Change Your Image
makfu
Reviews
Antichrist (2009)
Seriously, Lars, what were you thinking
To director Lars Von Trier: dude, we get the whole horror of nature, the cycle of death and the woman as the progenitor of all evil and whatnot – but really, couldn't you have gotten to the point say, 45 minutes faster?
While we are on the subject Lars, what the hell were you thinking in that last 30 minutes? Really, a penis ejaculating blood? This helps make your point or move the story forward how? It's like you outsourced the end of the movie to Eli Roth (though sadly, he at least would have made the dialog amusing). Of course, by the end of the movie I hated both your characters so thoroughly, thanks to the pretentious drivel during the first 80 minutes, that I actually enjoyed watching them mutilate one another for no other reason than the sheer hilarity of how irredeemably bad the end scenes managed to make your movie.
Lars, I am just going to tell you how it is: you made a 109 minute movie that essentially was a dreadfully pretentious wannabe psychological thriller for the first 80 minutes followed by a clown show dressed up as torture porn for the last 30 minutes. The next time you make a movie, pick a genre and stick to it and, for godsakes, hire a decent freakin screenwriter.
The Hitcher (1986)
Highly entertaining and deeply disturbing.
The Hitcher is easily one of the most underrated movies of all time. A masterpiece of a psychological thriller that is both highly entertaining and deeply disturbing.
There are three key pieces that make this movie work. The first is that the action, while often unrealistic in its depiction of events, serves to move the story and character development forward. In an era that witnessed the true beginning of action for the sake of action, this movie was a revelation that a director can use action for something other than just distracting the audience.
The second critical success factor is the subtext of what the characters represent. Jim Halsey represents logic and good, John Ryder represents mayhem and evil and Nash represents innocence. Without spoiling the plot, this dichotomy, and its ultimate resolution, is the real underlying story and Eric Red's telling of it is mesmerizing.
The final component of what makes this one of my favorite films of the 1980's is Rutger Hauer's brilliant and truly frightening performance. It's frightening not because he plays his role as some despicable delinquent personality, but because he is strangely likable and familiar. Regardless of how much you might not want to, it is easy to relate to him and it is that property that makes Hauer's performance such a harrowing manifestation of evil. If Norman Bates was the everyman killer lurking next door, then John Ryder is the everyman killer lurking inside you.
Wrap this all up in hauntingly beautiful cinematography, shot against the stunning but desolate backdrop of west Texas, with a nuanced score and you have a great movie. If you love thrillers that leave an impression and make you think, then don't miss this movie.
The Loss of Sexual Innocence (1998)
Indescribably awful
It isn't often that one happens upon a movie as contemptible as Mike Figgis' "The Loss of Sexual Innocence". Mike Figgis has always been a pretentious and overreaching director and screenwriter. His past successes have largely been due to excellent source material and some genuine talent with regards to his technical ability as a director. When these items were combined with truly excellent performances, such as Cage and Shue in "Leaving Las Vegas", Figgis' has managed to produce a legitimately good movie. None of the above is true for "TLoSI".
First off, Mike Figgis might think his life is interesting, and perhaps it is, but his own telling of his sex life is dreadfully boring. At least he certainly makes it out to be that way. Sex is almost always a great topic for a movie (even when you show absolutely nothing graphic) because it is such an integral component of the human condition. And yet, in this movie, with all its handsome players, it's mind numbingly dull and extremely anti-erotic.
I think possibly the biggest problem that plagues this movie is Figgis' own inability to identify or empathize with other people. This is noticeable in his writing and direction in other movies, but in those cases it appears intentional and provided an unflinching look at disturbing subject matter. This movie actually seems to shed some distressing light on his earlier work as it appears that his detached style of storytelling is, in fact, a flaw. In scene after scene, we treated to imagery that is supposed to evoke emotional understanding, yet the scenes are comprised simply of clichéd approximations of legitimately provoking imagery. It is not unlike watching a sociopath feign remorse or guilt; they might say all the right things and perform all the right actions, but it still comes across hollow and insincere.
Now, take all the above and combine it with editing that is full of self aggrandizing nonsense. Soaring music lingers over a minute of watching an Alitalia jet on approach. A series of ridiculous Adam & Eve sequences that culminates in one of the few unintentionally hilarious moments where there is actual filmed urination and, in just one of a hundred disjointed scenes, a totally untalented Julian Sands spewing standard Hollywood token eco-nonsense. And yet, none of what I have written can convey just how awful this movie really is; avoid it at all costs.
Delicatessen (1991)
Overrated, pseudo-intellectual garbage.
The French can make truly great films. However, merely being of French origin does not make a great film and this, most certainly, is not the cinematic masterpiece some would like to believe it is.
First off, let's get one thing out of the way; the cinematography is phenomenal, defining what was a new and grotesque atmosphere that is truly unsettling and has since been copied numerous times by other directors. Beyond that, this movie is utter rubbish.
The plot is contrived, and not in a surrealistic fashion that works. Instead, it is merely predictable and boring. Furthermore, the characters themselves are underdeveloped and, as a result, one is never really convinced of their motivations. The attempts at sentimentality are intentionally paper thin French clichés. The movie is simply unable to deliver on either the humor or contrasting horror it so desperately strives to impart due to a lack of any emotional connection with the characters. It was not unlike watching a puppet show, which may have been intentional, but that doesn't make it good.
Because the movie simply isn't funny or particularly horrifying and the performances hollow and uninspired (with the exception of Jean-Claude Dreyfus, who manages to almost hold the movie together) the film as an allegory for French societal ills (moral degradation, self consuming, etc.) is obvious and, in the worst traditions of French cinema, obnoxiously self absorbed. Had more time been spent on a character development, more nuanced dialog and less on attempted irreverent sentimentality, then perhaps one might care about the underlying themes.
In the end, this movie is simply 100 minutes of futility.