Reviews

A Conservative Critique of "The Death of Stalin"

"The Death of Stalin," a film ostensibly about a historical event, descends into a cesspool of vulgarity that deeply offends any decent viewer. While the historical horrors of Stalin's regime are undeniable, this movie chooses to portray them through a lens of profanity so excessive it drowns out any serious message.

A Constant Barrage of Bad Language

The sheer volume of profanity is the first and most glaring offense. The movie reportedly uses the f-word 68 times, not to mention a litany of other vulgar terms. These words are not mere colorful language; they are a deliberate assault on the sanctity of human speech. Conservative Our words carry weight, and such language is a disrespectful and offensive way to speak of ourselves and the world.

The constant use of the religious swear words is particularly egregious.

**Humor at the Expense of Morality**

The film reportedly employs profanity for comedic effect. True humor uplifts and entertains, not tears down and degrades. Laughter at the expense of basic decency, especially when coupled with historical atrocities, is not humor at all. It's a mockery of human suffering and a celebration of base instincts.

**Focus on Depravity, Not Redemption**

The excessive profanity becomes a symptom of a larger issue: the film's focus on the depravity of humanity. Humans are capable of great evil, as evidenced by Stalin's regime. However, we can hold onto the hope of redemption through compassion. "The Death of Stalin" offers no such hope. It wallows in the muck, offering no message of transcendence or the possibility for a better future.

**Alternative Ways to Explore History**

There are countless ways to explore the horrors of Stalin's regime without resorting to such vulgarity. Historical dramas can be powerful and impactful without relying on a constant barrage of offensive language. Documentaries can offer a more sobering look at the facts. Even fictional narratives can be crafted that explore the human condition without resorting to profanity.

Why do film makers resort to all this profanity and vulgarity when in real life, like in a professional or decent work place, among decent families, in front of children one does not speak like that. Why is it then that they think I'd like to be entertained by the things I most abhor in life?

**Conclusion**

"The Death of Stalin" is a deeply offensive film from a decent person's perspective. The excessive profanity not only assaults our sensibilities but also undermines any potential message the film might have. There are far more appropriate ways to explore this dark chapter in history, ways that respect basic decency and offer a message of hope alongside the tragedy.

## The Enigma of Madeleine: Beyond the Parisian Charm

The enigmatic presence of Madeleine, a constant companion to Detective Neville Parker, can be a source of frustration for viewers of the detective series. Her lack of active participation in police work, particularly when contrasted with Parker's relentless pursuit of the truth, begs the question: what is Madeleine's purpose? While her presence might initially come across as superfluous, a closer look reveals a multifaceted role that goes beyond simply adding a touch of Parisian charm to the narrative.

**Cultural Bridge and Interpreter:** As an outsider in the British police force, Parker should often encounter situations where cultural nuances or language barriers impede progress. Here, Madeleine could have been invaluable. But she doesn't.

Her fluency in French should allow her to navigate conversations with suspects or witnesses who might otherwise be hesitant or guarded. She coyld bridge the gap between Parker's direct approach and the subtleties of social interaction in certain communities. This cultural intelligence could've been made to be crucial in uncovering hidden truths or gaining access to information that might be overlooked. But this does never happen!

**Emotional Anchor and Confidante:** The world of a detective is often dark and relentless. Parker, burdened by the weight of the cases he handles, can easily become consumed by the negativity. Madeleine, with her positive outlook and optimistic spirit, could have been made to act as an emotional anchor. But she doesn't.

Her presence could've provided a safe space for Parker to vent frustrations, share doubts, or simply decompress after a particularly harrowing investigation. This emotional support system could've been crucial for a detective's mental well-being and overall effectiveness. But this never takes place.

**Keen Observer and Intuitive Thinker:** While Madeleine doesn't actively participate in interrogations or chase down leads, she could've been made a keen observer. Her sharp mind could have been constantly taking in details, both verbal and nonverbal, that might escape Parker's notice. But it didn't.

She never picks up on subtle cues in a suspect's behavior, a seemingly insignificant detail in a witness's testimony, or even a fleeting expression on a victim's face. Her iinability to connect these seemingly disparate dots could've led to unexpected breakthroughs in the case. But it doesn't.

**Unorthodox Solutions and Creative Approaches:** Unburdened by the constraints of protocol and ingrained police procedures, Madeleine can offer fresh perspectives and unconventional solutions. Her experience and knowledge of different cultures can lead to creative approaches that might not occur to seasoned detectives. This "outsider's view" can be a valuable asset in tackling complex or seemingly intractable cases.

**The Power of Empathy and Human Connection:** In the face of hardened criminals and deeply troubled individuals, Madeleine's ability to empathize and connect with people on a human level can prove surprisingly effective. Her genuine warmth and non-threatening demeanor can disarm suspects, allowing them to feel safe enough to reveal information they might otherwise withhold. This ability to forge human connections can be far more powerful than traditional interrogation techniques in uncovering the truth.

**A Catalyst for Personal Growth:** Madeleine's presence could've also served as a catalyst for Parker's personal growth. Her optimism and open-mindedness couldve challenged his sometimes rigid approach and encourage him to consider alternative perspectives. Through their interactions, Parker might have learned to become a more well-rounded detective, one who understands the power of empathy and cultural sensitivity in solving cases. But Madeleine doesn't do any of this.

In conclusion, Madeleine dies not fit the traditional mold of a detective, and her contributions are far from significant. She is a character who, in spite of her cultural fluency, emotional support, keen observations, and unconventional thinking, plays a non descript role in Parker's investigations and, ultimately, is wasted.

## Poor Things: A Wretched Creature of a Film an excuse to show pure human filth.

Yorgos Lanthimos' "Poor Things" aspires to be a darkly comedic exploration of identity, societal constraints, and the human condition. However, it stumbles under the weight of its own ambition, devolving into a bizarre mess that's neither funny nor profound.

The film centers on Bella (Emma Stone), a woman brought back to life with the brain of a child and the body of an adult through a wacky scientific experiment. This initial premise holds promise, but the script never capitalizes on its potential for satire or genuine emotional depth.

Stone delivers a valiant effort, channeling a manic energy that's initially endearing but quickly grows exhausting. Bella's childlike innocence is supposed to be a stark contrast to the cynical world she enters, but the gag becomes tiresome after the first ten minutes. The dialogue, renowned for its deadpan delivery in Lanthimos' previous works, feels forced and unnatural here. Lines meant to be witty land flat, leaving the audience unsure whether to laugh or cringe.

The supporting cast fares no better. Willem Dafoe sleepwalks through his role as the eccentric scientist, his usual intensity muted by a one-note performance. Likewise, Ramy Youssef, as Bella's love interest, struggles to inject any charisma into a character defined solely by his naivety.

The film's greatest flaw lies in its tonal inconsistency. Lanthimos attempts to blend dark humor with moments of genuine pathos, but the transitions are jarring. One scene might feature Bella engaging in crude sexual acts with her clients (tastelessly portrayed, mind you), while the next attempts a heartfelt exchange about love and loss. This tonal whiplash leaves the audience emotionally disengaged, unsure how to interpret what's unfolding on screen.

Visually, "Poor Things" is a mixed bag. The production design is lavish, meticulously recreating the opulent settings of Victorian England. However, the camerawork is often intrusive, employing extreme close-ups and distorted angles that add nothing to the storytelling. The film seems more interested in visual gimmickry than in creating a visually cohesive world for the characters to inhabit.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of "Poor Things" is its wasted potential. The source material, based on the novel by Alasdair Gray, offers a rich exploration of themes surrounding gender, class, and the nature of consciousness. Yet, the film reduces these complexities to superficial plot points, never truly delving into their significance.

One could argue that the film's absurdity is intentional, a deliberate critique of societal norms. However, the satire feels heavy-handed and ultimately uninspired. Lanthimos' previous works, like "The Lobster" and "Dogtooth," walked a successful tightrope between the absurd and the unsettling. Here, the absurdity becomes the only defining characteristic, leaving the film feeling hollow and empty.

"Poor Things" might hold some appeal for those with a strong stomach for Lanthimos' brand of offbeat humor. However, for most viewers, it's likely to be a frustrating and ultimately forgettable experience. It's a film that aspires to shock and provoke but ends up being merely grotesque and tedious. There are far better ways to spend your time at the cinema.

People moan about the accent, but I'm not Greek so I didn't care because the acting and storyline were superb!!

I found the Jane Lapotaire playing princess Alics just spell binding and amazing.

Patricia Neil plays Ellen Corby's daughter in law looks old because in reality Ellen Corby was only 15 years older.

The grandfather actor was not even a patch on Will Geer's Grandpa in the tv series.

It's hardly conceivable for a young girl to be dressed in what could be viewed like her underpants and be an object of desire for men (pin up) - in the 1940s!

Clearly a 1970s way of thinking.

What annoys me is the Hollywood thing of casting really young women with much older on screen husbands.

Doesn't it seem strange that she chooses a husband twice her age who looks even older than 40?

I thoroughly enjoyed the series because of nostalgia. But am I the only that notices how Michael Landon didn't even try to make the hairstyles or the men's facial hair remotely look authentic 1880s? Google Charles Ongalls and you'll se how he really looked like instead of like Michael Landon's big and long 1980s hairstyle and clean shaven face. The real Charles had a wild long beard. I find that British period dramas tend to pay more attention to authenticity then American dramas.

Most if not all the boys in LHOP have 70s hairstyles: long and shaggy.

Anyway, had to get it off my chest.

Still, I enjoyed for what it is: a 1970s drama by Michael Landon who likes himself a lot :)

Interesting that the makers of the tv series did not realise that Christians who read the Bible would not engage in having their fortunes read as it is forbidden. Deuteronomy 18:9-13 specifically calls them "detestable practices" as its source is not from God.

Hollywood Christianity for you, huh?

What an annoying character she is. I am not interested in her at all. And she ruins the series. I wish there was more of Olivia King, Rachel Lynda and Marilla Cuthbert. They totally outshine Hetty.

The script wtiters are not totally aware of how girls behaved in 1900s. Teenage rebellion and moodiness are a modern thing. In 1900s a young gir of good upbringing as Felicity Kingl in knew how to behave irrespective of her moods. It is only in our permissive society that children are allowed to do and say what they want, often with impunity.

The dramatisations are excellent but the every 5 minutes Creek Stewart's tips for survival are annoying at best. Get rid of those and the series will be perfect!!

Totally unwatchable due to continuous profanity, vulgarity and blasphemy in almost every scene.

And the world applauds!

Tells you all about the current state of humanity...

Pure filth disguised as movie. Relentless swearing and obscenities. Depressing, unsettling and disturbing. Not my kind of entertainment.

Three characters really REALLY annoy me: Ava Bekker with her really bad fake accent Robin Charles and her craziness exhausting Dr Rhodes Noah the lazy brother of April and she can't see his laziness Please get rid of them.. please??

Watching this again after many years since I watched first, I realise how creepy and sleezy Nicholas Cage looks compared to the nearly 20 yrs younger Biel. Story premise is great but the romance is not believable.

Well made and worth a watch but my only issue with this series is the commentators peppered throughout giving their opinions. Has Michael Douglas got a degree in history? No? So why would I be interested to hear his comments about the origins of the US! There were a couple of others too of whom I thought - what qualifies you to comment in a history documentary?! Just because you're an actor or a government official does not qualify you to make a comment on the origins and growth of the US.

Great historic documentary with actors dramatising the events. However, one thing really annoyed me is how every 10 minutes or so there is a recap! It's probably made for the US where they have commercial breaks every ten minutes (!) but why the constant recap??

Don't bother. Full of f* bombs and offensive sexual language and contents. Just awful. Not family friendly. Shows you what kind of a person was John Hughes

What can I say? This sequel is nothing like the original movie. Bad scripts, some bad acting. My advice: don't bother!

The guest stars were all wooden, just emotionlessly saying their lines! Shocking!

As long as actresses are willing to do nude scenes for men to leer at them it takes away their credibility of complaining of being sexualised or used. When are they going to learn? And I am sick too of having to sit and listen to f-bombs in films.

Beware this episode contains full frontal nudity by nude model and various nude paintings. U rating is totally wrong. Should be 15.

If being adulterers and Alcoholics is having the right stuff then these so called American heroes certainly had the right stuff. What a terrible legacy.

Not recommended to anyone who has a sense of decency and propriety. Just another excuse for severe foul language and sexual immorality.