Change Your Image
tomalakis
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Consumerism is the mind-killer. Consumerism is the little-death...
McDUNE (Diet Edition) Episode: "The Hollywood Dollar Empire strikes back on creativity, originality, and intelligence, playing it heavy on the safe again and not even trying anything, lest, God forbid, you hesitate and go elsewhere." ... Did the bold, peculiar, imaginative and complex Dune deserve to become this? Dune has always been out of the mainstream simply because it was weird and that was its grit. But not anymore. Dune became cool, correct and relatable, got a new logo and a silver foil, everything complex and controversial has been cut out, everything weird toned down, everything surreal turned into realistic so that today's average, squeamish viewer can enjoy it effortlessly and still manage, in a good mood and unburdened by thoughts, to stop at H&M and New Yorker. Star Trek and Star Wars have been milked to the scabs and the masses need a new franchise... I get it when a Marvel comic receives this treatment, but Dune?... And people aren't even ashamed to claim Dune as their childhood idol and doing this to it and profiting from it with no scruples... A mid-budget animated series that would relieve creators of market pressures and allow them to go deeper, that would have dabbled in the psychedelia and eccentricity that makes Dune Dune, and that would have paid homage to Lynch, Jodorowsky, Moebius, Giger, Foss and the entire 60s - that's what Dune deserved, not another boilerplate and self-absorbed blockbuster, of which there are 12 a dozen every year, and which brings nothing to the table... I hope that you're nourishing your brain with some intellectual activities because it can't survive on this no-nutrition, prefabricated junk alone.
Nosferatu - Phantom der Nacht (1979)
Anemic and shapeless
Kinski's vampire is, unfortunately, neither charismatic nor creepy (despite the fact that he himself actually had both in abundance), but merely repulsive (which he also was). Herzog (probably) chose to present Dracula as a pitiful cripple and a freak of nature. Thus he ( surely ) has a penchant for self-torture, since he didn't need the insane and uncontrollable Kinski for that. Artistically, this concept would certainly have made some sense, if only he bothered to write his own script and not just grafted the original 1922 script, which of course is built on the premise that we're supposed to fear the vampire. Moreover, Herzog sticks so literally to the template that it has a paradoxically double effect: it makes either the strongest shots (which no doubt already owes most to Murnau's visual mastery) or the weakest: what worked in silent film in 1922 already looks rather comical and out of place in 1979. But the biggest shock I always get whenever Dracula appears is that I'd actually forgotten that this was supposed to be a vampire movie. There's also perhaps the most awkward and useless Renfield of all the Dracula adaptations (even Dracula rather send him somewhere)... The clumsiness of the soundtrack can't go unmentioned either: the overture to Rheingold sort of works on the hazy mountain tops (though it monumentally graduates to a completely empty scene), but it works considerably less when Dracula is pulling coffins out of the ship. I don't get the cheerful folk twang either. The mantra from the opening credits works most of the times. But the silence suits most of the scenes here (which, fortunately, Herzog realized himself). ((I've only seen the English version)) ... Herzog's constant problem is that he always thinks of a concept, but then doesn't really know what to do with it and how to give it any meaningful shape... In short, the best thing to do is to watch "Shadow of the Vampire", which works much better as an homage to Nosferatu and as an original artistic achievement.
Star Trek: Generations (1994)
EZO TREK
It's sad how many people are completely unable to pick up on the main quality of this film, namely that it's the only unadulterated EZO TREK film (not counting the cynical ST:V). Do not think about how Nexus works or doesn't, because that's not the point at all. This isn't scientific or action Star Trek, but spiritual. It boldly goes to explore not the worlds out there, but the worlds within. Roddenberry's original vision of Star Trek was purely technical and logical, thus quite un-American, and he was throwing a heavy poop on the whole spirituality thing. It wasn't until he died that they dared to sneak that aspect in, back in TNG but especially in DS9 (which was running right when this movie was being made, which is no coincidence). And it's no coincidence at all that Guinan got so much space here, because it's she who personifies all the spirituality of TNG: an immortal being surrounded by mysteries and unanswerable questions, alone among very mortal scientists looking for clear and concrete answers... Well, if this introspection is not for you, there's just not much else to help you here... And I have a huge softspot for Dennis McCarthy's soundtrack. His melancholic sounds blend perfectly with all the introspection here (as he already proved in DS9). There simply was no better choice for this film. The opening scene alone gives me goosebumps, and it's all about a broken champagne bottle. It sounds trivial until you put it in context. And that's what it's all about...
Arrival (2016)
Truly alien
Someone tried to pull off a nolan here... Denis is a real sci-fi director. And I mean that literally, because I feel like the aliens have dropped here an imitation of a director which just copies all the famous and successful movies but has no idea how or why they actually worked. And it waves all sorts of glitz n' gloss in front of your eyes, just so you don't see all the crooked and exposed seams, and it's not even shy about pulling out the kids with cancer to milk you even emotionally... My condolences to all those who have been forced by this pseudo-intellectual muck to engage their brain threads to the fullest, only to discover in the end that the whole film is about as intelligent and sophisticated as Emmerich's Independence Day. At least the latter is far more entertaining, mainly because it doesn't pretend to be something better than it actually is.
Dune (2021)
They tried and failed?
The hatred between the Harkonnens and the Atreides, the love between Jessica and Leto, Paul's charisma and prophetic hallucinations, Baron's repulsiveness and slimy scheming, Dr. Yueh's dilemma and his lost wife, Piter de Vries' cunning and his plan, Thufir Hawat's suspicions and his obsession with security, the paranoid feeling that everywhere is a trap and where the strike comes from, and alien/otherwordly/psychedelic atmosphere in general ... that's a list of everything that's not in the movie. Yeah, you can not cramp everything that's in the book into the movie (only Lynch managed to do that, but what doesn't he?), but no one here has even tried to work around it or justify why the characters' motivations and plotlines that move the whole story are just ignored at the expense of 20-minute shots of a walk in a desert and one endless action scene. Did Lynch's movie seem confusing to you? So this is the movie for you. This Dune has resigned itself to any mental capacity of its audience altogether. Everything just kind of happens here, and don't ask why. The script foolishly bet on the starwarsian concept of one-dimensional characters and narrative without expositions, which simply cannot work with such a complicated story and world of Dune. Because go figure: Star Wars story is 3 paragraphs of text while the story of Dune is a whole book.
Leaving aside these scenario deficits and total storytelling inability, there are two fundamental problems, however:
1.) that this film has no idea what it wants to say and what it wants to be: sterile wannabe philosophical shots of a desert's infinity alternate infantile attempts at comic relief and everything ends with a bondesque action chase. A dog's breakfast.
2.) total lack of grasp of the source material: Allow me to make an important point here: Dune is crazy! It is as far from our reality as it can be, if only by being set in a completely absurd future where practically nothing we know exists, but also by the technology and, above all, by the characters who behave like deranged madmen. It's downright a world of morons and oxymorons: traveling without movement, knives against lasers, mutated bus driver-junkies, savior of the universe in permanent delirium tremens, human computers with stained faces, space nun-pimps and a whole universe hungry for excrement, etc. Therein lies its unique angle - the fact that you are following the completely serious fates of some freaks in a completely absurd world.
But in this Dune they decided they could make everyone cool and relatable, make people tell jokes and be just nice overall so even the characters in Jackson's Lord of the Ring trilogy seem more alien and otherwordly than this pack of influencers. But forcing Dune into a straightforward, realistic, bad-ass and more luxurious marvel flick with a bunch of sympathetic characters and teenage uwu love story just isn't making the Dune anymore. So either you're willing to embrace Dune's unique angle, or you should write yourself another saga, that will fit your mainstream frame better. But do not force it into something, that it is not. I'm asking for too much, right?
"They tried and failed?" "They tried and made my brain die!"
The casting is also a complete failure, even if it served the misguided purpose of making everyone so cool (and I'm not talking about Liet Kynes with breasts). But the whole squadron just belongs to a Marvel movie. The actors here are simply not up to the task of showing a hint of complex emotion without getting us to cringe. But even if they wanted, they do not have enough space even in all the 155 min!
The striving for relatability, casualness, and accessibility (or could be just limited imagination) is also reflected in the visuals. Where the hell is some eccentric and over-the-top camp? Or some psychedelics and hallucinogenics? With today's limitless technical possibilities of cinematography, you can do almost anything and we barely got something... Moreover, we are back to the heart of the matter. Dune is ridiculous and full of crazy concepts and we're 20,000 years in the future, so I'd like it to be noticeable. Instead of the costume makers and designers getting off the hook, they dressed everyone in T-shirts and jeans so they could pose nicely for Instagram. In places, it doesn't even look like (sci-) fi. Did someone forget to tell them they weren't making Blade Runner anymore? But most importantly this is not a psychological drama where it doesn't matter what anyone is wearing. Here, the costume makes up half the identity of each character. What information am I suppose to get from the fact that they're all wearing the same black clothes? Where the designers should have taken inspiration from Star Wars, they didn't for a change... Or did I watch the colorblind version? Cause there wasn't even another color besides black, gray and beige. And in case anyone still hasn't figured it out: Dune and minimalism really don't go together.
"The concept of artistic integrity acts as a protective mechanism to shield us from the terrors of autotelism."
Will not waste much of your time with the soundtrack. 10 sound engineers named Zimmer assembled music as tasteful, sophisticated, and emotionally stimulating as a garlic burp of a Mongolian throat singer (which was allegedly invented by Zimmer himself) and as unobtrusive, inventive, and otherwordly as bagpipe squeaks.
Also they changed Baron Harkonnen from a totally original villain - (gay, effeminate, morbidly obese plot schemer) into an ordinary lethargic brute space don Corleone on a diet - allegedly to "bring him a bit more dimension". Ok, I get that. People are hypersensitive nowadays and why risk some unproven concepts? But it seems like everything about the book bothers them: the main characters aren't sympathetic enough, the world of Dune isn't realistic enough and too goofy, main villain being the only gay person bothers them, too many male characters bothers them, let's skip the ecology and psychedelia, the word "jihad" and the whole "holy war" thing bothers them... and here we are: When Frank Herbert was writing Dune, it certainly never occurred to him that his Fremen will one day saddle Boeings instead of giant worms and attack his own home. He probably dug up the word "jihad" in some dictionary. Armed masked men in the desert shouting "Long live the fighters!" were just exotic to him. But for us, it's a harsh reality. Are they really intend to inconspicuously skate around that? Could be quite amusing.
So there's the elephant in the room: Who in Hollywood came up with that great idea to adapt the novel when they are obviously uncomfortable dealing with all the controversial topics the book is full of? This film simply refuses to address anything other than the bare plot of the book. Moreover, when some of the themes are even more relevant today than they've ever been. A real filmmaker would at least grab one by the balls and do something about it. But not the people in Hollywood. And that's how you recognize plain simple consumerism - that it doesn't respond to anything but your wallet.
"I must not stolidly consume. Consumerism is the mind-killer. Consumerism is the little-death."
Filming Dune shouldn't be like lying on the beach outside a Tunisian hotel with a cocktail in your hand, but like deciding to conquer the desert alone with just one bottle of water, and only madmen like Lynch, Gilliam, or Jodorowsky should go for it - fools who aren't afraid to be controversial and creative, are willing to make sacrifices to achieve their unique vision, and have the balls they barely able to carry them around. Dune itself didn't come about because Herbert was an easy-going conformist with a limited imagination who played it safe. So either you're willing to deal with the dark side of Dune somehow or you might as well leave it completely and write yourself a more uncomplicated saga. That's why anything by Lynch and Jodorowsky will always be more faithful to Dune and why this fraud vill neuver be.
I'm really not here to gloat about kicking somebody's sandcastle. I'm able to appreciate it when someone makes a sincere effort, even if they don't succeed in the end. But nobody's even tried here. If you'll ever happen to claim Dune as your most beloved book since childhood, you might at least know something about it and be true to its themes. And if, after one film and one TV adaptation and countless adaptations in other media, you happen to be trying to force another Dune on us, which nobody asked for, not to say that you have the audacity to take on the subject that has killed off the biggest artistic names, maybe you should come up with a damn good reason and not this overcautious, clueless dud... All they did was play safe to make you open your wallets. It's even sadder that it happened to Dune - one of literature's most daring creative endeavours.
-
TLDR: brain cells killing, unoriginal, prefabricated, unimaginative, poseur and politically sterilized, without artistic vision, without spark, without balls, with the consistency of 5 times strained tea, pretending to be totally cool, but totally does not understand Dune, but most importantly: does not understand itself, and barely holds together only thanks to Frank Herbert.
Jodorowsky's Dune (2013)
It is said a man will come and find in the gift of Dune his inward eye. He will look where we cannot...
A third eye-opening documentary about the ultimate adaptation of one of literature's most original creations. The adaptation that works with the material, kneads it and pushes it somewhere through its own original focal point. Because that is the definition of art and any meaningful creative work in general, and because that is exactly what a screen Dune needs like salt! Before the spice... Fools only see Dali's hourly rate, the burning giraffe or Pink Floyd, but that's not really the point. And if you want proof, reach for any Jodoverse comic. Yes, Jodorowsky created an entire universe based on Dune - let this be further proof to all the narrow-minded and self-appointed, couch potato guardians of Frank Herbert's legacy that Jodorowsky didn't just mess with Dune, but that it influenced him... what influenced, literally changed for life, transformed him like some Kwisatz Haderach and that he left a buttload of work, sweat and blood behind it. And until you can say the same, please shut up... And let this be a merciless slap in the face to all the corporate conglomerates who happened to remember yesterday that Dune suits their fancy and want me to settle for their prefabricated, disposable diet crap, with zero to zero creative impetus and even less understanding of the subject matter, that they are trying to push under my nose and convince me that perhaps they are doing Dune a favor.
Dune (1984)
It has the audacity!
And that's how it can turn out when you take up a subject you not only haven't loved since childhood, but after finishing the film you actually hate it... I'm not giving a near-full rating because Lynch's Dune is nearly perfect - far from it - but because, unlike recent clueless attempts by Hollywood executives and market analysts, it's not only a better film, but mainly because it's actually a FILM - with a head and a heel, a beginning and an end, and something substantial in between, with characters of blood, milk and pus, with a healthy dose of properly hallucinogenic material and because it comes the closest of all attempts to Herbert's Dune (as much as you may dislike it) and not only manages to at least sort of pull off what others have completely broken their teeth on, but even still has the strength and the amazing audacity to throw LYNCH'S Dune on top of everything (even if only partially) and get away with it. And don't be fooled when Lynch tells you it's his worst film, because what he means is that he could make it even crazier... And that's something that deserves such a high rating - now more than ever... What's the farthest from perfect here are Baron and Paul (who haven't worked for anyone yet, and will always be the biggest challenge) and basically the entire second half (which, unlike the first part, is not as rewarding cinematically, as it's mostly about Paul's painful and complex transformation into the ultimate blockhead - which can be left out at worst, as happened here). Because let's kindly pour ourselves some clear wine: Lynch did everything he could realistically do with Dune in two hours and in 1984.
Batman Forever (1995)
Sorry, but Batman & Robin is better.
I really don't need a movie about a grown man who dresses up as a bat taking itself totally seriously. On the contrary, I have a great soft spot for exaggerated stylization (which, for my taste, is still moderate here compared to the following film)... But here we have a hell of a problem: the script doesn't have any head or tail. Dynamic/chemistry between all the characters is almost non-existent. Val Kilmer doesn't seem like a mentor nor partner next to Chris O'Donnell and isn't at all horny next to Nicole Kidman (btw, I almost forgot she was in the movie), plus Two-Face and The Riddler don't complement each other at all... And then we have the logic/motivation of the characters: It's not clear at all, why should the Riddler be the Riddler and wanted to give any riddles. Apart from the minor annoyance for Batman, who is solving them with ease anyway, they are really not very important. The quiz finale is a spectacular concept, but it's not very well used and nothing really leads up to it. But Two-Face turned out to be the most undeveloped of the whole squad (except for the useless Kidman. I would forget about her again): the script didn't give him any motivation for what he's doing, but it didn't even give him any personality of his own (quite a shortage for a schizophrenic) and it made him just a worse imitation of the Joker and he's only there to give Robin a motivation (not to mention Harvey's ignored relationship with Batman)... Batman & Robin simply has a far more well-rounded script and you can hate the movie all you want. The only thing going for this movie is that it is a tad bit darker and more focused around the bat. So if that's what matters to you... But what a great soundtrack Goldenthal put together. The greatest score of any leathery vigilante movie, imho. Elfman writes great melodies, but Goldenthal writes great music. Plus, I probably like his Batman theme a bit better anyway.
Batman & Robin (1997)
So much hate everywhere...
Yeah, no noir is happening; it doesn't take itself very seriously, it isn't about the bat and his ultimate & self-absorbed confrontation, colors everywhere, campy, over-the-top stylization, flashy costumes, studio exteriors, predictable plotlines, endless cringefest of one-liners, characters almost caricatures and as flat and one-dimensional as if they cut them out directly out of a 50's comic strip, you just waiting for the moment they start to sing and everything turns into a musical... and that's why I love it. Guilty as charged for being pleasured by this concoction. Because I really don't need, that a film about a grown man who crossdresses as a bat, has to take itself way too seriously. Moreover, unlike the previous film, this script has head and tail. The characters have their places in the story and clear motivations, and no one is extra. I prefer the film's femme fatale to be a charismatic villain rather than just another useless Wayne's pendant. And everyone obviously noticed that Uma is sexy, but she also acts great and both she and Arnold are visibly enjoying the roles, Clooney and O'Donnell also managed the overcautious & wealthy soloist and uncontrollably self-destructive beau respectively without difficulty and are naturally put in their proper places by Silverstone... Goldenthal once again made a great musical accompaniment, which is just a hair weaker than the last time, but unfortunately, it was never officially released.
Baron Prásil (1962)
You'll never see this movie in its complete form, unfortunately...
Since the first DVD release in the late 2000s there circulates a version of the movie, which some say is the original cut of the movie, some say it is a bastardized version made abroad when the movie rights were sold after the fall of the iron curtain, some say it is the cut Zeman made after the premiere to speed-up the pace of the film and some say it is even the only relevant cut and everything else is just working copies which were never supposed to see daylight...
Whatever the truth is, this is most likely the version of the film you will see or already saw. But there exists a longer cut of the movie - about 6 minutes longer, which extends about 27 scenes. Some minor, but some major - like the scene where Baron realizes that Toník is his younger self and reconciles with him inwardly which brings the story to closure (seriously I can't find a reason why would Zeman cut this scene). But overall, due to various reasons (like continuity, soundtrack cue's coherence, humor punchlines), many people believe that this longer cut is actually the original version of the film (or at least qualifies as a "director's cut"). However, the only sources where you can find this cut are VHS distribution and recordings of Czech and Slovak television broadcasts. All the digital media contain the shorter cut of the movie. To top everything, the movie was gloriously restored quite recently but even when there were voices asking where is this longer cut, no one wanted to hear them.
I will not lie that I'm a fan of digital restoration. I believe movies should be digitally restored only to presentable form if absolutely necessary, but certainly not to a point when you remove every speck from every frame. You'll end up with something artificial, robbed of its authenticity and character. But most importantly, what we got in this case for generations to come: this movie will be seen, not because of some unfortunate strike of fate, but because of some pettifogging reasons of legality or insulted rights-owners pride, in its curtailed version but with a pristine look. What a bargain!
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)
One of the most amazing victories of creativity and artistic vision in the history of cinema
Ladies and gentlemen! Come closer and witness an incredible story from the ancient and fantastic times, when studios and producers were not yet afraid to cram their millions into originality and creativity, and when directors had their own unique vision and pursued it hard against all odds. But if you are of a weak spirit, beware! This is not a film for a viewer who has his brain on a diet and would like something easily digestible. This piece will constantly bombard you in every shot with intellectual wit, multi-layered concepts, and visual opulence that will make your eyes water. But even an inquisitive children's mind will find its own (own experience), because even if it filters out all the social, artistic, and sexual allusions, what will left is still that crazy, kaleidoscopic, carnival, and fantastically disorienting carousel with a moral: always follow your own path, and most importantly never lose heart ...
The thread that runs throughout the whole film is, of course, again Gilliam's court theme: an emulsion of fantasy and reality, mental and physical worlds, and what better character to choose for such a theme than Baron Munchausen? (Maybe just Don Quixote, huh Terry?) The intertwining between "reality" and the Baron's story is meticulously crafted. The actors are moving back and forth from reality to Baron's fantasies and taking over the roles they play on the stage in the film itself (only Alison Steadman dropped out for some reason). Even though everyone has their own template at first glance, there are layers hidden beneath. The Baron himself is equally a dual figure: He constantly oscillates between adventurous vitality and resigned expectation of death. Moreover, on the one side, he is a hero who does not intend to surrender to defeatism and narrow-mindedness, on the other, he is an unscrupulous megalomaniac who expects servility from his servants. And his servants: without the Baron, they are nothing, even if they want to, and as soon as he reappears, they resign on themselves and go to serve him again. Venus is a beautiful but dumb coquette. The King of the Moon is literally a schizophrenic lunatic...
all this is crowned by the acting concertino of Bill Patterson, Peter Jeffrey, Oliver Reed, Eric Idle, Jonathan Pryce, and Robin Williams, led by the irresistibly charming John Neville and the surprisingly convincing Sarah Polley ...
The soundtrack is probably the best thing Michael Kamen has ever put together, and in the spirit of the film's insanity, he also used insane means (the Moon sequences, Sultan's opera). Despite all the madness, however, he manages to transform Baron's theme with incredible elegance from a baroque theatrical piece to a pompous grand finale ...
It is an incredible irony that while Baron Munchausen fought with the Turks and black-clothed public servants, Terry Gilliam was at the very same time waging the very same battle, and without even realizing it, filming his own autobiographical experience in real-time. And just like Baron's megalomania, the Gilliam's plunged him to the bottom of a swamp, from which he pulled out himself by his ponytail, clutching between his thighs one of the most amazing victories of creativity and artistic vision in the history of cinema, and left us all in silent amazement, that something like that is even possible.