtime with each crew member where they talk a bit with Neo and reveal their philosophy/where they were coming from.
Continuing thoughts:
While yes, it seems like the film was cut to pieces, it doesn't come off that the writers/director were all there either. This film is the product of a scattered mind. Every interesting idea introduced at the beginning is abandoned as if they're too afraid to elaborate. For example when he first takes the red pill in the theater, Neil Harris is trying to convince him he's having a psychotic break and tries to pull him through the mirror. This is interesting because it implies that subjectivity is going to be warped in this new movie, but of course they don't anything else with it. It would have been awesome if the film was a full-fledged psychedelic trip.
Mainly, you get the sense that the Wachowskis must have really pissed off some people in power with the first Matrix. They ended up dressing as clowns and becoming Eunuchs. The equivalent of a dog rolling on its back to make clear that it's not a threat. This film felt like an extension of that self humiliation.
Neo is now old, impotent and can't fly anymore. Mr. Smith is now a marshmallow. And Morpheus is now a negative stereotype. The ending, where Neo and Trinity slice open Neil's jaw and say, "WE'RE THE BOSSES NOW!" makes you seriously question their capabilities as leaders. It's just irritating. I wouldn't want those people in charge of my Matrix. They're old and mentally ill. And I think that's the point of this film.
Anyway, i hope it bombs and they can let the franchise rest in peace. Because the first film is an absolutely undeniable masterpiece! And one positive about this new one is that it makes you appreciate the sheer technical craft of 2 & 3.
Coherence
(2013)
Does nothing
28 October 2021
The filmmaker came up with an interesting premise but thats it. There's no story here, just a concept. Right when the filmmaker figures out what he wants the film to be about, it ends. Take a look at a picture of the director, he literally looks like an idiot, which makes sense. Because this film was made by an idiot.
Not to mention the camera work was done by a dog. And there was no direction (and seemingly no script) given to the actors, so they constantly defaulted to extremely amateur acting class style ad lib.
Not to mention the camera work was done by a dog. And there was no direction (and seemingly no script) given to the actors, so they constantly defaulted to extremely amateur acting class style ad lib.
Magnolia
(1999)
Paul Thomas Anderson likes to abuse his audience
22 October 2021
I've been yelled at by an abusive mother my whole life. And I already have a cowardly father who cheats. I don't need experience Paul Thomas Anderson's gay freemason hate simulation. Nor does anybody. If you enjoy this film it's probably because you have sins that no one has ever punished you for.
Videodrome
(1983)
Videodrome In Every Pocket
27 September 2021
I love what the film has to say. Breaks down mkultra and some other concepts quite well. But Cronenberg's style is just so irritatingly slow. He either thinks his audience is dumb or he's just insecure about getting his point across. Either way I'm super glad I watched it and I do recommend seeing it.
Phantom Thread
(2017)
Good Cinematography
2 August 2021
There are two great sequences. The sensual measuring sequence between vicky creeps/ddl & all the scenes involving the porkly woman. They are fantastic, masterful sequences which give you the sense that PTA is finding the footing that led to his masterpiece There Will Be Blood. After those sequences, the filmmaker said everything he wanted to say. The film ends after they reclaim the green dress. The rest feels painfully sarcastic as if the director is making fun of love, and making fun of you for watching a puffy period piece. Once the vehicles of Paul Thomas Anderson's cruelty fall in love, they cancel each other out and that cruelty has nowhere to go but the audience.
Eyes Without a Face
(1960)
A teenage girl might enjoy this film
8 May 2021
I was bored out of my mind.
They could have made it moderately interesting if they kept anything a mystery but they reveal everything right away and then you have to wait for over an hour as it all plays out. Low IQ film.
I will say however that the cars are cool and the art direction was very Bioshock.
They could have made it moderately interesting if they kept anything a mystery but they reveal everything right away and then you have to wait for over an hour as it all plays out. Low IQ film.
I will say however that the cars are cool and the art direction was very Bioshock.
The Man Who Sold His Skin
(2020)
Amazing Premise
29 April 2021
But the skin is as deep as you'll get with these characters (rimshot!). The film is extremely surface level. It has an amazing premise but that's it. The trailer is infinitely more thought provoking because there is only about 2 minutes worth of ideas in this film anyway and at least the trailer raises your heartbeat with a cool song. The film does nothing interesting with the premise other than hit you over the head with the most basic metaphors about human dignity and immigration. The only thing the film felt passionate about was the cuckold love story and even that was intrinsically shallow. As with so many indie films, you can tell it was designed for attracting distributors at film festivals rather than stimulating an audience.
Chopper
(2000)
Forget "Great Performance"
28 April 2021
It's just a great movie. Really captures the vibe of an individual. Eric Bana is clearly incredible. The directing nurtures the source material. Makes me want to read some of "Chopper's" books. A man clearly obsessed with legacy in a genuinely childlike way. His vibrations bleed through this film. He reminds me of Anthony Bourdain or Hunter S. Thompson; better writers than their respected professions, but use their craft to create literary works of art.
The Commune
(2016)
Vinterberg's most important message
20 April 2021
Vinterberg, understandably having grown up in a commune, doesn't properly establish the hippy commune lifestyle. Probably because to him, that's just what he grew up with. He assumes you already know (and I do) but most people don't (or haven't thought about it) so the film feels severely lacking in world building. If this movie were an essay the first paragraph with the hypothesis is missing. Tell us a little bit about the ideology behind the choice in lifestyle; you did it beautifully did with Druk! Without it, the dramatic, emotional and ideological arithmetic doesn't quite add up. Have Ole tells us a bit about his left wing literature! Not to mention, Vinterberg shares nothing of the drug culture that the hippy lifestyle so adamantly relies on. Squash any human instinct/desire with a physical simulation; that's the hippy way. Feel unhappy: drink. You don't get that spark from learning something new? Just take a smoke and you'll get that spark relearning things you already know. Everything is material for the hippy, everything superficial. Real emotions always denied because we have pills for that! This film severely lacked a proper set up of that world in the first half.
That being said, this film develops into a deeply pertinent and important message. He perfectly diagnoses the problems with a hippy approach to a family structure. And I know this because my own family was a victim of this way of life. The mom in the film is my mom. The dad is my dad. The people in the film are from 70s Denmark, and my parents are from 90s LA. And while we live miles apart, the way of thinking leads to the same outcomes, and I have to repeat: Vinterberg perfectly diagnoses the problem with this type of thinking. While the woman may be the one suggesting a free love lifestyle, it's ultimately the women who will always suffer. The patriarch is to blame because he is the leader, whether or not he rhetorically offloads his duty to others.
The institution of marriage protects women, as their prospects of love virtually become null and void once they become old and ugly. The man however can remarry. This is why marriage exists. My parents were stupid enough to never make this observation and like in the movie, my mom ended up hooked on pills and alcohol while my father ran off with his tight new muse. And if you think the corporate world has any interest in supporting old women, think again.
That being said, this film develops into a deeply pertinent and important message. He perfectly diagnoses the problems with a hippy approach to a family structure. And I know this because my own family was a victim of this way of life. The mom in the film is my mom. The dad is my dad. The people in the film are from 70s Denmark, and my parents are from 90s LA. And while we live miles apart, the way of thinking leads to the same outcomes, and I have to repeat: Vinterberg perfectly diagnoses the problem with this type of thinking. While the woman may be the one suggesting a free love lifestyle, it's ultimately the women who will always suffer. The patriarch is to blame because he is the leader, whether or not he rhetorically offloads his duty to others.
The institution of marriage protects women, as their prospects of love virtually become null and void once they become old and ugly. The man however can remarry. This is why marriage exists. My parents were stupid enough to never make this observation and like in the movie, my mom ended up hooked on pills and alcohol while my father ran off with his tight new muse. And if you think the corporate world has any interest in supporting old women, think again.
Dogville
(2003)
About what I expected
12 April 2021
Don't let people who are known criminals into your society :)
Lars makes this such a brutally boring and simple movie as if to point out how painfully obvious this should be to people.
Kid man is a miserable character and I detested her all the way through. Avoid people like her in life. Her life philosophy is evil and the world is filled with people like her.
Make no mistake, she is a predator. She comes from a family of predators, snakes. And it is only in their nature to consume the town. The town was filled with idiots who have succumbed to sin. If you sin, you are more susceptible to predators.
Lars von Trier understands morality but I'm not so sure which side of the coin he falls on. Does he see morality as a useful tool to manipulate people? Did he himself want to genocide the people of Dogville? The contempt with which he writes the citizens would indicate so.
Lars makes this such a brutally boring and simple movie as if to point out how painfully obvious this should be to people.
Kid man is a miserable character and I detested her all the way through. Avoid people like her in life. Her life philosophy is evil and the world is filled with people like her.
Make no mistake, she is a predator. She comes from a family of predators, snakes. And it is only in their nature to consume the town. The town was filled with idiots who have succumbed to sin. If you sin, you are more susceptible to predators.
Lars von Trier understands morality but I'm not so sure which side of the coin he falls on. Does he see morality as a useful tool to manipulate people? Did he himself want to genocide the people of Dogville? The contempt with which he writes the citizens would indicate so.
Waterloo
(I) (1970)
THE WORST CASTING IN HISTORY
9 April 2021
The director should be shot for casting Napoleon to look like himself. He's the most shlubby uncharismatic middle aged drunk. No charisma. The other actors avoid him as if he smells. Makes me think the Russians still have some unresolved feelings about old Napoleon...
That being said. The scenes of war are definitely very big. All the scenes with Christopher Plummer Are definitely the tonal inspiration for the Brits in Gore Verbinki's Pirate movies. Great light hearted stuff throughout, it's just the actor who plays Napoleon is AWFUL.
That being said. The scenes of war are definitely very big. All the scenes with Christopher Plummer Are definitely the tonal inspiration for the Brits in Gore Verbinki's Pirate movies. Great light hearted stuff throughout, it's just the actor who plays Napoleon is AWFUL.
Barbarians
(2020–2022)
Childish and Lazy
7 March 2021
Casting Arminius as a Mediterranean looking dude completely misses the point of the story of Arminius. It's as if the casting director just saw he was a roman and casted accordingly. Arminius was ethnically German. He was taken by the Romans and raised Roman. The Roman's plan was then to plant Arminius back in the German tribes in order to subvert and conquer them. However, because blood is more important, he sided with his own people and ended up defeating the Romans because he knew all their tactics. So it shows how extremely ignorant the creators of this show are for casting Arminius as ethnically Roman.
Not to mention the show is entirely cliche and stylistically predictable. It could have been written by a computer. Plus you have people jumping off cliffs and landing on their knees like anime characters and women fighting in battle.
Not to mention the show is entirely cliche and stylistically predictable. It could have been written by a computer. Plus you have people jumping off cliffs and landing on their knees like anime characters and women fighting in battle.
The Intruder
(1962)
Devil in a White Suit
3 February 2021
Shatner plays an operative from an unknown organization dropped into a small town which is adjusting to government-imposed integration laws. His goal: spread hate. He essentially plays Satan, which is interesting on a dramatic level. The best scenes are where Shatner is alone with each of the characters, seducing them into indulging their weaker impulses. Theres moments where his eyes literally look like a snakes; it's truly a great performance (and reminds me of some of the right wing agitators you see online today.)
Ultimately however, the film is guilty of what it condemns which is instilling hate in your heart against a people you likely know nothing about.
Ultimately however, the film is guilty of what it condemns which is instilling hate in your heart against a people you likely know nothing about.
Parasite
(2019)
Almost Great Besides Dumb Ending
14 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
What's funny is that the parasites in Hollywood loved this film because they actually sided with the scumbag poor family.
When the point of the film is that they get biblically punished by a flood for acting like demons. That scene where she's smoking a cigarette on the toilet is powerful.
Although, much like Hitchcock taking it one twist too far at the very end of Vertigo, the poor dad killing the rich dad at the end felt totally undeserved. It wasn't built up to properly. It felt like the director just wanted to get to that point but the pieces weren't placed to justify it, for the audience or the character.
If your DAUGHTER just got murdered by a fellow poor person why would your immediate reaction be to empathize with the plight of the DAUGHTER KILLER as inspiration for killing the rich guy COMPLETELY OUT OF LEFT FIELD. Sure the rich guy called him smelly and sure he was resentful towards him, but to murder him in front of everyone just read as extremely false and dumb.
I don't believe actual poor people would even like or empathize with this ending. This is purely a trashy parasitical rich person's fantasy.
It's a shame the ending was so stupid because up until then it was a pretty darn good flick.
When the point of the film is that they get biblically punished by a flood for acting like demons. That scene where she's smoking a cigarette on the toilet is powerful.
Although, much like Hitchcock taking it one twist too far at the very end of Vertigo, the poor dad killing the rich dad at the end felt totally undeserved. It wasn't built up to properly. It felt like the director just wanted to get to that point but the pieces weren't placed to justify it, for the audience or the character.
If your DAUGHTER just got murdered by a fellow poor person why would your immediate reaction be to empathize with the plight of the DAUGHTER KILLER as inspiration for killing the rich guy COMPLETELY OUT OF LEFT FIELD. Sure the rich guy called him smelly and sure he was resentful towards him, but to murder him in front of everyone just read as extremely false and dumb.
I don't believe actual poor people would even like or empathize with this ending. This is purely a trashy parasitical rich person's fantasy.
It's a shame the ending was so stupid because up until then it was a pretty darn good flick.
Mank
(2020)
Mastapiece
5 December 2020
It will be forgotten alongside Benjamin Button and Panic Room.
The script discovered what it wanted to be about around 2/3rds into the film. The cinematography was awful. The subject matter was meandering and bland. The acting was awful, specifically on the part of Seyfried (no motivation, just reading lines). Oldman was Oldman without direction. The editing was apologetic. Go and watch Touch of Evil or Citizen Kane; you'll quickly realize those films are as efficient and down to earth as the Die Hard films.
Thought about the script: A character who is cynical and disenfranchised cant be the same exact way he is in the present day as he is in the flashbacks. Mank is the same both past and present.
Thought about style: Makes it seem like there is a puzzle to solve all the way through. But there is no puzzle to solve. It's a shallow script with no interesting ideas intentionally obscured by t i dont even care everyone who wants to is going to ignore my review anyway.
Cinematography: muddled. The characters are constantly in shadows. Either gray, black, small or have bright white light behind them which makes it impossible to see the profile of their face. The human face holds a bounty of interesting information and they're hidden in every shot.
Editing: Not only is the cinematography a silly anti-composition exercise, but the editing is completely indiscriminate.
My theory about Netlix is that they are like the "cool" teacher who says they have no rules in their class. But we all know they clearly do but they want YOU(the director) to accept it on their own so they can save face. "No producer intervention, the director has all the control" is what Netlfix is known for. I'm starting to doubt this severely. Curation. Curation. Curation.
Go watch 8 1/2. Black and white done right. A deliciously human, beautifully told film about the film industry filled with hilarious observations about men and women. And you can actually see peoples facial expressions!
The script discovered what it wanted to be about around 2/3rds into the film. The cinematography was awful. The subject matter was meandering and bland. The acting was awful, specifically on the part of Seyfried (no motivation, just reading lines). Oldman was Oldman without direction. The editing was apologetic. Go and watch Touch of Evil or Citizen Kane; you'll quickly realize those films are as efficient and down to earth as the Die Hard films.
Thought about the script: A character who is cynical and disenfranchised cant be the same exact way he is in the present day as he is in the flashbacks. Mank is the same both past and present.
Thought about style: Makes it seem like there is a puzzle to solve all the way through. But there is no puzzle to solve. It's a shallow script with no interesting ideas intentionally obscured by t i dont even care everyone who wants to is going to ignore my review anyway.
Cinematography: muddled. The characters are constantly in shadows. Either gray, black, small or have bright white light behind them which makes it impossible to see the profile of their face. The human face holds a bounty of interesting information and they're hidden in every shot.
Editing: Not only is the cinematography a silly anti-composition exercise, but the editing is completely indiscriminate.
My theory about Netlix is that they are like the "cool" teacher who says they have no rules in their class. But we all know they clearly do but they want YOU(the director) to accept it on their own so they can save face. "No producer intervention, the director has all the control" is what Netlfix is known for. I'm starting to doubt this severely. Curation. Curation. Curation.
Go watch 8 1/2. Black and white done right. A deliciously human, beautifully told film about the film industry filled with hilarious observations about men and women. And you can actually see peoples facial expressions!
Tell Your Friends