Change Your Image
Klinoman
Profile picture: "Sweet Dreams" by Thomas Warkentin.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Us (2019)
I Am Not A Horror Fan
The horror genre is evolving. I've seen some very good films in later years and it's by my judgement that this contemporary form is quite superior to the classic and late XX century form. I do however feel that films like "Psycho" and "The Exorcist" are indisputable, as I do with "Nosferatu" and "Freaks" and a more unknown gem like "Meshes of the Afternoon" and maybe even Salvador Dali's "Un Chien Andalou". It's in this decade, that has almost passed, that we have been faced with very wise films, that I am beginning to take a U turn and start exploring Its tropes further. I am no fan of supernatural and slasher horror films, in fact I think they are ridiculous, with very, very little exceptions.
Now, if you still follow me, I can read that somehow people feel that Peele's first "Get Out" is better than the brand new "Us". To compare, both films have a wonderful transition from a supernatural setting to a pulp Sci-Fi dialectic.
In Get Out, the antagonists are a Group from the Golden Age in USA which developed a way to transfer their conscience and memories, with emphasis on the conscience, by repressing a living man's psyche and implanting their own. Something similar, very bad executed though, can be seen in "Freejack" and "Self/Less", but a progenitor for me would be the Twilight Zone episode called "The Trade-Ins", even though that's not implied in the episode directly. In Us exists an isolated government experiment, that also begun in the Golden Age, which could be a project for the Cold War, where clones are created and kept secretly underground, engineered somehow to mimic their originals on the surface for an unknown purpose. This is very unique as a setting, if not as an idea altogether, so, this gives the first points to Us.
Get Out does have the upper hand as it does not have blatant plot holes, it doesn't have any actually. The one that really did bother me in Us was, well -- the Children. The Tethered are clones, and that is stipulated very clearly. The children however, are born. What are the chances of having the children? Even more, what are the chances of having the same sex children? And going even more into percentages, what are the chances of having the children being exactly the same as your original on the surface? I do have to concede that the surreal is much more frightening when introduced into reality, so for the sake of the movie, it had to be done on the expense of the story. It does not bother me as much, but points do go to Get Out on this one.
On why Us is triumphant versus Get Out is the duration of suspense. In Get Out we are introduced with the answer, a very direct and clear, simple even, and then the protagonist simply fights his way out. It's 90 percent that he probably lives, with a little twist, and the other 10 that he dies and we are given a bigger twist, albeit cliche in both cases. Anyway, a lazy ending, not particularly interesting at all.
The climax of the suspense in Us comes almost at the end in a Vader/Luke-esque epiphany, that is followed by a brief brutal confrontation of the protagonist/antagonist. But it doesn't stop there with subjective ethics blurring the lines when we are presented with the twist, which is a devastatingly good finish.
I do not understand why the racial/social agenda in both films is so progressive, but since it's about the USA, I have not come in direct contact with it, so I will skip it entirely and grade it as I do with any other films as I discuss philosophy with friends and colleagues.
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
Powerful But Tame
If you're a Rock/Metal "know it all", it might bug you for it's inaccuracies for some real time events. Now, if you're an ordinary fan, this is the right movie for you, because it gives you a big "greatest hits" music video. Its powerful, it has impact, and it explores Freddie's darkness, albeit incompletely and safely. That being said, there is around 40 minutes of scenes that didn't make it to the theaters, which would have increased the quality of the movie. But, it would've made the movie longer, and thats a no-no in the industry today for a blockbuster. The actors were cast well, and the performances were positive, with Malek doing the best job. So, what is wrong with the movie? Well, nothing, really. It is perfect for what it is supposed to be, a 12+ rated movie for a hard-rock band which had its greatest moments in times when everything was being exposed and experimented. How about a Black Sabbath movie? I doubt they would pacify Osbourne's, him being most controversial, and Iommi's, Butler's and Ward's abuse of different drugs, alcohol, women, and imagery of the occult. Freddie was a big hedonist, maybe the biggest of all rock stars. You can't do that if its a 12+ movie. He is a Pop Icon, not in a musical, but in a celebrity sense, and if you give this darkness to his fan base, which are mostly interested in its extroverted side, that R rated movie you'll be making will not get far on the box office list. The critics will like it, but not so much the fans. So, I'll be on the lookout for a different movie, an R rated one, for the darker side of Mercury. Again, this movie does its job perfectly for what it is, nobody can deny it, but, I can only wonder what S. B. Cohens Freddie/Queen project would've looked like.
Red Sonja (1985)
A Ruined Nostalgia Trip
This review will be short. I'm giving this rating with a heavy heart. It had passed 15+ years since I heard and watched the intro again. A warrior riding in vast landscapes while one of the greatest soundtracks ever made is playing in tempo with the galloping of the horse. It's truly epic. A birds view shot from the temple, great photography of the priestesses doing their ritual. The evil queen arrives and takes the talisman away, finishing off the remaining alive by dropping them in the talisman's hole. She pulls the lock off the hole's hatch and drops the key in it, assuring a brutal doom to the priestesses. Till there, you think, this is quite great, why is this movie so underrated? Well, from this point on, is where almost everything should have been revised or rewritten. I rest my case.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
My Apology on Contemporary Philosophical Criticism
Throughout its entirety, the film offers a perfect balance of 'eye- candy' and musical superstructure. I have always admired the director's inert photography, though, in later works, he gradually abstracts from this signature camera work. Unfortunately, just like 'Interstellar' disappointed me in the ending (which was much more blunt and hand-guiding, even transforming from Sci-Fi to Fantasy), so did '2001: A Space Odyssey'.
As the title of this review suggests, I will offer something that I couldn't find while searching for what I'd consider proper criticism. My offense will construct on a single point of the movie -- the apparent definition of 'god'. It is not a typo; there is a difference between 'God' and 'god'. What the movie suggests is that man shall rise in its evolution to a point of 'god', after it emerges as a 'God'. In the ending, we have a 'Star-child' which I can compare to 'Dr. Manhattan'. I'm not a big fan of superhero movies or of this character, but I think it's the best comparison I can make so you can understand. So, the Star- child's a being capable of manipulating reality beyond anyone's imagination, and yet, it isn't perfect.
And now for my final statement against Kubrick's theory -- man's evolution is limited. To be clear, I'm not religious, but I'm not a fan of contemporary science either, because, like religion, it claims something that it doesn't offer. 'God' is a term that explains a being that seems to have a cheat-book, essentially different from the term 'god', which IS existence and perfection itself. The specimen of a creature that evolves can never become 'god', because it is a subject, an individual, a finite, fatal creature. To be one with all and all as one is a matter of objectivity, an eternal, all-knowing, infinite state. I admit that my philosophical theory(not really mine, just something I'm offering) is sweeping the chalk board, but it is, with great confidence, a legitimate criticism. Man cannot evolve to become god, because god is not a creature. In the latest take on thermodynamics, energy is depleting and destructible. If that is so, a state of metaphysical nihilism awaits existence. This piece is made long before these claims, so I can't really blame anyone involved in the film for claiming otherwise. Space is infinite, time is infinite and we... we are the opposite. That is why we even exist; because if we were gods we would be impossible.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
An Essential Hollywood Perversion
An inflation of fan hysteria, it is the epitome of Hollywood's contemporary 'art' and the, subjectively(somehow it's important to emphasize this word in the dark ages of today), worst Star Wars movie yet. When real art is accused of having no story, read 'MAD MAX: FURY ROAD', you proceed to repeat eternally in your mind that people are idiots -- a fact that needs perpetual proof from time to time.
Anyways, this overrated piece of dark-brown, fly buzzing stench remakes the first movie of the epic space opera, a repeatable remark that you will encounter in the other reviews. The 'science fiction' genre is replaced with the 'fantasy' genre, mainly because of the influence of 'Game of Thrones', only without tits and blood.
I will not go into details, this is a spoiler proof review, however I will advise you on a couple of things: The critics are paid to praise this movie -- there are no good critics (including myself), which means that if you liked the movie, you will hate this review, and vice-versa. And for the ones that haven't watched the new Star Wars movie -- just go watch the new Mad Max instead, if you haven't yet. It is among the best art pieces (probably the best) that Hollywood spawned in the 21st century.